Adults need to be more responsible about how they discuss the news with children. It is bad enough to see how different stories are sensationalized over the airwaves. The motive behind this, as I see it, is to drive up viewer interest and keep the ratings up. But the result can often be a "Chicken Little" scenario where it seems that disaster is imminent all around.
I remember hearing the story a couple of years ago about how children in Britain were having difficulty sleeping at night over worries about impending doom over global warning. And from where were they getting this input? From teachers at their schools!
A few days ago, my piano teacher was greeted with tears by one of her students, a little boy. Why was he crying? Because he was certain that he would catch the swine flu and die from it! I don't know where he got those notions from or whether his child's mind derived its own conclusions after seeing news on TV.
The above two examples point to two different problems that adults need to remedy regarding how to present news to children. The global warming example shows that possibly frightening news needs to be given in a very careful manner, without the doomsday trappings common in the mass media. And the swine flu example points to the need for parents and teachers to understand that it may be necessary to tell some of the bad news to their children or students in order to make sure, in case those children had heard about the bad news from the media or perhaps other children secondhand, that they are able to process the information without suffering trauma or panic.
It can sometimes be difficult, as adults, to remember how it was to be a little child. Children have to take life as it comes and do not have the convenience of a lifetime of accumulated knowledge and learning to filter through the news. They are also very emotionally and physically dependent on adults for their well-being. If adults who are responsible for the care of children come across potentially traumatic news, they should try to make sure that those children can process the news with the assurance that they will be protected. Even if the adults don't believe it themselves! Children are not little adults; they need to be nurtured and respected in a compassionate manner according to their immature level of development.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Friday, May 8, 2009
A Cease-Fire Isn't Peace
It never ceases to amaze me how, in the midst of a vicious war between two hardened opponents, cease-fire agreements are arrived at. Naturally, they are almost always broken, and why not? The war is still continuing. The recent breaking of the cease-fire between the Taliban and the Pakistani government is just the latest example.
I recently saw a show on The History Channel about the Chinese general Sun Tzu and his classic work The Art of War. The premise of the program was that, by showing examples of military conflicts in the past and how they were conducted, the degree of success or failure by a warring side depended greatly on how closely that side fought the war according to Sun Tzu's precepts. One example was the way the U.S. and North Vietnam executed the Vietnam War: specifically, the Tet Offensive in early 1968.
Catching the enemy off-guard is a common tactic of war; one doesn't need to be versed in Sun Tzu to know this. The North Vietnamese gave assurances to the South in early 1968 that the national holiday of Tet, beginning on January 31, would be allowed to proceed peacefully. Going under the assumption that there would be a temporary cease-fire, South Vietnam and U.S. relaxed their guard. But North Vietnam, under their able general Nguyen Giap, had intricately planned a Tet attack for months and struck on a massive scale throughout the South on January 31.
Year after year, we hear about fighting breaking out between Israel and one or more of its militant armed opponents across its border. Inevitably, a cease-fire is arranged and the fighting tapers off. But the war continues.
The problem with cease-fires is that many people equate a cease-fire with peace, when in reality it is a mutually-agreed-upon "timeout" from open warfare. The war is still there; when one of the parties to the conflict deems it to their advantage, they will end it, pure and simple. And usually accuse the other side of violating the terms of the cease-fire. This is precisely what is going on in Pakistan with the surging Taliban.
Both sides have accused the other of breaching the terms of the cease-fire. And lo and behold, they are back at war against each other again. But I hold that this was the purpose for the cease-fire all along: each side used it to carefully reassess their positions and to prepare themselves for success in the next stage of the fighting.
The bottom line on this is that a cease-fire should never be confused with peace. And when two sides are locked together in mortal combat, with their political systems and even the collective survival of their people at stake, the last thing anyone involved is going to worry about is the relatively trivial matter of "honoring" a cease-fire.
Harsh, but true.
I recently saw a show on The History Channel about the Chinese general Sun Tzu and his classic work The Art of War. The premise of the program was that, by showing examples of military conflicts in the past and how they were conducted, the degree of success or failure by a warring side depended greatly on how closely that side fought the war according to Sun Tzu's precepts. One example was the way the U.S. and North Vietnam executed the Vietnam War: specifically, the Tet Offensive in early 1968.
Catching the enemy off-guard is a common tactic of war; one doesn't need to be versed in Sun Tzu to know this. The North Vietnamese gave assurances to the South in early 1968 that the national holiday of Tet, beginning on January 31, would be allowed to proceed peacefully. Going under the assumption that there would be a temporary cease-fire, South Vietnam and U.S. relaxed their guard. But North Vietnam, under their able general Nguyen Giap, had intricately planned a Tet attack for months and struck on a massive scale throughout the South on January 31.
