Blog Reprint from April 29, 2007

From time to time, I may reprint a blog article of mine from the past. This one is from nearly two years ago. I hope you enjoy it.

**************************************************
EXISTENCE, SKEPTICS, AND SUBJECTIVITY

I have heard and read from many who refuse to subscribe to any belief pertaining to the ultimate nature of our existence except in terms of what the accepted current cumulative body of science has proven. When talk comes up about a person's sense of self, inevitably the response, with some possible variations, is that all that a person thinks or feels is determined by biochemical processes in their own body, particularly in their nervous system, and acted on by the other systems as well. Perhaps works are sited that show a person's spiritual experiences to correspond to heightened neural activity in specific parts of the brain.

Another objection these skeptics have to any nonmaterialistic view of existence, such as religion or spiritualism, is that they cannot accept knowledge of something that transcends our studied physical plane, especially when it concerns our mortality, by relying on the words of people who have claimed, whether it be from the ancient past or in the present, that they were closer to God (or, in the words of Desiderata, whatever they conceive him to be) then other people. For they see prophets, priests, shamans, imams, gurus, lamas, and all of the others who play this type of role as ordinary human beings tied to this material life and who are no further removed than anyone else from its restrictions, most importantly the restriction of eventual death. But the same skeptics should understand that this conclusion about religions and their leaders neither proves nor disproves the content of what the religions espouse. Subjective religious experience is valid and real for those who experience it. Which brings me to the problem I have with the first conjecture.

The problem I have with the explanation that all subjective experiences that an individual may have can ultimately be explained through biology and chemistry is that it is incomplete. Woefully incomplete, for there is a fundamental question that underlies the spiritual quest for meaning that I have not heard being asked. That question is not "Who am I?" or "What is my purpose in life?" (both obviously very important questions), but rather "What is the here and now?". This question can only be answered accurately by the person asking it and cannot be generalized or explained away. The answer is spiritual and real and it inspires a second question, "Why am I here and now, instead of there (another place, body) or then (another time)?" Science cannot answer the first question, and since the second follows directly from the first, it cannot answer either. For within the tenants of the philosophy of scientific investigation, the "here and now" is imbedded within the axiomatic role of the observer, a separate role on which depends the entire body of observed, empirical results of experiments that the totality of scientific expression rests. It also lies unanalyzed within the scientific process, not only as designer of the hypothesis and writer of the report, but also as the creative dreamer who conceives of which topic to investigate according to its relevance to science and society.

A doubter to this proposition may respond that any person's sense of here and now is due to their body's biochemistry, but this doesn't begin to address either the question of "what does here and now mean", or the corollary question of "why am I here at this time in this body and not someone else at another time?" I can address these questions by giving an honest answer: "I don't know! ---But I'm working on it."

One final point: when I earlier chose "skeptic" as a depiction, I used it not disparagingly, but rather to describe a generic belief system that many people abide by that discounts anything unproven by established science. However, there is a more precise usage of this term, whereby a skeptic does not necessarily believe something is untrue if scientifically unproven but rather objects to the unproven being portrayed as scientific. In this narrower definition I am a skeptic, too, acknowledging at the same time that reality cannot in its entirety be explained by science.
*************************************************

I still hold to what I wrote in the above article. The bottom line to all of this is that, for me, life contains a big element of uncertainty, or mystery if you will. And I think that it always will. Perhaps others see it differently.

