Tonight the college football national championship game is being played in Miami between my hometown University of Florida Gators (under head coach Urban Meyer) and the University of Oklahoma Sooners (under head coach and former Gator defensive coach Bob Stoops). My own U.S. Representative (whom I’ve steadfastly avoided ever voting for), Republican Cliff Stearns, asked Speaker Nancy Pelosi to adjourn and postpone voting during what he called “this historic game.” And what votes would be postponed? Oh, nothing important--just the certification of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency through the electoral college! Pelosi thankfully denied the request. Way to go, Cliffo!
Florida and Oklahoma each has a very strong football team that is fully capable of beating the other. The game promises to be very exciting, although more often than not, one team ends up dominating the other in these types of games. Each team is led by a Heisman Trophy winner (UF’s Tim Tebow and Okla.’s Sam Bradford) and is practiced in the art of running up the score against weaker teams, long after a game’s outcome has been assured. All of the big-shot media sports pundits have put their more-than-two-cents’ worth in on this game. For me, I’m guessing that the outcome will depend on four factors: how Florida’s offense does against Oklahoma’s defense, how Oklahoma’s offense does against Florida’s defense, who turns the ball over more, and how the special teams play for the two teams. Which pretty much covers the entire game (I’m taking no chances). Who’s going to win? Who knows, but of course I’ll be rooting for Florida, although I think they tend to take themselves way too seriously in the general scheme of things. Especially their coach and their star quarterback (and too many of their fans).
In April 2007, during the local celebrations following the University of Florida’s national championship game victory in basketball, a drunk driver hit and killed a Gainesville police officer, Corey Dahlem. We’re a bit concerned at what may happen tonight should the Gators prevail. I have nothing against others celebrating, even if it involves drinking (legally, that is). But absolutely no one should get behind the wheel impaired. Especially with the shadow of 2007’s tragedy still hanging over us.
But I’m looking forward to the fun and excitement of tonight’s game. I’ll be at work, listening to it on my radio. May the best Gator win!
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Who’s the Governor (of Illinois)?
I must make the disclaimer that I am not an expert on law. Having said that, I have to admit to some confusion regarding the case of Roland Burris as he unsuccessfully tries to take his U.S. Senate seat after being duly appointed by current Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for the position vacated by President-Elect Barack Obama.
Governor Blagojevich, it is true, has been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very Senate seat earlier to other interested parties. And the Illinois state legislature is currently undertaking impeachment proceedings against him for this. But at this moment, Blagojevich is the full governor of the state of Illinois, with all of the authority and responsibility which that position entails. And since we supposedly still have something in this country known as due process, at this moment he (at least legally) has done nothing wrong.
I remember two different occasions in the past when U.S. presidents were under clouds of scandals. In the 1970s, Nixon was on the verge of impeachment when the damaging tape was released, unequivocally connecting him with the Watergate cover-up and ushering in his resignation. And in 1999, Clinton actually underwent a full impeachment trial in the Senate for perjury and obstruction of justice. IN NEITHER CASE was the embattled president specially restricted regarding what he could or could not do as president. And with the presidency, we’re talking about a lot more than what a governor could do. Including the ability to make war, even nuclear war!
Just because someone in a position of authority has been charged with something, that does not give those affected by his/her decisions in that position the right to pick and choose which actions to accept and which to defy. I would be very careful if I were the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. For they obviously have their own political conflict of interest in deciding to deny Burris his seat: There will be an election in 2010 for a full six-year term for this seat and Burris, even as an incumbent, would be a relatively weak candidate for the Democrats against a probably insurgent Republican opposition. The Democrats would prefer to have a politically stronger senator there instead.
Also, that leadership needs to take into consideration the fact that Obama has been going out of his way to build an image of himself as being squeaky-clean ethically and is doing everything he can to delegitimize the actions of the Illinois governor regarding his vacated seat. But as I said, the governor is the duly constituted authority, while he/she is in office, to fill Senate vacancies, and no one, even the President-Elect, has the right to pick and choose which actions to obey and which to ignore. After all, how would Obama like it if, down the road, various parties accused him of impropriety in office and used that as a pretext to defy unfavorable (to them) presidential decisions?
Well, as I said before, I’m no expert in law. But Illinois either has a governor or it doesn’t. So who’s the governor? At last check, I believe it was Rod Blagojevich. He appointed Burris, and there has been no hint of scandal regarding this particular appointment. So Roland Burris should be seated. In my opinion.
Governor Blagojevich, it is true, has been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very Senate seat earlier to other interested parties. And the Illinois state legislature is currently undertaking impeachment proceedings against him for this. But at this moment, Blagojevich is the full governor of the state of Illinois, with all of the authority and responsibility which that position entails. And since we supposedly still have something in this country known as due process, at this moment he (at least legally) has done nothing wrong.
I remember two different occasions in the past when U.S. presidents were under clouds of scandals. In the 1970s, Nixon was on the verge of impeachment when the damaging tape was released, unequivocally connecting him with the Watergate cover-up and ushering in his resignation. And in 1999, Clinton actually underwent a full impeachment trial in the Senate for perjury and obstruction of justice. IN NEITHER CASE was the embattled president specially restricted regarding what he could or could not do as president. And with the presidency, we’re talking about a lot more than what a governor could do. Including the ability to make war, even nuclear war!
Just because someone in a position of authority has been charged with something, that does not give those affected by his/her decisions in that position the right to pick and choose which actions to accept and which to defy. I would be very careful if I were the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. For they obviously have their own political conflict of interest in deciding to deny Burris his seat: There will be an election in 2010 for a full six-year term for this seat and Burris, even as an incumbent, would be a relatively weak candidate for the Democrats against a probably insurgent Republican opposition. The Democrats would prefer to have a politically stronger senator there instead.
Also, that leadership needs to take into consideration the fact that Obama has been going out of his way to build an image of himself as being squeaky-clean ethically and is doing everything he can to delegitimize the actions of the Illinois governor regarding his vacated seat. But as I said, the governor is the duly constituted authority, while he/she is in office, to fill Senate vacancies, and no one, even the President-Elect, has the right to pick and choose which actions to obey and which to ignore. After all, how would Obama like it if, down the road, various parties accused him of impropriety in office and used that as a pretext to defy unfavorable (to them) presidential decisions?
Well, as I said before, I’m no expert in law. But Illinois either has a governor or it doesn’t. So who’s the governor? At last check, I believe it was Rod Blagojevich. He appointed Burris, and there has been no hint of scandal regarding this particular appointment. So Roland Burris should be seated. In my opinion.
The Talisman, Black House, and Beyond
Over the past few months, I have read the novels The Talisman and Black House, both collaborations by Stephen King and Peter Straub. The two stories are connected through their common protagonist, Jack Sterling, and the concept of an alternate reality called “The Territories”. And the ending of Black House strongly suggests another sequel in the future. But then I see some problems.
When I caught “Harry Potter fever” and began to read this excellent series in 2001, the fourth book (The Goblet of Fire) had already been out for more than a year and loyal readers were expecting the fifth book soon. I took advantage of the waiting period to breeze through the first four books of the series. Then I was “standing” alongside the other die-hard Potter enthusiasts, eagerly awaiting the next book in the series. Only its release was delayed until 2003. The idea that the next book in this popular series had been delayed one year irritated a lot of people, including me. And the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie, The Half-Blood Prince, has caused widespread consternation after it was delayed from this past November to July this year, a period of almost eight months.
But let’s go over now to Stephen King’s history of writing a series. He conceived of the Dark Tower series during the late 1960s, beginning writing on the first installment, The Gunslinger, in 1968. The finished first volume was published in 1982. He built up a loyal readership with this series although the next three books were relatively spaced apart in publication: 1987, 1991, and 1997. Then, following the fourth book of the series, The Wizard and Glass, no more books came out for a while. Finally, after King was almost killed by a distracted motorist while walking down a Maine road in 1999, he resolved to complete the series. And in a torrent of writing, he rushed out the last three (lengthy) volumes in 2003 (#5), 2004 (#6), and 2004 (#7)!
Now let’s go over to King and Straub’s slightly less ambitious Talisman/Black House series. The Talisman came out in 1984. It wasn’t until 2001 that Black House was published, a gap of 17 years. How can any reader entertain any reasonable hope of expecting a next installment of this series, based on King’s erratic track record?
I understand that Stephen King has his own methodology of writing, and this extends to how he dips into his inner creative resources and chooses what he will write about at any particular time. Unlike with Harry Potter’s author J.K. Rowling, King is all over the map with his writing, prolifically producing novels, short stories, and screenplays. And I am one of his fans, one of his “Constant Readers” as he likes to put it. But once an author begins a series, be it something like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Otherland, Harry Potter, The Dark Tower, or The Talisman/Black House, (s)he has given an implicit promise to the reader to continue that series to its proper resolution in a reasonably timely manner. To just write a volume this time or that, whenever the mood hits, creates the impression that the author has a low regard for the reader.