Rooting For Slytherin

At the end of the first Harry Potter book (and movie) The Sorcerer's Stone, the Hogwarts Academy student body and faculty are assembled to determine the house champion. For those unfamiliar with this, Hogwarts is divided into four houses: Gryffindor (Harry Potter's house), Ravenclaw, Hufflepump, and Slytherin (the "bad guys'" house). Throughout the school year, Slytherin has gradually been building up its seemingly insurmountable lead over the others. And Gryffindor is in last place, 150 points behind. The assembly hall is already decorated with the Slytherin colors, and the students at the Slytherin table are in high spirits. Then Headmaster Dumbledore, himself from Gryffindor, stands up to give the house champion award. But just before he does this, he gives Harry and his two Gryffindor classmates Hermione and Ron each 50 points. This ties Gryffindor with Slytherin for the lead. Then Dumbledore credits Gryffindor with 10 more points for another student's efforts to stop these three from doing what they did to earn the other 150 points! The results? Suddenly (surprise, surprise) Gryffindor finds itself in the lead, wins the championship, and the colors around the hall suddenly switch from Slytherin's to Gryffindor's.

What a rip-off! Sure, Harry and his friends were heroes and all that sort of stuff, but this last-second action of Dumbledore's smacks of a big fix to me. I was already ticked off at Potter for refusing a handshake with his soon-to-be arch rival Draco Malfoy, but this outrage at the end of the school year made me wonder whether or not I wouldn't be better off rooting for the bad guys. Sure, I know that in the end they will probably lose, but at least in the Harry Potter series, I always thought that Slytherin was easily the coolest and most interesting house. What does that say about me?

Some Observations

--I applaud President Obama for his willingness to communicate with other national leaders, especially of those countries with which the U.S. has strained relations. Like Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. He also doesn't practice the ridiculous and pointless social shunning that his predecessor made a fool out of himself doing. I'm sitting here looking at a picture of President Obama shaking hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Sure, there have been some harsh words coming out of Chavez's mouth about the U.S. (and Obama), but these ARE the leaders of these two important nations and they should show the decorum and dignity that their offices demand of them.

--The Fox News Network is quickly becoming a parody of itself, sinking into a quicksand of conspiracy talk, a phony tax revolt, calls for a Christian theocracy, and personal attacks against anyone associated with Obama or the Democrats on a national level. Sean Hannity can hardly open his mouth without regurgitating something slimy about last year's worn-out primary campaign story about Obama's old pastor, Reverend Wright. I can understand why conservatives wouldn't want to watch MSNBC with their liberal slant, but they can always tune in to CNN if they want to maintain some contact with reality!

--Madonna is getting a lot of negative attention in the press lately for adopting (and lately trying to adopt) children in the extremely poor southern African nation of Malawi. Instead of worrying what Madonna's agenda is in all of this, the media should be focusing on the attention she is bringing on the abject poverty and disease pervading this area. The way I see it at least, what is really annoying the public is that the pop singer is making them think about this very-neglected part of the world, instead of virtually ignoring it.

Gators' Donovan Unresponsive to Criticism

The University of Florida men's basketball coach Billy Donovan is experiencing a drawn-out mutiny of sorts, with four of his assistant coaches leaving for other jobs over the past four years and three of his players for this past year expressing plans to turn pro or transfer. I can understand that, with the two national championships that the Gators won in 2006 and 2007, opportunities for advancement would naturally arise for assistant coaches. But earlier, freshman guard Allan Chaney expressed plans to transfer to another school because he wasn't being given enough playing time. Star guard and leading scorer Nick Calathes will most likely (try to) turn professional after only this his sophomore year. And now starting center and number two scorer Alex Tyus has said that he is leaving UF for another college because he feels that he is more a power forward than a center, which is the position that Donovan insists he play. Donovan's reaction to all this seems to be to blame everyone else but himself. His explanation for the players leaving the way they are is that, with such a turnover in assistant coaches, the recruiting had suffered and UF didn't get the players who were really hungry to win and play as a team. In other words, he is insulting his own players! When one player leaves, that's one thing. But when several leave, a picture begins to form around a coach who is so certain of his correctness in everything that he regards his own stubbornness as a virtue.

Pat Dooley, the sports editor of my local newspaper The Gainesville Sun, wrote a column essentially sucking up to Donovan and exonerating him of any responsibility in recent Gator defections and dissent. Why would Dooley take this road? Could it be that he realizes that Donovan will be the one left in town and that he wants to cultivate a friendly, sympathetic relationship with the Florida coach to make his own job easy? If so, it raises a question about how legitimate local sports journalism is and can be. Or is the term "sports journalism" in itself an oxymoron?

I understand that Billy Donovan played a big role in Florida playing an excessively soft out-of-conference schedule these past two seasons. And that factored heavily in Florida being passed over for the NCAA post-season tournament. But since the Florida coach seems incapable of assimilating criticism, I expect more of the same next year. With Billy Donovan learning nothing, accepting no criticism, blaming others, and receiving accolades from his newspaper buddy Pat Dooley.

I'm planning to continue rooting for Billy Donovan's Florida Gators, but I'm afraid that their future success ultimately depends on an unlikely major attitude adjustment on the part of their coach. But I also acknowledge that Donovan has his own "formula" for winning (and winning is the bottom line for his employment here) and he doesn't want to stray from it. Even if it alienates his own players.

Just recently Richard Pitino, a Louisville assistant coach under his father Rick Pitino, was hired to be Donovan's new assistant coach. Hopefully, this new addition will be more in line with the Florida coach's "formula" and add some stability to the program.

UNF Starbucks

Right next to the library on the University of North Florida campus in Jacksonville is the largest Starbucks I have ever seen (being the backwoods rube that I am). Tables and seats abound everywhere. And along the very long window, facing the campus walkway, is an "endless" table with stools and chairs for students to study at. I wish Gainesville had a place like this. Well, maybe it does, I don't know. I haven't been to the Reitz Student Union at the University of Florida lately, and they have renovated the place quite a bit recently. I probably wouldn't recognize it if I went there. Still, this UNF Starbucks beats everything! Of course, it is specifically designed for the UNF students and faculty to use, so there would be an added emphasis on seating. But the sometimes very long lines move very quickly, due to the organized and efficient procedure the employees use to process orders. The only complaint I might have is that they probably need to turn up the air conditioning a bit. And it's awfully noisy (but what do I expect, anyway?). I could always take my drink to a table outside if I wanted to, though....

....and now I'm sitting at an even better (though smaller) Starbucks, located within the huge Barnes and Nobles bookstore on Town Center Road, still here in Jacksonville. It's actually a few days after the first part of this article (I really don't spend my entire life sitting in coffee shops). This quieter Starbucks is a welcome break from the UNF Starbucks, and the demographics are comfortably spread out enough across the population spectrum (at 52, I tend to stand out in that college crowd).

Florida Water Wimps

It never fails to amaze me how people around me panic whenever a little rain is falling on them. Out go the umbrellas, even for a little drizzle. And if no umbrella is handy, watch out! People who never run are suddenly transformed into world-class sprinters, madly dashing through the rain. As if they were going to dissolve from the water.

When I'm trying to maneuver my car around a crowded parking lot while it's raining, I have to be especially careful. For pedestrians, or simply people going to their cars, will often forget the most fundamental safety measures in their haste to get out from it.

I have lived my entire life (discounting my early infancy) in Florida. So I know what I'm talking about when I say that rain, and getting wet from it, goes with the territory. It cracks me up to be walking out of a building while it is raining, even lightly, and see a crowd of people standing huddled under a shelter, waiting for the shower to abet. What are they, water wimps? My words of advice to them is that they're Floridians, so they're supposed to get drenched in downpours every now and then! When it rains, they need to be bold: just walk right out there in the middle of it and shout to the world, "I'm a Floridian! I'm all wet!... and I'm proud!"

Knowing (The Movie)

I recently saw the new Nicholas Cage film Knowing. I don't think I'm giving anything away that hasn't been shown in the previews by stating that Knowing is about a mysterious document full of numbers that, when decoded, reveals a series of disasters that happened (after that document was written). And some pretty serious predictions about the future. Cage plays a widowed astrophysicist (with one child, a boy) who comes across the numbers and stumbles upon their meaning.