I recommend The Talisman and Black House as good fantasy/science fiction, but only with the caveat that the reader may have a long wait for the next volume of this series. A long, long wait. Or maybe they need to travel to “The Territories” themselves to pick up the next book in the series!
When I caught “Harry Potter fever” and began to read this excellent series in 2001, the fourth book (The Goblet of Fire) had already been out for more than a year and loyal readers were expecting the fifth book soon. I took advantage of the waiting period to breeze through the first four books of the series. Then I was “standing” alongside the other die-hard Potter enthusiasts, eagerly awaiting the next book in the series. Only its release was delayed until 2003. The idea that the next book in this popular series had been delayed one year irritated a lot of people, including me. And the release of the sixth Harry Potter movie, The Half-Blood Prince, has caused widespread consternation after it was delayed from this past November to July this year, a period of almost eight months.
But let’s go over now to Stephen King’s history of writing a series. He conceived of the Dark Tower series during the late 1960s, beginning writing on the first installment, The Gunslinger, in 1968. The finished first volume was published in 1982. He built up a loyal readership with this series although the next three books were relatively spaced apart in publication: 1987, 1991, and 1997. Then, following the fourth book of the series, The Wizard and Glass, no more books came out for a while. Finally, after King was almost killed by a distracted motorist while walking down a Maine road in 1999, he resolved to complete the series. And in a torrent of writing, he rushed out the last three (lengthy) volumes in 2003 (#5), 2004 (#6), and 2004 (#7)!
Now let’s go over to King and Straub’s slightly less ambitious Talisman/Black House series. The Talisman came out in 1984. It wasn’t until 2001 that Black House was published, a gap of 17 years. How can any reader entertain any reasonable hope of expecting a next installment of this series, based on King’s erratic track record?
I understand that Stephen King has his own methodology of writing, and this extends to how he dips into his inner creative resources and chooses what he will write about at any particular time. Unlike with Harry Potter’s author J.K. Rowling, King is all over the map with his writing, prolifically producing novels, short stories, and screenplays. And I am one of his fans, one of his “Constant Readers” as he likes to put it. But once an author begins a series, be it something like The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Otherland, Harry Potter, The Dark Tower, or The Talisman/Black House, (s)he has given an implicit promise to the reader to continue that series to its proper resolution in a reasonably timely manner. To just write a volume this time or that, whenever the mood hits, creates the impression that the author has a low regard for the reader.
I recommend The Talisman and Black House as good fantasy/science fiction, but only with the caveat that the reader may have a long wait for the next volume of this series. A long, long wait. Or maybe they need to travel to “The Territories” themselves to pick up the next book in the series!
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Favorite Songs of 2008
The year 2008 was marked with my somewhat-forced drift away from independent/alternative rock, with the one local radio station that carried that format switching to mainstream rock. I had to find other sources for this music, which I did. But they were harder to come by and I heard fewer songs of this genre. Still, there were a few out there that were noteworthy. I also began to listen more to mainstream rock as well as top forty pop music, finding some excellent songs being played on those stations as well. And Georgia’s REM came out with a “winner” album in 2008 titled Accelerate, which contained several very good songs. Well, here are the songs I liked the most from last year:
Rogue Wave had a great early-year hit with Lake Michigan. But I had difficulty hearing them again after that one station abandoned alternative rock. Puddle of Mudd had a funny comeback song in Psycho. Sara Bareilles had a catchy pop/piano hit with Love Song. There were two songs from an earlier time that I “discovered” in 2008: The White Stripes’ screeching, soulful Icky Thump and My Chemical Romance’s theatrical and beautiful Welcome to the Black Parade. Death Cab For Cutie’s I Will Possess Your Heart included a four-plus minute instrumental lead-in that somehow worked. Southern rockers Saliva produced a crashing-loud classic in Ladies and Gentlemen. REM’s release Accelerate contained several good tracks, among them Man-Sized Wreath, Supernatural Superserious, Hollow Man, and I’m Gonna DJ. Coldplay continued in their soft melodic groove with their Viva La Vida. The Foo Fighters came out with Let It Die, another of those tunes of theirs that make me wonder exactly whom singer/songwriter Dave Grohl was singing about. Estelle and Kanye West teamed up to produce American Boy, a beautiful synthesis of old-style romantic song with rap. Jordin Sparks had One Step At a Time, a very upbeat, positive tune. Kaisercartel’s Season Song was grossly underplayed, but I somehow managed to “catch” it a few times during the course of the year. British band Oasis “stormed” back onto the hit rock scene with their Shock of the Lightning (my #5 favorite song of the year). Seether’s Rise Above This was a very emotional piece upholding the noble idea of not giving up on life. Slipknot, their outrageous costumes and all, continued to produce interesting material, this time their Psychosocial. Wassiyé was an upbeat African song by Mali musician Habib Koité and the accompanying band Bamada. Beyoncé had two wonderful songs in 2008: the danceable Single Ladies and her masterpiece (in my opinion) If I Were A Boy (which is my #4 song of 2008). Beck’s relentless Timebomb, which I heard at the beginning of 2008, was good enough to make my #3 song of the year. The T.I./Rihanna collaboration Live Your Life has been a song that I haven’t been able to get enough of, no matter how often I hear it. It is my #2 song of the year. And for #1? MGMT’s Time to Pretend, a song that I have written about earlier on this blog. And there you have it, my favorite songs from 2008!
Rogue Wave had a great early-year hit with Lake Michigan. But I had difficulty hearing them again after that one station abandoned alternative rock. Puddle of Mudd had a funny comeback song in Psycho. Sara Bareilles had a catchy pop/piano hit with Love Song. There were two songs from an earlier time that I “discovered” in 2008: The White Stripes’ screeching, soulful Icky Thump and My Chemical Romance’s theatrical and beautiful Welcome to the Black Parade. Death Cab For Cutie’s I Will Possess Your Heart included a four-plus minute instrumental lead-in that somehow worked. Southern rockers Saliva produced a crashing-loud classic in Ladies and Gentlemen. REM’s release Accelerate contained several good tracks, among them Man-Sized Wreath, Supernatural Superserious, Hollow Man, and I’m Gonna DJ. Coldplay continued in their soft melodic groove with their Viva La Vida. The Foo Fighters came out with Let It Die, another of those tunes of theirs that make me wonder exactly whom singer/songwriter Dave Grohl was singing about. Estelle and Kanye West teamed up to produce American Boy, a beautiful synthesis of old-style romantic song with rap. Jordin Sparks had One Step At a Time, a very upbeat, positive tune. Kaisercartel’s Season Song was grossly underplayed, but I somehow managed to “catch” it a few times during the course of the year. British band Oasis “stormed” back onto the hit rock scene with their Shock of the Lightning (my #5 favorite song of the year). Seether’s Rise Above This was a very emotional piece upholding the noble idea of not giving up on life. Slipknot, their outrageous costumes and all, continued to produce interesting material, this time their Psychosocial. Wassiyé was an upbeat African song by Mali musician Habib Koité and the accompanying band Bamada. Beyoncé had two wonderful songs in 2008: the danceable Single Ladies and her masterpiece (in my opinion) If I Were A Boy (which is my #4 song of 2008). Beck’s relentless Timebomb, which I heard at the beginning of 2008, was good enough to make my #3 song of the year. The T.I./Rihanna collaboration Live Your Life has been a song that I haven’t been able to get enough of, no matter how often I hear it. It is my #2 song of the year. And for #1? MGMT’s Time to Pretend, a song that I have written about earlier on this blog. And there you have it, my favorite songs from 2008!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Monday Newsbreak: 1/5
--It is starting to look as if Al Franken will be the next senator from Minnesota, with the state election board prepared to announce his narrow 225-vote victory. After an appeal to the state supreme court from the presumed loser Norm Coleman, Franken will most likely be sworn in and seated, possibly after everyone else who was elected in ’08.
--New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is withdrawing his name for Commerce Secretary in Obama’s cabinet due to an ongoing grand jury investigation of his conduct as governor. Well, being a governor is a pretty cool job. If you can keep it, that is. Just ask Rod Blagojevich.
--Speaking of the embattled Illinois governor, his appointment to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat, Roland Burris, at this writing seems determined to go to Washington and be seated there in defiance of the expressed statement of the Democrats in that body in opposition to seating any Blagojevich appointments. The reason? Obviously that Blagojevich, although still legally the Illinois governor, as been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very seat to others.
--The Israeli/Hamas war continues to escalate in the Gaza Strip. Casualties continue to mount in this tragic conflict, both civilian and military. When I turn my TV on to the news, I keep hearing people clamoring for Israel to stop its attack on Hamas and withdraw, citing these casualty figures. But where were these concerned people when Hamas missiles were falling on Israel, killing its civilians?