Once Cage figures out the document's code, he begins to extrapolate events revealed on it that haven't yet happened. And it is here that I have a serious problem with the way previews are cut from movies. Having previously seen the movie's preview, I already knew that Cage would be standing outside on a miserable, rainy day and witness a horrible jet plane crach up close. Before I walked into the theatre, I knew this. So when that particular scene of the movie unfolded, I already knew what was coming. And so did just about anybody else who saw the preview. But the crash scene was obviously crafted with the intent of completely catching the viewer off guard. But I suppose the movie's promoters figured that their desire to attract more paying customers outweighed any desired to uphold the integrity of the viewing process. What a shame.

For special effects, mood, and acting, Knowing was quite good. I thought that the explanations of the mysteries brought out in the movie were, however, stale and stupid.

For the above reasons, I recommend Knowing, but with reservations. Nicholas Cage enchances the value of any movie that he's in, and he went far to save this one for me.

Conspiracy Drums Beating Again

Immediately after Bill Clinton became President in 1993, the extreme right wing militia movement, along with certain radio talk show hosts, stepped up what was already simmering as a paranoid conspiracy rant. The claim was that there were certain bad types in positions of authority (tending to be Democrats, of course) who were plotting for a one-world government that was anti-religious, totalitarian and even aiming to severely depopulate the planet. Concentration camps were supposedly being built in various locations, and the evil black helicopters were continually being sighted hovering around doing something insidiously evil (or threatening to). All of this craziness culminated in the tragic terror bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, exactly 14 years ago. The perpetrators of this foul act were militia sympathizers with the typical nutcase conspiracy beliefs. After that, the conspiracy mood dissipated somewhat but resurfaced after 9/11. But that time the Republicans were in the White House and the loony accusations generally came from the fringe left.

Now Democrat Barack Obama is in office and here we go again. New concentration camps are supposedly being built to hold future dissidents. Socialists are supposedly plotting to take over the country. Obama is supposedly going to turn U.S. national sovereignty over to international organizations. But the problem I have the most with this new wave of nonsense is that much of it seems to be coming from the mainstream in the Republican Party, not just fringe societal elements.

So let me get this straight: a solid majority of voters put the Democratic Party into power in 2006 and 2008, creating the scenario where they control the Presidency, Congress, and most state Governorships. All by the elective process. How is that a conspiracy? It seems to me that any conspiracy charges should be laid at the feet of those who would subvert the election results by contesting already-decided elections (like the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat won by Al Franken) and stonewalling legislation and presidential nominees through procedural tactics.

NBA Playoffs Approaching

We've once again arrived at that time of the year when the National Basketball Association determines its champion through the playoffs, comprising the top eight teams in each of the two conferences. My favorite team, the Phoenix Suns, narrowly missed the playoffs this year, although had they been in the Eastern Conference their regular season record would have been good enough for them to be seeded fifth out of eight teams.

So I'm left with picking out other teams to root for. In the East, I have four favorites: the Florida teams Orlando Magic and Miami Heat (their lousy "conceptual" nicknames notwithstanding), the Atlanta Hawks (with former UF Gator Al Horford), and the Chicago Bulls (with former UF Gator Joakim Noah). In the West, I like the Houston Rockets (with Yao Ming and Ron Artest) and the Utah Jazz. I think Jazz guard Deron Williams is one of the great clutch players in the game. If those two go down in the playoffs, I'll probably end up rooting for the aging San Antonio Spurs to try to get one more great playoff season in.

All of my playoff preferences notwithstanding, I expect the NBA final championship series to be between either the Boston Celtics or the Cleveland Cavaliers in the East and the Los Angeles Lakers in the West. With the incredibly talented Kobe Bryant leading his Lakers to the championship.

On a side note, although I'm not specifically rooting for either of them, I plan to watch a little of two teams in the playoffs: the Detroit Pistons and the Denver Nuggets. Why? Because they feature players who tend to whine and complain a lot at the officials (and draw technical fouls). Especially when they're losing. I get a perverse pleasure watching the clownish act these crybabies put on!

Skydiving Accident

I just read how a 59-year old Ohio skydiver was killed during a jump when his parachute wouldn't open (and the reserve chute was opened too close to impact to avert fatal injuries). Apparently, the diver spent too much time with the first chute before resorting to the backup. And this sort of incident is the one thing keeping me from "taking the plunge" myself.

But why should it? Fatalities from skydiving accidents always get played up heavily in the press, but I doubt that the hazards associated with this activity are really any worse than getting in one's car and driving a few blocks down the road to the grocery store. Or riding a bicycle around the block. Or running on a treadmill for a few minutes. Or simply getting up out of bed in the morning. Or staying in bed!

I feel sorry for the man who died in this skydiving tragedy, as well as for his family and friends. But these sorts of incidents need to be analyzed: did the accident occur because of some endemic reason, or was it avoidable? Like many things, people can cut their odds of calamity down drastically by stringently following safety procedures. I don't plan to give up the idea of getting involved with skydiving at some future date. You can't go about your daily life totally consumed about avoiding accidents. Even if you just stayed at home, something bad could happen. Case in point: the man who died when his home in Binghampton, New York was hit by a crashing plane.

River Flood Threat

If it isn't one thing, it's another. As I have discussed in earlier articles, northern central Florida has had a problem in recent years with very dry weather and resulting widespread forest fires. This year, it looked for a while as if this would happen again. And it still might, but right now we're experiencing a hazard on the opposite end: the Santa Fe and Suwannee Rivers are rising to flood state, due to recent storms and torrential rains. And more rain is expected.

Although, from this I could conclude that our environment is "out of whack", it could simply be a case of what's really the norm for our area: alternating periods of flooding with dry spells and their concomitant fires. That this doesn't seamlessly fit in with the agendas of humans and human society doesn't necessarily mean that, environmentally speaking, this is such a bad thing. But it still is distressing.

I suppose that this sort of thing occurs just about any place that people set foot on and decide to stay a while. They may at first like the weather, but that's never the same. I remember the ending of Mosquito Coast (starring Harrison Ford and River Phoenix), when the fanatical father (played by Ford) decides that his family will live on an apparently idyllic-looking stretch of tropical beach. Only problem was that heavy storms, typical for that area, came in during the night and wiped out their new home, nearly wiping them out in the process.

I don't think there's any place on Earth immune from some sort of natural hazard or another. The temptation would be to assign a general cause for environmental disasters (air pollution, ozone layer depletion, acid rain, global warming). And sometimes this may be true. But sometimes "bad" things happen as a normality, not as an aberration.

Waldo and Lawtey: Speed Traps?

Recently, I've had the occasion to drive back and forth between Gainesville and Jacksonville a few times. On the way to Jacksonville, I hit US-301 in Waldo (a few miles northeast of Gainesville) and drive to I-10, which takes me into Jacksonville. Along US-301 there are two towns, Waldo and Lawtey, that have been designated as "speed traps" by the American Automobile Association. There are even billboards outside each city warning motorists that they are speed traps. But are they really?

Both Waldo and Lawtey are small, sleepy towns (especially Lawtey) that have that one major federal highway running through them. US-301 is a major road connecting Jacksonville with central Florida. Large semi-trucks continually thunder down it. It is normal for the speed limit in the countryside to be 65 mph. But within the city, it's necessary to bring it down (in Waldo to 35 mph and in Lawtey to 45 mph). Gainesville certainly does this with US-441, with a 30 mph speed limit in the University of Florida area. The only problem with Waldo and Lawtey is that drivers tend to ignore the reduced speed limit signs and speed through these towns, which are only trying to protect their own people.