--In professional football, the Miami Dolphins ended their Cinderella-like run with a 27-9 first round playoff loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Now I will root for the San Diego Chargers in the AFC and the New York Giants in the NFC (and the Giants to win it all).
--New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is withdrawing his name for Commerce Secretary in Obama’s cabinet due to an ongoing grand jury investigation of his conduct as governor. Well, being a governor is a pretty cool job. If you can keep it, that is. Just ask Rod Blagojevich.
--Speaking of the embattled Illinois governor, his appointment to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat, Roland Burris, at this writing seems determined to go to Washington and be seated there in defiance of the expressed statement of the Democrats in that body in opposition to seating any Blagojevich appointments. The reason? Obviously that Blagojevich, although still legally the Illinois governor, as been arrested and charged with trying to sell that very seat to others.
--The Israeli/Hamas war continues to escalate in the Gaza Strip. Casualties continue to mount in this tragic conflict, both civilian and military. When I turn my TV on to the news, I keep hearing people clamoring for Israel to stop its attack on Hamas and withdraw, citing these casualty figures. But where were these concerned people when Hamas missiles were falling on Israel, killing its civilians?
--In professional football, the Miami Dolphins ended their Cinderella-like run with a 27-9 first round playoff loss to the Baltimore Ravens. Now I will root for the San Diego Chargers in the AFC and the New York Giants in the NFC (and the Giants to win it all).
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Hamas, Israel, and War
Some personal observations and reflections on the Israel-Hamas conflict, now exploded into full-scale war in the Gaza Strip:
--There are two different manipulative propaganda devices used by both sides (Arab and Israeli) to justify their stances and accusations. One: “we were here first, so it’s our land”. Instead, they should be looking at where “we” are NOW (and who “we” really are as well) and trying to make things better for all parties involved. Two: whenever one side attacks the other, the “victims” zero out time and behave as if the attack were something unprovoked and spontaneous, not as the consequence of a long-term exchange of assaults. So the current Israeli attack is based on the “unprovoked” Hamas missile attacks, while those protesting the Israeli incursion were nowhere to be heard objecting to the earlier Hamas missile attacks.
--Hamas leaders are often characterized as being irrational and acting according to hate. But I see an additional reason for their refusal to reasonably behave in a peaceful manner with their neighbor Israel (knowing in advance that they will most assuredly be attacked in retaliation). I believe that the leaders of Hamas are most interested in holding on to power over their own people. To achieve this, they employ the time-tested manipulative tool of setting up an evil enemy as a scapegoat to unite their people behind them. And the enemy? Why Israel, of course. Just look at America for another example of this. The Bush administration was able to enjoy enough popular support to achieve reelection in 2004, largely done by scaring enough of the population with their hysterical color alerts and terror warnings.
--I see Hamas as more analogous to the organized crime families that dominated immigrant neighborhoods during the last century in the U.S., claiming to be “protecting” their own people, but instead bleeding their energy like vampires. This type of behavior is rational, but also very malevolent. It has been pointed out the the Palestinians actually elected Hamas into power in a free democratic election (observed and endorsed by former President Jimmy Carter). But I’d like people to ask themselves whether Hamas will ever allow any more open, free elections (with or without Carter) once they perceive their hold on the people diminishing.
--It can correctly be said that Israel has been on a war footing since its independence in 1948. In 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, other Arab nations have engaged in war against Israel. A loss by Israel in any of these would have meant the end of its existence as a state. But since peace was made between Israel and its chief historical antagonist Egypt in 1979, the nature of war there has changed. There have been no more direct attacks from other Arab countries since 1973 (unless you count the diversionary scud missile attacks from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991). But within the Palestinian Arab territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with southern Lebanon, Israel has fought their enemies in response to terrorist and missile attacks launched by extremist opponents. And the scenario for this seems to be a continual, dreadful process: Israel gets attacked, they bomb and invade the attackers, they occupy the land a while, and then leave. Then, after a while, the attacks resume and Israel repeats the process. This chain must end.
--In the interests of protecting civilians and civil society, different parties across the world (and quite naturally the Arab parties) want Israel to agree to a truce and withdraw. But the way I see it, they are in a war. War is a terrible thing which should be avoided as something to resort to only when all other options are exhausted. The never-resolved situation that has been going on in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon for the past three decades reminds me of the Star Trek episode I saw where two different planets had been in a war with each other for 500 years. To protect their “civil” society, they agreed to combat through computer attacks, where those “hit” voluntarily reported to special chambers to be killed. In this way, “civil” society was protected but the sanitized war went on unresolved for centuries. Right now, I see those clamoring for a cease-fire and withdrawal by Israel as enabling a similar “sanitized”, unresolved situation. War IS terrible and should be avoided. But one side in this war really does seem to be largely a criminal element that is deliberately aiming their aggression at civilians on the other side. And their actions need to be dealt with.
--Having said all this, is this all really a dance that the various leaders (not just those directly involved) are performing with each other in order to enhance their own political standings among their own peoples?
--I believe that most of the people living in Israel and Palestine want to put aside their conflicts with each other and go about living their lives. There are some very serious civil rights issues that pertain to how the Palestinian population stands in relation to Israel. But these issues will only be resolved in an environment of peace and security. Israel and Palestine really should be one unified nation. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, the peacemakers desperately needed to bring this about tend to be vilified (and sometimes assassinated) as “traitors”.
--There are two different manipulative propaganda devices used by both sides (Arab and Israeli) to justify their stances and accusations. One: “we were here first, so it’s our land”. Instead, they should be looking at where “we” are NOW (and who “we” really are as well) and trying to make things better for all parties involved. Two: whenever one side attacks the other, the “victims” zero out time and behave as if the attack were something unprovoked and spontaneous, not as the consequence of a long-term exchange of assaults. So the current Israeli attack is based on the “unprovoked” Hamas missile attacks, while those protesting the Israeli incursion were nowhere to be heard objecting to the earlier Hamas missile attacks.
--Hamas leaders are often characterized as being irrational and acting according to hate. But I see an additional reason for their refusal to reasonably behave in a peaceful manner with their neighbor Israel (knowing in advance that they will most assuredly be attacked in retaliation). I believe that the leaders of Hamas are most interested in holding on to power over their own people. To achieve this, they employ the time-tested manipulative tool of setting up an evil enemy as a scapegoat to unite their people behind them. And the enemy? Why Israel, of course. Just look at America for another example of this. The Bush administration was able to enjoy enough popular support to achieve reelection in 2004, largely done by scaring enough of the population with their hysterical color alerts and terror warnings.
--I see Hamas as more analogous to the organized crime families that dominated immigrant neighborhoods during the last century in the U.S., claiming to be “protecting” their own people, but instead bleeding their energy like vampires. This type of behavior is rational, but also very malevolent. It has been pointed out the the Palestinians actually elected Hamas into power in a free democratic election (observed and endorsed by former President Jimmy Carter). But I’d like people to ask themselves whether Hamas will ever allow any more open, free elections (with or without Carter) once they perceive their hold on the people diminishing.
--It can correctly be said that Israel has been on a war footing since its independence in 1948. In 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, other Arab nations have engaged in war against Israel. A loss by Israel in any of these would have meant the end of its existence as a state. But since peace was made between Israel and its chief historical antagonist Egypt in 1979, the nature of war there has changed. There have been no more direct attacks from other Arab countries since 1973 (unless you count the diversionary scud missile attacks from Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991). But within the Palestinian Arab territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with southern Lebanon, Israel has fought their enemies in response to terrorist and missile attacks launched by extremist opponents. And the scenario for this seems to be a continual, dreadful process: Israel gets attacked, they bomb and invade the attackers, they occupy the land a while, and then leave. Then, after a while, the attacks resume and Israel repeats the process. This chain must end.
--In the interests of protecting civilians and civil society, different parties across the world (and quite naturally the Arab parties) want Israel to agree to a truce and withdraw. But the way I see it, they are in a war. War is a terrible thing which should be avoided as something to resort to only when all other options are exhausted. The never-resolved situation that has been going on in Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon for the past three decades reminds me of the Star Trek episode I saw where two different planets had been in a war with each other for 500 years. To protect their “civil” society, they agreed to combat through computer attacks, where those “hit” voluntarily reported to special chambers to be killed. In this way, “civil” society was protected but the sanitized war went on unresolved for centuries. Right now, I see those clamoring for a cease-fire and withdrawal by Israel as enabling a similar “sanitized”, unresolved situation. War IS terrible and should be avoided. But one side in this war really does seem to be largely a criminal element that is deliberately aiming their aggression at civilians on the other side. And their actions need to be dealt with.
--Having said all this, is this all really a dance that the various leaders (not just those directly involved) are performing with each other in order to enhance their own political standings among their own peoples?