Lawtey and Waldo have statistically handed out more tickets for their population than have surrounding communities. But a Waldo policeman, recently interviewed, stated that they don't pull drivers over unless they are driving more than 10 mph over the speed limit. And there are a series of signs on each side of both Lawtey and Waldo clearly warning of the coming reduced speed limit, as well as a clear statement: "speed limit strictly enforced".

Critics of these two towns argue that they are taking advantage of their strategic location along US-301 to nab passing motorists for the purpose of increasing their own revenue. And while the result make accomplish this aim, I believe that they are completely justified in enforcing their speed limit laws.

It is very frustrating to me, as a driver, to decelerate upon entering small towns along major highways while cars around me plow on through at the same speed, as if they were on the Interstate Highway System. It is even more than frustration when I witness drivers of large trucks doing this. If I were a citizen of Lawtey or Waldo, I would stand up in applause for their policies. Instead of them lightening up on their enforcement of speed laws within their boundaries, other cities in the area should emulate them and also strictly enforce speed limits. Not if someone is going just a little over the limit. But those cases when drivers hurtle through, not respecting the importance of slowing down through populated municipalities, should be enforced. Regardless of whatever the AAA says (or however many billboards opponents put up). Perhaps if this were the norm instead of the exception, we would see a reduction in traffic accidents and fatalities.

People these days are way too impatient in most everything they do. They are in a big, big, hurry to get from Point A to Point B. Not that they won't completely waste their time once they get to Point B! But God help anybody who slows them down one iota!

Presumption of Private Property

Since I like to run, I tend to look around my city and try to find feasible routes that I could train on. One very promising route takes me from straight from my house around a three mile loop and back. I wouldn't be running past house after house (which can be a liability over time, with ferocious dogs occasionally getting loose from their back yards), except for a small stretch of the run. No, most of the course has me running on sidewalks, asphalt or grass along main roads. But there is one small stretch of this route that involves me running behind two subdivisions and possibly crossing over into private property for about 100 yards. I've looked it over on GoogleEarth; there seems to be a pathway that I could run on, although there is also a clump of trees standing in my way as well. Should I just go ahead and see what happens if I run that stretch? I have never seen any "Private: No Trespassing" signs anywhere. Or is there automatically some kind of presumption of private property that I must make?

When I was a junior in high school, I was on the track team as a two-mile runner. Part of our practice involved long cross-country runs, some exceeding ten miles in length. We would run down all sorts of country dirt paths behind our school, which was (then) located in a rural area. Sometimes we would later be notified by our coach that certain areas were off-limits, since they were private property (with complaining occupants). But here too, there weren't any signs around to let us know this. My main concern back then (which is still a concern of mine nowadays) is that some of the folks whose land we were running through might have had some mean, biting dogs running around loose. And that wouldn't be a pleasant prospect at all.

So here I am, trying to decide whether or not to see if I can "complete my loop" by running this backstretch of possibly verboten land. Oh well, you only go around once in life, go for it!

The "Old Country"

I am currently sitting (at this writing) outside a new Dunkin' Donuts here in Gainesville near the intersection of Archer Road and SW 34 Street, a few minutes before I go in to work, about a mile down the road. Even on a relatively light traffic day as this, it is heavily congested in this part of town. The irony is that, back in 1980, I moved to this section of Gainesville because then it was so peaceful and quiet (and very close to my workplace)!

I still refer to this part of town as "The Old Country". I lived and worked here for six years and, if you include my present job, have worked here for eighteen more. I also met my wife here. The area began to drastically change in 1987, when a large field adjacent to my apartment became the site of a Wal-Mart/Lowes shopping center. Then restaurants were built lining up and down Archer Road. And finally, an expansive network of shopping centers were built further west, almost reaching Interstate-75. If I were to be transported in time from 1984 25 years into the future to 2009, I wouldn't recognize the place. But thanks to DD, it's a convenient, pleasant place to stop off at on the way to work!

Still, I prefer to hang out at the Magnolia Parke Starbucks on NW 39 Avenue, away from this incredible (for me) congestion. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I had to be in a big city like Chicago or New York for any substantial period of time.