--I believe that most of the people living in Israel and Palestine want to put aside their conflicts with each other and go about living their lives. There are some very serious civil rights issues that pertain to how the Palestinian population stands in relation to Israel. But these issues will only be resolved in an environment of peace and security. Israel and Palestine really should be one unified nation. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, the peacemakers desperately needed to bring this about tend to be vilified (and sometimes assassinated) as “traitors”.
Friday, January 2, 2009
New Year's Day at Busch Gardens Tampa
Yesterday for New Year's Day, I took my family to Busch Gardens, where we enjoyed the park, along withs its rides, animals, and generally pleasant ambiance. Here are some photos of our experience there.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Happy New Year 2009
I want to take this time to wish my readers, family, and old friends a very happy, prosperous, and healthy new year. You mean a lot to me and have enriched my life by being in it.
Since I try to make this blog an honest reflection of my own thoughts, and since I am quite an imperfect person, I'm sure that, from time to time, you have come across something here that you disagreed with. And sometimes that disagreement may have been on a "grand scale"! Thank you for keeping the faith and continuing to read my paltry attempts at writing. And for leaving your well-appreciated comments!
Since I try to make this blog an honest reflection of my own thoughts, and since I am quite an imperfect person, I'm sure that, from time to time, you have come across something here that you disagreed with. And sometimes that disagreement may have been on a "grand scale"! Thank you for keeping the faith and continuing to read my paltry attempts at writing. And for leaving your well-appreciated comments!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Bully Coaches
Once, when I was eighteen, I was running laps around my local middle school track. It was August and late afternoon. I looked over in an adjacent field to see a football team practicing, fully uniformed with helmets and pads. And there was a half-crazed coach running around among the players, screaming at individuals and creating a general atmosphere of intimidation. No, of course this wasn’t college or even high school football. But it wasn’t even a middle school team. The boys being verbally harassed were about five-six years old! And the coach towered over these little children.
I see this phenomenon of overly-aggressive coaches loudly spewing their anger at their players’ perceived imperfections a lot. The little kiddie tackle football team (that in itself is kind of weird to me) was an extreme example, but I see it going on a lot in middle school and high school, too. I understand that one of the important aspects of team sports is for the players to learn how to play in an organized, disciplined way as well as to learn how to take orders from authorities (i.e. coaches) and effectively translate them into action. But this can be accomplished without bullying.
It’s been a while since I’ve gone to a game involving kids and “adult” coaches, even on a level as informal as flag football, and seen the players actually acting as if they’re having fun. Almost always, the tension level is excruciatingly high, and the coach, even one who is relatively competent and “easy” on the kids, tends to make the game (whatever it is, be it basketball, football, etc.) much more complicated than it really has to be.
When a little boy (or girl) is on the basketball court, (s)he cannot truly participate in the game in the way that it was meant to be played if the coach is on the sideline continually yelling out this or that instruction or criticism. This overdoing it, I believe, is an almost universal tendency among coaches. But some have a character issue as well: these are bullies, pure and simple.
When I am watching a high school girl’s game where one coach is badgering not only his own players, but also loudly questioning the referee’s calls and even knocking down his own chair (even when the game’s outcome is no longer in question), I conclude that this man should not be in a position of authority over children like this. It’s one thing to feel a sense of mission toward helping young people do well in sports. It’s another to deliberately put oneself in a position of authority over young people in order to have somebody in their lives to lord themselves over!
Of course, coaches are supposed to do their jobs with the aim of actually winning games. But they are not just teaching successful game strategies and teamwork to their young players. They are also teaching them what to expect from people in positions of authority after they grow up. And the lesson I’ve been seeing imparted too often in organized children’s team sports is that authority figures are loud, mean, abusive bullies! Thankfully, my children have had more nurturing coaches who know what it’s really all about!
I see this phenomenon of overly-aggressive coaches loudly spewing their anger at their players’ perceived imperfections a lot. The little kiddie tackle football team (that in itself is kind of weird to me) was an extreme example, but I see it going on a lot in middle school and high school, too. I understand that one of the important aspects of team sports is for the players to learn how to play in an organized, disciplined way as well as to learn how to take orders from authorities (i.e. coaches) and effectively translate them into action. But this can be accomplished without bullying.
It’s been a while since I’ve gone to a game involving kids and “adult” coaches, even on a level as informal as flag football, and seen the players actually acting as if they’re having fun. Almost always, the tension level is excruciatingly high, and the coach, even one who is relatively competent and “easy” on the kids, tends to make the game (whatever it is, be it basketball, football, etc.) much more complicated than it really has to be.
When a little boy (or girl) is on the basketball court, (s)he cannot truly participate in the game in the way that it was meant to be played if the coach is on the sideline continually yelling out this or that instruction or criticism. This overdoing it, I believe, is an almost universal tendency among coaches. But some have a character issue as well: these are bullies, pure and simple.
When I am watching a high school girl’s game where one coach is badgering not only his own players, but also loudly questioning the referee’s calls and even knocking down his own chair (even when the game’s outcome is no longer in question), I conclude that this man should not be in a position of authority over children like this. It’s one thing to feel a sense of mission toward helping young people do well in sports. It’s another to deliberately put oneself in a position of authority over young people in order to have somebody in their lives to lord themselves over!
Of course, coaches are supposed to do their jobs with the aim of actually winning games. But they are not just teaching successful game strategies and teamwork to their young players. They are also teaching them what to expect from people in positions of authority after they grow up. And the lesson I’ve been seeing imparted too often in organized children’s team sports is that authority figures are loud, mean, abusive bullies! Thankfully, my children have had more nurturing coaches who know what it’s really all about!
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Learning Chinese Characters
I am trying to figure out the best way for me to build up a personal vocabulary list in Chinese that I could regularly practice reviewing. About fifteen years ago, I had memorized about 1,700 characters whose writing, meaning and pronunciation I knew. I would practice writing them down from memory once a week. I had arranged them in the alphabetical order of their Romanized “pinyin” transliterations. I did this weekly review for several years, but realized that I wasn’t making the headway in actually learning the language that I wanted. For one, although each Chinese character is technically considered to be a “word”, what we in English would call a “word” is often (if not usually) a compound of two (or more) characters in Chinese. Hence just knowing of a character in a compound Chinese word, although it can give a clue to the word’s meaning, comes up short when trying to understand a text written in Chinese. There are also much more than 1,700 characters in Chinese, so I am continually confronted with strange characters that I have to stop and look up in a dictionary. And if this weren’t enough, Chinese now has two forms of writing: the Traditional (still used in Taiwan and over much of the world) and Simplified (used throughout mainland China and Hong Kong). Almost all of the dictionaries available in bookstores nowadays use the Simplified characters.
I am making it a personal project of mine to expand the list of characters I am memorizing (and reviewing) to a substantially higher number, while including the most common compounds used with each character as well as their Simplified forms. I’m also considering memorizing each character’s “radical” number to help me look them up in more traditional Chinese dictionaries, as well as to help me find them on certain websites that enable me to type out Chinese characters. From time to time, I’ll post my progress with this ambitious endeavor on this blog.
I am making it a personal project of mine to expand the list of characters I am memorizing (and reviewing) to a substantially higher number, while including the most common compounds used with each character as well as their Simplified forms. I’m also considering memorizing each character’s “radical” number to help me look them up in more traditional Chinese dictionaries, as well as to help me find them on certain websites that enable me to type out Chinese characters. From time to time, I’ll post my progress with this ambitious endeavor on this blog.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 12/29
--The tragic conflict between Israel and Palestinians erupted again this week after Israel, in response to shelling by Hamas in the Gaza Strip (following the end to a cease fire between the adversaries), began bombing Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip. Naturally, many deaths and wounded are reported. Since the militants base themselves in the midst of civilian populations, any air strikes are bound to incur civilian casualties. And this has been the case here as well. So I’m trying to figure out the rationale behind either party’s actions (the shelling and the bombing). And the only thing I can come up with is that the leaders in that part of the world are making war decisions for domestic political consumption and not in the long-term interests of the people they claim to represent and protect.
--My local newspaper, the Gainesville Sun, is really pretty crappy. You wouldn’t believe how little news they actually report on in their Sunday edition. I’m relying more and more on Internet news sources to keep up with what’s going on. The only real redeeming sections of the Sun are the opinion/editorial page and the local news. I still can’t get a good site on the Net that gives me good local Gainesville news. And the Gainesville Sun’s reporting on local sporting events that don’t involve the University of Florida or major high schools is pathetic.
--The eastern U.S. has been hit by severe cold and snow this past week. But where I live in northern Florida, the temperatures have been much warmer than normal. Temperatures have risen to the low 80’s (Fahrenheit). I’m grateful not to be living in frigid conditions with snow and ice, but I would like it to be a little colder, please!
--Let’s see, before the National Football League season began, I picked the Dallas Cowboys to make the Super Bowl. But the turkeys couldn’t even make the playoffs, being humiliated in a 44-6 season-ending loss to divisional rival Philadelphia. At one point in the game, the Cowboys turned the ball over to the Eagles (through fumbles or interceptions) on five consecutive possessions. San Diego, the other team I had picked to make the Super Bowl (I picked them to beat Dallas), managed to make the playoffs with a clutch victory over Denver Sunday night. Meanwhile, the teams I am rooting for the most, the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants, are both flying high into the playoffs. Yippee!
--My local newspaper, the Gainesville Sun, is really pretty crappy. You wouldn’t believe how little news they actually report on in their Sunday edition. I’m relying more and more on Internet news sources to keep up with what’s going on. The only real redeeming sections of the Sun are the opinion/editorial page and the local news. I still can’t get a good site on the Net that gives me good local Gainesville news. And the Gainesville Sun’s reporting on local sporting events that don’t involve the University of Florida or major high schools is pathetic.
--The eastern U.S. has been hit by severe cold and snow this past week. But where I live in northern Florida, the temperatures have been much warmer than normal. Temperatures have risen to the low 80’s (Fahrenheit). I’m grateful not to be living in frigid conditions with snow and ice, but I would like it to be a little colder, please!
--Let’s see, before the National Football League season began, I picked the Dallas Cowboys to make the Super Bowl. But the turkeys couldn’t even make the playoffs, being humiliated in a 44-6 season-ending loss to divisional rival Philadelphia. At one point in the game, the Cowboys turned the ball over to the Eagles (through fumbles or interceptions) on five consecutive possessions. San Diego, the other team I had picked to make the Super Bowl (I picked them to beat Dallas), managed to make the playoffs with a clutch victory over Denver Sunday night. Meanwhile, the teams I am rooting for the most, the Miami Dolphins and the New York Giants, are both flying high into the playoffs. Yippee!
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Congratulations, Miami Dolphins!
Almost beyond belief, the amazing Miami Dolphins, who almost went winless last year at 1-15, went on the road against the Brett Favre-led New York Jets and won 24-17 a few hours ago, clinching the AFC East championship for the 2008 National Football League season. And they did it with quarterback Chad Pennington, whom the Jets had released after signing Favre. The final Dolphin regular season record was 11 wins and 5 losses, which was the same as their arch-rival New England Patriots. The Dolphins won the division, though, because of their better record within the division. And joy of all joys, the Patriots, my least favorite team in football, was eliminated from making the playoffs as a wild-card team when the Baltimore Ravens secured that last spot with a victory over Jacksonville.
Speaking of the Baltimore Ravens, it’s funny how one team will seem to repeatedly get entangled with another in a fateful way. For example, consider these points:
--The last time Miami made the playoffs (2001), the team they played was Baltimore (losing to them 20-3).
--Late last season, it looked as if Miami would go the entire season without a win. Until they pulled out an improbable close victory over who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
--Last year’s Dolphins head coach was Cam Cameron. After Bill Parcells was hired into Miami Dolphins management, he decided to replace Cameron with Tony Sparano from the Dallas Cowboys. Cameron was in turn hired as the offensive coordinator for who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
--Earlier this year, Miami played at home against Baltimore (and Cameron), losing 27-13. At the time, that put their record at 2-4. Miami then won nine out of their next ten games to pull out the AFC East title.
--Next week, Miami will play their first (and hopefully not their last) playoff game against who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
Parcells, Sparano, and company succeeded by mixing mistake-free play, some special razzle-dazzle playmaking, and a disciplined, professional approach to the game. The Dolphins showed a lot of guts by pulling out several close games, some of them come-from-behind victories. They were also fortunate with few serious injuries to their players (as opposed to the Patriots, who lost star quarterback Tom Brady for the duration of the season). Although Miami had their stars (like Ronnie Brown, Joey Porter, and Ricky Williams), they played with the spirit of a team united as a force to be reckoned with.
Win or lose next week, this is a team that is fun to follow!
Speaking of the Baltimore Ravens, it’s funny how one team will seem to repeatedly get entangled with another in a fateful way. For example, consider these points:
--The last time Miami made the playoffs (2001), the team they played was Baltimore (losing to them 20-3).
--Late last season, it looked as if Miami would go the entire season without a win. Until they pulled out an improbable close victory over who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
--Last year’s Dolphins head coach was Cam Cameron. After Bill Parcells was hired into Miami Dolphins management, he decided to replace Cameron with Tony Sparano from the Dallas Cowboys. Cameron was in turn hired as the offensive coordinator for who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
--Earlier this year, Miami played at home against Baltimore (and Cameron), losing 27-13. At the time, that put their record at 2-4. Miami then won nine out of their next ten games to pull out the AFC East title.
--Next week, Miami will play their first (and hopefully not their last) playoff game against who else but: the Baltimore Ravens!
Parcells, Sparano, and company succeeded by mixing mistake-free play, some special razzle-dazzle playmaking, and a disciplined, professional approach to the game. The Dolphins showed a lot of guts by pulling out several close games, some of them come-from-behind victories. They were also fortunate with few serious injuries to their players (as opposed to the Patriots, who lost star quarterback Tom Brady for the duration of the season). Although Miami had their stars (like Ronnie Brown, Joey Porter, and Ricky Williams), they played with the spirit of a team united as a force to be reckoned with.
Win or lose next week, this is a team that is fun to follow!
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Does Our Regime Change Make a Difference?
Folks on the political left and right, whether they support Ralph Nader, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or another group, often complain that it makes no real difference which of the two major parties are in power: their policies don’t differ enough from each other to give the people a real choice. To some extent, I understand this viewpoint.
Consider U.S. foreign policy as it looks right now under the incoming Democratic Obama administration. We’re still planning to be in Iraq a while, and are envisioning an escalation of war and U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan. While keeping in place the same Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, from the outgoing Republican Bush administration. So it seems as if the American people didn’t really enjoy a choice in the general election about the wars we are engaged in.
Look at the economic recession and the meltdown of financial companies and the U.S. automobile industry. The transition from Bush to Obama regarding government bailouts and loans appears to be almost seamless, with the main difference between the two being that one (Bush) hates labor unions and wants to blame them for the auto industry’s woes.
The dangerous trend toward government surveillance of its own citizens on the pretext of fighting terrorism is obviously a by-product of Bush’s policies. But Obama, in his role as senator, has also supported extending surveillance of Americans.
Regarding gay rights, particularly as they pertain to the current hot-button issue of gay marriage, both Bush and Obama seem to be on the wrong side of this issue, although Obama “appears” to generally support gay rights.
What about our policy about illegal immigration? Once again, Bush and Obama present very similar agendas on this issue, this time showing a more inclusive, constructive approach to the problem. Naturally, this doesn’t fly too well with those who want to build a wall covering our borders.
Of course, there are important areas in which the two parties differ a lot.
Obama wants to change Bush’s tax cuts to where they favor lower and middle class taxpayers more than the wealthy. He also plans to begin an ambitious public works program designed to repair and improve the country’s transportation and communications infrastructure, while steering our economy in a “greener”, more environmentally-friendly direction. Speaking of the environment, he also believes that more should be done to fight global warming. Obama fully supports federally-funded stem cell research. And he is bound to nominate judges who are more likely to support the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion on a national level.
So basically, with a few very big differences, those in the far-left and the far-right are correct in asserting that there is too much continuity of policy that occurs when one major party transfers power to the other. It does sometimes seem that we, the voters, have been shortchanged, even disenfranchised, doesn’t it? But let me add one very, very important point.
Look at countries in other parts of the world where one party has dominated politics for decades on end, even though free elections are regularly held. What incentive exists for those in power there to truly serve their people’s interests when they see almost no danger of being turned out of office? And what about a country ruled by an individual who clings to power at all costs, even at the expense of the lives of his own people? Case in point: Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe absolutely refuses to transfer the reins of power to anyone else. What if, instead, there had been a two-party system there (even with each party expressing very similar takes on the issues), that every few years had caused power to shift from one party to the other? Yes, perhaps the voters might have felt a little cynical that their votes didn’t seem to make much of a difference. But the act of changing the people in power every few years is in itself very valuable and protects the people from having to endure rule that is mired in corruption and even possibly dictatorial (which is sadly the road that Putin’s Russia, a country that I greatly respect, seems to currently be traveling down).
********************************************************
Yes, I wrote something for Saturday although I had earlier said that I was going to take that day of the week off from blogging. Maybe in the future I'll just publish a photo of something that interests me on Saturdays instead.
Consider U.S. foreign policy as it looks right now under the incoming Democratic Obama administration. We’re still planning to be in Iraq a while, and are envisioning an escalation of war and U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan. While keeping in place the same Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, from the outgoing Republican Bush administration. So it seems as if the American people didn’t really enjoy a choice in the general election about the wars we are engaged in.