Submission

In religious circles the concept of submission is often bandied about. One must submit to God, the church (or whatever the religious establishment is called), one's elders, one's spouse, the particular religion's scriptures, and so on. Sometimes people who have experienced this demand for submission within a religious body will rebel and abandon it, possibly even renouncing that religion (and any others) altogether. And I sympathize with these people, considering the enormous potential and temptation there is within religions for manipulation and abuse. But is submission in itself a dirty word?

Naturally, as social creatures, we all have to submit to laws and social norms in order to effectively function in our daily lives. That is a reasonable application of submission. But also, in order to accomplish anything worth accomplishing, we also must foster a habit of self-discipline. And that involves defining for ourselves our own standards, to which we then submit ourselves. This can be a most difficult form of submission, since there is ample opportunity for self-deception and backsliding without immediate social consequences. But I hold that it is ultimately the most important form of submission there is.

Some people interpret the concept of freedom as being freedom from submission. But in order to be a viable, responsible adult, one must have the self-discipline to submit him/herself to standards that ultimately enhance freedom by opening up opportunities and enabling positive social feedback from achievements. But one also needs to develop the wisdom to distinguish that from manipulation on the part of others who seem to have issues with control and power.

On Second Thought...

I had written up an article for yesterday on this blog and was about to publish it when I read it over one last time. And then concluded that I had written stuff that I didn't really believe. It concerned a distant memory, more than thirty years past, and the behavior of an individual within that memory. In my article, I had sugar-coated that behavior, which in reality had badly offended me. So I'm going to have to rewrite that article and probably use a different example to make my point. It's hard for me to forgive certain people in my past, especially since they themselves couldn't care less. They may also be in a position, like that particular individual, where they are unable to care less, due the fact that they are dead.

This tendency to distort one's memories of childhood is highlighted in the very disturbing hour-long Twilight Zone episode titled The Incredible World of Horace Ford. In it, a grown man has created an alternative memory of his own childhood that he eventually must come to grips with in order to survive in the present, real world. Being a kid isn't all fun and games. And some of the negative experiences can have a scarring effect throughout one's life. I think that, as an adult, it is important to be honest with myself about those experiences while recognizing that my reality is in the present, not my distant past.

The Useful Enemy

President Barack Obama had better be careful with his attempts to bring down Al-Qaeda, solve the Afghanistan War by engaging with the Taliban, improve relations with adversaries Iran, Cuba, and North Korea, and have more cooperative relationships with other nations. He may be left without a "useful enemy" against which he can rally his country around him. After all, that is what his predecessor, George W. Bush, was a master at. But, perhaps our new president has his own ideas about who (or what) our enemies should be.

I believe that Barack Obama is a true idealist (as opposed to W., a cynic) in that he sees the challenges ahead as not fighting enemies, but solving problems. He sees this country's abandonment of its manufacturing base, the diminishing and politicizing of our science, our overdependence on foreign sources of energy, the state of health care and its debilitating effect, both economically and psychologically, on the people, and the growing threats to our environment. And of course, terrorism. He believes that the U.S. should reach out and engage in cooperative efforts with other nations to tackle these challenges.

Still, President Obama may find that fighting concepts may not carry the same political clout as fighting tangible, named targets. I wonder whether, in a year or two, we'll have a new set of "enemies" to get all worked up over.

In this vein, I also wonder who in Obama's staff will emerge to shape and manipulate this concept of who and what our adversaries are. You can be assured of one thing: we will always have our enemies, if for no other reason than that our leaders need them for us to feel that we need our leaders to protect us from them.

2009 Major League Baseball Starts

The start to the 2009 Major League Baseball season began Sunday, with the Atlanta Braves defeating defending World Series champion Philadelphia 4-1. One game down, only 161 more to go! How can anyone get interested in individual games that mean so little? The only redeeming factor would be if the actual games were interesting to watch. But to me, baseball is so-o-o boring!