Look at the economic recession and the meltdown of financial companies and the U.S. automobile industry. The transition from Bush to Obama regarding government bailouts and loans appears to be almost seamless, with the main difference between the two being that one (Bush) hates labor unions and wants to blame them for the auto industry’s woes.
The dangerous trend toward government surveillance of its own citizens on the pretext of fighting terrorism is obviously a by-product of Bush’s policies. But Obama, in his role as senator, has also supported extending surveillance of Americans.
Regarding gay rights, particularly as they pertain to the current hot-button issue of gay marriage, both Bush and Obama seem to be on the wrong side of this issue, although Obama “appears” to generally support gay rights.
What about our policy about illegal immigration? Once again, Bush and Obama present very similar agendas on this issue, this time showing a more inclusive, constructive approach to the problem. Naturally, this doesn’t fly too well with those who want to build a wall covering our borders.
Of course, there are important areas in which the two parties differ a lot.
Obama wants to change Bush’s tax cuts to where they favor lower and middle class taxpayers more than the wealthy. He also plans to begin an ambitious public works program designed to repair and improve the country’s transportation and communications infrastructure, while steering our economy in a “greener”, more environmentally-friendly direction. Speaking of the environment, he also believes that more should be done to fight global warming. Obama fully supports federally-funded stem cell research. And he is bound to nominate judges who are more likely to support the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion on a national level.
So basically, with a few very big differences, those in the far-left and the far-right are correct in asserting that there is too much continuity of policy that occurs when one major party transfers power to the other. It does sometimes seem that we, the voters, have been shortchanged, even disenfranchised, doesn’t it? But let me add one very, very important point.
Look at countries in other parts of the world where one party has dominated politics for decades on end, even though free elections are regularly held. What incentive exists for those in power there to truly serve their people’s interests when they see almost no danger of being turned out of office? And what about a country ruled by an individual who clings to power at all costs, even at the expense of the lives of his own people? Case in point: Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe absolutely refuses to transfer the reins of power to anyone else. What if, instead, there had been a two-party system there (even with each party expressing very similar takes on the issues), that every few years had caused power to shift from one party to the other? Yes, perhaps the voters might have felt a little cynical that their votes didn’t seem to make much of a difference. But the act of changing the people in power every few years is in itself very valuable and protects the people from having to endure rule that is mired in corruption and even possibly dictatorial (which is sadly the road that Putin’s Russia, a country that I greatly respect, seems to currently be traveling down).
********************************************************
Yes, I wrote something for Saturday although I had earlier said that I was going to take that day of the week off from blogging. Maybe in the future I'll just publish a photo of something that interests me on Saturdays instead.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Open Spaces Deprivation
It may seem odd when I tell you that I grew up in overpopulated, crowded South Florida, moved to a less crowded, smaller city in northern Florida, and miss the wide open spaces down there. But it’s true. Although there ARE trees in South Florida, the area is historically grasslands and scrub. You notice this change in the landscape as you travel south down the Florida Turnpike past Orlando. In Gainesville, where I live, trees dominate. And, I have to admit, I feel a little claustrophobic about it!
When I used to go outside as a kid, I was accustomed to seeing big, open skies greeting me. The place in Davie where I went to school was even more denuded of trees than my home neighborhood. When I went distance running around there, I was basically just running through a vast field. Now in Gainesville, a big field is to me something of value, to be treasured. I could do my running down shady, beautiful country roads with trees surrounding me and their canopies hanging over me. But I’d much rather run around the perimeter of a vast field where the sky is wide open above me and I can see far off in any direction.
I feel much more closed-in outdoors in Gainesville than I did in Hollywood/Davie, where I grew up. I remember the very enjoyable run I had a few months ago down the crowded beach at Ormond Beach. And then I realized: NO TREES!
Maybe I need to move to Nevada!
When I used to go outside as a kid, I was accustomed to seeing big, open skies greeting me. The place in Davie where I went to school was even more denuded of trees than my home neighborhood. When I went distance running around there, I was basically just running through a vast field. Now in Gainesville, a big field is to me something of value, to be treasured. I could do my running down shady, beautiful country roads with trees surrounding me and their canopies hanging over me. But I’d much rather run around the perimeter of a vast field where the sky is wide open above me and I can see far off in any direction.
I feel much more closed-in outdoors in Gainesville than I did in Hollywood/Davie, where I grew up. I remember the very enjoyable run I had a few months ago down the crowded beach at Ormond Beach. And then I realized: NO TREES!
Maybe I need to move to Nevada!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Twilight by Stephenie Meyer
I just finished reading Stephenie Meyer’s novel Twilight, which has been showing as a blockbuster movie hit (I haven’t seen it yet). I have no intention of spoiling the ending, but I doubt that I am giving anything away when I reveal that Twilight is about a romance between a teenage girl and a “teenage” vampire boy. This story is probably more appealing to girls than it is to boys, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and plan to read the rest of the series (without being in major hurry, though).
Presented in the first person by the protagonist, seventeen-year old Bella Swan, Twilight is a poignant revelation of life and people from the viewpoint of an adolescent girl whose parents had split up years earlier and who has decided to move from her mother’s house in Phoenix to live with her father in very rainy northwestern Washington state. She makes new friends easily, but discovers that there is a group of students who have deliberately set themselves apart from the others. Among this group is a very interesting boy, by the name of Edward Mullen, and with whom she falls in love. I’ll leave the eventual outcome of the story to the reader. Bella, like so many teenagers (I remember, having once been one myself), has a tendency to become completely enveloped in her feelings about herself and her romantic interest. I do want to point out that Twilight’s plot has a tendency to move along at an easy, slow pace and then suddenly become charged with excitement and high action. So if you’re reading it and may be thinking that it’s just another teenage romance novel (albeit with a vampire twist), then…think again! Read it through, and you may be rewarded at its end (although I had become a bit concerned about the protagonist’s capacity for rational thought by that point).
I read up a little about author Stephenie Meyer’s inspiration for Twilight, and discovered that she patterned it after Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. I then asked myself why I wasn’t reading more of the great literary classics. So I’ve decided to do so! I am starting with For Whom the Bell Tolls, Ernest Hemingway’s celebrated novel about the Spanish Civil War. I may have a actually read it before as an English assignment in the ninth grade (c. 1971), but since my mind was so distracted back at that particular time in my life that I had trouble concentrating on anything very long at a time, my memory of it may be very faint (the reading assignment could have been A Farewell to Arms, though; I do remember reading Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea then).
Presented in the first person by the protagonist, seventeen-year old Bella Swan, Twilight is a poignant revelation of life and people from the viewpoint of an adolescent girl whose parents had split up years earlier and who has decided to move from her mother’s house in Phoenix to live with her father in very rainy northwestern Washington state. She makes new friends easily, but discovers that there is a group of students who have deliberately set themselves apart from the others. Among this group is a very interesting boy, by the name of Edward Mullen, and with whom she falls in love. I’ll leave the eventual outcome of the story to the reader. Bella, like so many teenagers (I remember, having once been one myself), has a tendency to become completely enveloped in her feelings about herself and her romantic interest. I do want to point out that Twilight’s plot has a tendency to move along at an easy, slow pace and then suddenly become charged with excitement and high action. So if you’re reading it and may be thinking that it’s just another teenage romance novel (albeit with a vampire twist), then…think again! Read it through, and you may be rewarded at its end (although I had become a bit concerned about the protagonist’s capacity for rational thought by that point).
I read up a little about author Stephenie Meyer’s inspiration for Twilight, and discovered that she patterned it after Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. I then asked myself why I wasn’t reading more of the great literary classics. So I’ve decided to do so! I am starting with For Whom the Bell Tolls, Ernest Hemingway’s celebrated novel about the Spanish Civil War. I may have a actually read it before as an English assignment in the ninth grade (c. 1971), but since my mind was so distracted back at that particular time in my life that I had trouble concentrating on anything very long at a time, my memory of it may be very faint (the reading assignment could have been A Farewell to Arms, though; I do remember reading Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea then).
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Who’s the Senator?
It is funny how, the further away we get past the election, the more U.S. Senate seats become open! I remember Bush in 2000 picking for his Cabinet losing candidates Michigan’s Spencer Abraham (lost to Debbie Stabenow) and Missouri’s John Ashcroft (lost to dead Governor Mel Carnahan). So that didn’t involved open seats to be filled. But now, other than the never-ending recount in Minnesota between Al Franken and Norm Coleman, there are a few open seats due to Obama’s Cabinet selections and his (and his running mate’s) election.
--In Illinois, we have the scandal whereby Governor Blagojevich is being impeached, investigated, and accused of selling Obama’s open seat.
--In Delaware, Vice-President-Elect Biden’s seat will be filled by a relative unknown, with the “idea” that his son, currently serving in the military in Iraq, will come back to reclaim it for the Biden name in the 2010 special election.
--Hillary Clinton’s New York seat appears to be headed, barring any unforeseeable developments, for JFK’s daughter Caroline. Considering that the senator she would be replacing had no elected political experience when she won it in 2000, I consider discussions about her “inexperience” somewhat bogus.
--Ken Salazar, the Colorado senator who will be Interior Secretary, is vacating his seat as well.
All the above seats that have opened due to Obama’s victory should be kept Democratic, since all of those states’ governors (with the authority to appoint the replacements) are also Democrats. Of course, who knows what Rod Blagojevich is plotting to do over in Illinois!
As for the Minnesota race, it looks as if we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty of special committees legally designated to count challenged ballots. At this writing, Franken has about a forty vote lead over Coleman. It looks, right now at least, as if Franken may have the upper hand. But legal challenges from the eventual “losing” side are almost certain to delay the swearing-in of the “winner” in January.
--In Illinois, we have the scandal whereby Governor Blagojevich is being impeached, investigated, and accused of selling Obama’s open seat.
--In Delaware, Vice-President-Elect Biden’s seat will be filled by a relative unknown, with the “idea” that his son, currently serving in the military in Iraq, will come back to reclaim it for the Biden name in the 2010 special election.
--Hillary Clinton’s New York seat appears to be headed, barring any unforeseeable developments, for JFK’s daughter Caroline. Considering that the senator she would be replacing had no elected political experience when she won it in 2000, I consider discussions about her “inexperience” somewhat bogus.
--Ken Salazar, the Colorado senator who will be Interior Secretary, is vacating his seat as well.
All the above seats that have opened due to Obama’s victory should be kept Democratic, since all of those states’ governors (with the authority to appoint the replacements) are also Democrats. Of course, who knows what Rod Blagojevich is plotting to do over in Illinois!
As for the Minnesota race, it looks as if we’re getting down to the nitty-gritty of special committees legally designated to count challenged ballots. At this writing, Franken has about a forty vote lead over Coleman. It looks, right now at least, as if Franken may have the upper hand. But legal challenges from the eventual “losing” side are almost certain to delay the swearing-in of the “winner” in January.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Empty Campus Celebration
To celebrate the emptying of the University of Florida campus this past Saturday for the Christmas holiday period, I drove out there Sunday night, parked along University Avenue in one of the many vacant spaces near Buckman Hall, and ran through the deserted campus. It was heavenly, to say the least! I ran east on University past Library West to U.S. 441, then turned right and ran south along it past Tigert Hall, again turning right. I ran past the towering, seemingly misnamed Little Hall (actually named after a guy named Little) to Grinter Hall and then Century Tower (a beautiful bell tower featured on many UF postcards). I passed the Hub (where the bookstore and cashier used to be) and ran down the sidewalk toward the Reitz Union, adjacent to the field where I used to watch free movies (like Young Frankenstein). Before reaching the Reitz Union, though, I veered a little to the right and met up with North-South Drive, where I turned north. I then ran up that road until I got to Weil Hall, where I turned right, running down Stadium Road with the Florida football stadium to my left. Coming back toward the Hub, I turned left and ran north past Buckman Hall back to University Avenue and my car. It was a good, pleasant 16:16 run for an undetermined distance. I passed only two pedestrians, met up with no bicyclists, and once I was on campus away from the main roads, was passed by exactly one car. Yes, this is the life!
It’s funny how so much on campus at the University of Florida has changed, and yet at the same time there are timeless buildings like Weil Hall standing there, looking exactly the same to me as they did thirty years ago! Maybe I’ll continue to take advantage of the holiday break and do some more running down there. I’d better be careful where I park on weekdays, though. I remember going down there during Christmas break a few years ago and being served a ticket even though the parking lot was empty! Served by the University Police, the same bunch who served Andrew Meyer his Taser. Don’t ticket me, bro’!
It’s funny how so much on campus at the University of Florida has changed, and yet at the same time there are timeless buildings like Weil Hall standing there, looking exactly the same to me as they did thirty years ago! Maybe I’ll continue to take advantage of the holiday break and do some more running down there. I’d better be careful where I park on weekdays, though. I remember going down there during Christmas break a few years ago and being served a ticket even though the parking lot was empty! Served by the University Police, the same bunch who served Andrew Meyer his Taser. Don’t ticket me, bro’!
Monday, December 22, 2008
Monday Newsbreak: 12/22
--Up to 30,000 more American soldiers may be soon sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban (and supposedly Al-Qaeda) there, thereby doubling our presence in this poor, war-torn, and culturally very different land. The government there, you see, is weak, and they need us to stay in power and fight off the bad guys. All I see from this is the tired, age-old scenario whereby our soldiers are placed in situations where they are surrounded by the indigenous people there, most of whom just want to go about living their own lives and minding their own business, but who are automatically regarded by us as suspicious and potential enemies. More shootings of innocents and violations of others’ homes and villages are in the works. And if anyone shoots back at us? Why, they’re terrorists, of course! Sound familiar?
--In the “domestic outrage” department, executives for banks receiving government (and hence taxpayer) bailouts reportedly are receiving $1.6 billion in bonuses and benefits. These people really do consider themselves to be in a class high above everyone else!
--Russia recently crushed an opposition demonstration by a group led by chess champion Garry Kasparov. But they don’t live in an insulated world anymore, one where they could control the inflow and outflow of information. And the relatively benign liberal opposition may seem rather tame in comparison to what may be in the works: widespread unrest due to the worsening economic conditions there.
--There has been a mixed response after Rick Warren was picked to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration. The main opposition is by those pointing out Warren’s depiction of homosexuality as sinful and his opposition to gay marriage. But he’s probably the best that Obama could have gotten from the evangelistic Christian community. Warren recognizes the problem of global warming, believes that Christians should do more to fight poverty, and has done much to fight AIDS. His treatment of liberal Democratic presidential candidate Obama was magnanimous and fair, so it’s understandable that the president-elect would be eager to return the favor. He also probably realizes that Warren is not going to go flying off at the mouth during the invocation. Which is not necessarily a sure thing, considering the range of pastors out there. And Obama is getting a minister (Joseph Lowery) who supports gay rights to deliver the benediction.
--The Miami Dolphins find themselves in the incredible position of being the only team in the AFC East to “control their own destiny”, going into the final week of regular season play. If they beat the New York Jets on Saturday, they’re in the playoffs. If they lose, then they’re out and either New England or the Jets make it. But even if that happens, it’s been quite a run for them. Tony Sparano, the Dolphin head coach, should win Coach of the Year hands down!
--In the “domestic outrage” department, executives for banks receiving government (and hence taxpayer) bailouts reportedly are receiving $1.6 billion in bonuses and benefits. These people really do consider themselves to be in a class high above everyone else!
--Russia recently crushed an opposition demonstration by a group led by chess champion Garry Kasparov. But they don’t live in an insulated world anymore, one where they could control the inflow and outflow of information. And the relatively benign liberal opposition may seem rather tame in comparison to what may be in the works: widespread unrest due to the worsening economic conditions there.
--There has been a mixed response after Rick Warren was picked to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration. The main opposition is by those pointing out Warren’s depiction of homosexuality as sinful and his opposition to gay marriage. But he’s probably the best that Obama could have gotten from the evangelistic Christian community. Warren recognizes the problem of global warming, believes that Christians should do more to fight poverty, and has done much to fight AIDS. His treatment of liberal Democratic presidential candidate Obama was magnanimous and fair, so it’s understandable that the president-elect would be eager to return the favor. He also probably realizes that Warren is not going to go flying off at the mouth during the invocation. Which is not necessarily a sure thing, considering the range of pastors out there. And Obama is getting a minister (Joseph Lowery) who supports gay rights to deliver the benediction.
--The Miami Dolphins find themselves in the incredible position of being the only team in the AFC East to “control their own destiny”, going into the final week of regular season play. If they beat the New York Jets on Saturday, they’re in the playoffs. If they lose, then they’re out and either New England or the Jets make it. But even if that happens, it’s been quite a run for them. Tony Sparano, the Dolphin head coach, should win Coach of the Year hands down!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
War, Peace, and Splinter Groups
The Middle East is full of problems, as any moderately-informed human is aware. There are conflicts going on all over the place: Israel vs. Palestine, the Lebanese factions, the Iraqi factions, Turkey vs. the Kurds, the Sunnis vs. the Shiites, political/religious struggles within Iran, Iran’s nuclear program, Afghanistan's civil war, the hunt for Al-Qaeda leaders, Pakistan’s problems, etc. And many of us reasonable, peace-oriented souls ask why the discordant parties can’t just sit down together and work out reasonable, peaceful solutions to their disputes. Well, this is close to impossible, as I will explain.