I should be tickled that my home state Tampa Bay Rays won the American League pennant last year. But I was only mildly happy about it. They're probably going to settle down this year to a respectable third-place finish in their division behind Boston and New York. I generally root for the Yankees anyway, so that doesn't bother me.

In the National League, it is time for the Florida Marlins to peak during their six-year cycle and win it all. They won the World Series in 1997 and 2003, and here we are in 2009. Ironically, even with two championships behind them, they've never won their own division! But it doesn't matter. Even if the Marlins have a lousy spring season, they'll surge in late summer and make the playoffs. Assuming they conform to the "pattern" (I hope). I guess by this you can conclude that I'm not exactly very scientific in my baseball analysis.

I've given up trying to pick the different divisional winners. One team can do really lousy one year and, with little change to their lineup, will burn up the league the next season. Or the reverse.

I suppose that, as in previous years, I will continue to make the Atlanta Braves my traditional team of choice to root for. But I don't even know most of their players, and I don't see myself setting aside time to watch their games. Oh well, it's spring. Maybe by July or August I'll see things differently.

Most Wanted?

I'm not sure whether to just laugh or to express my gratitude at the "apparently" diminishing rate of serious crime in my home county. For at the bottom of page ten in Monday's Independent Florida Alligator newspaper is a "Most Wanted" ad, showing a mug shot of a 32 year-old man. The horrible crimes for which he is wanted and the ad and his picture posted? "Resisting Officer Without Violence, False ID Given To Law Enforcement Officer and Driving While License Suspended 2nd Offense." A phone number is given at the bottom of the posting for any snitch inclined to turn the poor loser in.

Now I have a theory concerning the police and our society's level of criminal activity. I believe that, regardless of how "criminally" people are behaving, the police are going to get in their quota of citations and arrests. If the community were suddenly to stop all felonious crimes, and even desist from serious misdemeanors, the police would be handcuffing people and hauling them in for jaywalking or loitering. Wait, come to think of it, they may already be doing this for loitering. Night after night, on my way home from work, I see a number of police cars parked at one of my local public parks (which has no closing times). I wonder what would happen if, some night, I were just to pull in to the park, park my car, get out, and just go sit on a park bench to gather my thoughts. I wonder how long before they slapped the 'cuffs on me! Or if I escaped their grasp, would my picture grace the next day's paper? What's really sad is that, a few years ago, I would have regarded this as a paranoid rant if I heard it coming from someone else's mouth. Now I'm not so sure. I know in my heart that the police are protecting me from criminals who would do me harm. But I also feel that many of our police regard me (and others in general), not as a citizen under their charge to protect, but rather as a prospective arrest to be plucked "out of the crowd". This makes them seem more like predators than protectors. The fact that police testimony during trials is usually accepted without question by juries just increases my disquiet.

Me Studying Chinese

Having decided a little while ago to concentrate my foreign language study on learning Chinese, I have begun to set aside time in the day to accomplish this. I am in the process of writing out the characters I am learning that will make my total at about 3,500 (from 1,700). This should enable me to more effectively follow the text in Chinese newspapers and give me a more fighting chance at understanding spoken Chinese. I did have a bit of a setback on the Internet: I can't seem to get the VOA Mandarin Chinese webcasts, which I had been planning to download on to my MP3 to listen to at work . However, as I reported in yesterday's article, I did find some podcasts from the BBC and Australia in Chinese that I was able to download. Also, I have a Chinese reader that I study from time to time. But I find myself disappointed for not having spent enough time studying Chinese.

So, in summation my strategy with Chinese for now is to learn the new characters, find some way to download webcasts onto my MP3, listen for long stretches to those webcasts, read Chinese text off the Internet, and continue to study my graded Chinese readers. I don't have someone with whom I am have regular contact to practice speaking Chinese with. Should that change, I'll have another dimension added to my study.