In conflicts that have polarized the opposing sides to the point where they have been at war with each other, are currently fighting in wars with each other, or are considering going to war with other, there is a strong sense of patriotic duty for those involved to be stalwart and loyally support the aims of whichever side they are on. In these highly inflammable circumstances, the simple act of talking with one’s enemy, much less working out compromise peace treaties with them, is seen at best as a sign of weakness and at worst as a sign of betrayal. Look at the cases of Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. In each case, they stepped away from war and embraced peace with their opponents. And paid for it with their lives, being assassinated by parties within their own countries who accused them of betraying their people.
In like manner, it does little good to sit down with groups claiming to represent an opponent, work out an agreement with them, and then see more radical groups splinter off from them and continue the violence. I keep hearing of our efforts to help Israel negotiate a peace with the Palestinian Authority, which only controls the West Bank; its rival Hamas runs the Gaza Strip. But whatever treaty results from any successful negotiations will not only be completely rejected by Hamas as being a betrayal by the Palestinians responsible for it: there will most likely be elements within that same Palestinian Authority that will break off and continue the fighting. Even if Hamas itself were to sit at the negotiation table and accept a deal, that organization’s leaders would be risking being deposed and possibly assassinated. And the organization would just spin off more radical splinter groups.
I can understand why any leader in that part of the world would be very cautious about proactively trying to promote peace with their enemies, with the risk of assassination by disaffected members of their own side so strong. It will take some momentous acts of heroism on the part of some Middle East leaders, as well as a lot of good fortune in dodging bullets and bombs (launched from their own ranks) to be able to finally create the kind of peace that the people in this area thirst for. Hopefully, our new president (we really are putting an awful lot of pressure and expectation on him) will be able to serve as a benevolent, trustworthy arbitrator in the promotion of peace there.
Blessed are the peacemakers!
********************************************************
You may have noticed over the past recent weeks that I haven't been publishing any blog entries on Saturdays. Actually, this is a new development: I think it would be a good idea to take one day off from the blog. But I'm still open for comments (and sometimes writing replies to them) on Saturdays. And if you are writing your own blog, I may be visiting it (and possibly submitting a comment on it) on that day as well.
In conflicts that have polarized the opposing sides to the point where they have been at war with each other, are currently fighting in wars with each other, or are considering going to war with other, there is a strong sense of patriotic duty for those involved to be stalwart and loyally support the aims of whichever side they are on. In these highly inflammable circumstances, the simple act of talking with one’s enemy, much less working out compromise peace treaties with them, is seen at best as a sign of weakness and at worst as a sign of betrayal. Look at the cases of Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. In each case, they stepped away from war and embraced peace with their opponents. And paid for it with their lives, being assassinated by parties within their own countries who accused them of betraying their people.
In like manner, it does little good to sit down with groups claiming to represent an opponent, work out an agreement with them, and then see more radical groups splinter off from them and continue the violence. I keep hearing of our efforts to help Israel negotiate a peace with the Palestinian Authority, which only controls the West Bank; its rival Hamas runs the Gaza Strip. But whatever treaty results from any successful negotiations will not only be completely rejected by Hamas as being a betrayal by the Palestinians responsible for it: there will most likely be elements within that same Palestinian Authority that will break off and continue the fighting. Even if Hamas itself were to sit at the negotiation table and accept a deal, that organization’s leaders would be risking being deposed and possibly assassinated. And the organization would just spin off more radical splinter groups.
I can understand why any leader in that part of the world would be very cautious about proactively trying to promote peace with their enemies, with the risk of assassination by disaffected members of their own side so strong. It will take some momentous acts of heroism on the part of some Middle East leaders, as well as a lot of good fortune in dodging bullets and bombs (launched from their own ranks) to be able to finally create the kind of peace that the people in this area thirst for. Hopefully, our new president (we really are putting an awful lot of pressure and expectation on him) will be able to serve as a benevolent, trustworthy arbitrator in the promotion of peace there.
Blessed are the peacemakers!
********************************************************
You may have noticed over the past recent weeks that I haven't been publishing any blog entries on Saturdays. Actually, this is a new development: I think it would be a good idea to take one day off from the blog. But I'm still open for comments (and sometimes writing replies to them) on Saturdays. And if you are writing your own blog, I may be visiting it (and possibly submitting a comment on it) on that day as well.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Who Started It?
My daughter is currently taking a class in logical reasoning as one of her eight grade courses. She is learning various fallacies that people tend to accept without thinking. I have a fallacy to contribute, although I don’t think that it is necessarily a fallacy in logic. Rather, I think this fallacy belongs in the field of ethics: the idea that one side in a drawn-out conflict can claim moral superiority over the opponent by claiming the other “started it”.
Let’s suppose that I am living thousands of years ago in a land that my ancestors have dwelt in for countless generations. And let’s further suppose that a group of nomadic people come to the borders of my homeland and lay a retroactive claim to it, stating that their god had promised it to them before “my people” had ever lived in it. They then use this as a pretext to claim that we are trespassers on “their” land and are therefore “starting” a conflict with them. They attack us, wiping out whole cities and even killing all of the women and children. Because we were "trespassing" on “their” land. And let’s even further suppose that it’s back in what we regard as today’s era, sixty years ago. And people claiming in some way to be descendants of those nomads are again driving out, on that very same land, people who had been living there for generations. Once again, the pretext of the “promised land” and the accusations that those living there were trespassing on their rightful land is used.
Using the pretext that someone else started a conflict with aggression is an old manipulative trick that people need to be savvy of. The U.S. openly provoked the North Vietnamese with warships in Hanoi’s crucial (to their own security) home harbor in August 1964. After some shots were fired at the ships, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of an election campaign, framed the conflict to make it appear that the North Vietnamese started it. In fact, he used a specially convened meeting of congress and the media to blow up the contrived (by us) incident to Pearl Harbor-like proportions (I know; I was there, watching the entire charade on television). And the resulting congressional resolution opened the way for the tragic Vietnam War.
Sometimes a conflict between peoples goes back so far in time that it’s pointless to try to ascertain who started it. Look at the tension in former Yugoslavia between the Muslims and Christians. Or on Cyprus between the Greeks and the Turks. In Northern Ireland, both sides can point to atrocities against the other. The Irish Catholic side, though, likes to claim victory in any argument by pointing out that it was the English who first invaded their island.
And now we come to perhaps the most tragic, war-torn spot on the planet: a zone that encompasses the Darfur region in western Sudan and the eastern part of Congo. The rebels involved in both wars are justifying their parts in the conflicts by claiming self-defense for the people they represent. But the wars themselves are killing off the very people they claim to represent. An outsider should not (in my opinion) go into analyzing these situations with the notion that one side is “good” while the other is “evil”. But that seems to regrettably be the pattern in which America has conducted its foreign policy over the past few decades. Can I at least just hope that the Obama presidency can change this?
Let’s suppose that I am living thousands of years ago in a land that my ancestors have dwelt in for countless generations. And let’s further suppose that a group of nomadic people come to the borders of my homeland and lay a retroactive claim to it, stating that their god had promised it to them before “my people” had ever lived in it. They then use this as a pretext to claim that we are trespassers on “their” land and are therefore “starting” a conflict with them. They attack us, wiping out whole cities and even killing all of the women and children. Because we were "trespassing" on “their” land. And let’s even further suppose that it’s back in what we regard as today’s era, sixty years ago. And people claiming in some way to be descendants of those nomads are again driving out, on that very same land, people who had been living there for generations. Once again, the pretext of the “promised land” and the accusations that those living there were trespassing on their rightful land is used.
Using the pretext that someone else started a conflict with aggression is an old manipulative trick that people need to be savvy of. The U.S. openly provoked the North Vietnamese with warships in Hanoi’s crucial (to their own security) home harbor in August 1964. After some shots were fired at the ships, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson, in the midst of an election campaign, framed the conflict to make it appear that the North Vietnamese started it. In fact, he used a specially convened meeting of congress and the media to blow up the contrived (by us) incident to Pearl Harbor-like proportions (I know; I was there, watching the entire charade on television). And the resulting congressional resolution opened the way for the tragic Vietnam War.
Sometimes a conflict between peoples goes back so far in time that it’s pointless to try to ascertain who started it. Look at the tension in former Yugoslavia between the Muslims and Christians. Or on Cyprus between the Greeks and the Turks. In Northern Ireland, both sides can point to atrocities against the other. The Irish Catholic side, though, likes to claim victory in any argument by pointing out that it was the English who first invaded their island.
And now we come to perhaps the most tragic, war-torn spot on the planet: a zone that encompasses the Darfur region in western Sudan and the eastern part of Congo. The rebels involved in both wars are justifying their parts in the conflicts by claiming self-defense for the people they represent. But the wars themselves are killing off the very people they claim to represent. An outsider should not (in my opinion) go into analyzing these situations with the notion that one side is “good” while the other is “evil”. But that seems to regrettably be the pattern in which America has conducted its foreign policy over the past few decades. Can I at least just hope that the Obama presidency can change this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