Year after year, we hear about fighting breaking out between Israel and one or more of its militant armed opponents across its border. Inevitably, a cease-fire is arranged and the fighting tapers off. But the war continues.
The problem with cease-fires is that many people equate a cease-fire with peace, when in reality it is a mutually-agreed-upon "timeout" from open warfare. The war is still there; when one of the parties to the conflict deems it to their advantage, they will end it, pure and simple. And usually accuse the other side of violating the terms of the cease-fire. This is precisely what is going on in Pakistan with the surging Taliban.
Both sides have accused the other of breaching the terms of the cease-fire. And lo and behold, they are back at war against each other again. But I hold that this was the purpose for the cease-fire all along: each side used it to carefully reassess their positions and to prepare themselves for success in the next stage of the fighting.
The bottom line on this is that a cease-fire should never be confused with peace. And when two sides are locked together in mortal combat, with their political systems and even the collective survival of their people at stake, the last thing anyone involved is going to worry about is the relatively trivial matter of "honoring" a cease-fire.
Harsh, but true.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Justice Souter Retiring, Who's Next?
Now that Supreme Court Justice David Souter has announced his impending retirement in June, President Obama is getting a lot of advice from different quarters about what criteria he should use in choosing a successor. Some of his political opposition to the right are already criticizing him before he's even made a decision, this in spite of assurances by the President that he "would appoint a pragmatist, not a radical, to this important position."
Barack Obama was a legal scholar before he became a politician, with his specialty being constitutional law. Were he not President, he himself would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He also understands very clearly the history of the Court, in particular the ongoing philosophical dispute between justices interpreting the Constitution according to its perceived (by them) original intent and justices who regard the Constitution as a living, breathing document that needs to adapt itself to the vastly different society that we live in today. My gut instinct is that Obama will select someone who is liberal, but more in the line of a Stephen Breyer or a John Paul Stevens instead of previous judicial "activists" like William Brennan or William Douglas.
Also figuring heavily in the President's appointment is whether he will select a woman or a minority to fill the upcoming vacancy. I've heard some stating that it would be sexist to simply choose a woman for the seat because of her gender. But the Supreme Court needs to be representative of the society at large, and the legal profession is no longer dominated by men as before. There is another consideration mitigating in favor of Obama choosing a woman.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman currently serving on the Supreme Court, is having serious health problems as she is fighting cancer. It may be possible that she is only staying on the Court because she is the only woman on it. Having another woman as a Supreme Court Justice might allow her to retire with her mind more at ease. If this is so, then President Obama's first two Supreme Court appointments may both be women. And that's all right with me.
Will the Supreme Court's newest addition be also a Latino or an African-American? Will the appointee be an experienced appeals court judge with a long history of past decisions and opinions? Or perhaps a judge with a record too short and limited to gage his/her views on hot-button issues? Or perhaps could it be a legal scholar from a law school? Or maybe a politician (as Earl Warren, Charles E. Hughes, and William H. Taft were)? The trend lately has been to tap the pool of appeals court judges for the Supreme Court. But Obama has laid down some subtle hints that he may broaden his scope in search for the best candidate. I wish him great success. I only hope that he finally will choose someone without tax problems (as some of his cabinet selections have experienced)!
Barack Obama was a legal scholar before he became a politician, with his specialty being constitutional law. Were he not President, he himself would be qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. He also understands very clearly the history of the Court, in particular the ongoing philosophical dispute between justices interpreting the Constitution according to its perceived (by them) original intent and justices who regard the Constitution as a living, breathing document that needs to adapt itself to the vastly different society that we live in today. My gut instinct is that Obama will select someone who is liberal, but more in the line of a Stephen Breyer or a John Paul Stevens instead of previous judicial "activists" like William Brennan or William Douglas.
Also figuring heavily in the President's appointment is whether he will select a woman or a minority to fill the upcoming vacancy. I've heard some stating that it would be sexist to simply choose a woman for the seat because of her gender. But the Supreme Court needs to be representative of the society at large, and the legal profession is no longer dominated by men as before. There is another consideration mitigating in favor of Obama choosing a woman.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman currently serving on the Supreme Court, is having serious health problems as she is fighting cancer. It may be possible that she is only staying on the Court because she is the only woman on it. Having another woman as a Supreme Court Justice might allow her to retire with her mind more at ease. If this is so, then President Obama's first two Supreme Court appointments may both be women. And that's all right with me.
Will the Supreme Court's newest addition be also a Latino or an African-American? Will the appointee be an experienced appeals court judge with a long history of past decisions and opinions? Or perhaps a judge with a record too short and limited to gage his/her views on hot-button issues? Or perhaps could it be a legal scholar from a law school? Or maybe a politician (as Earl Warren, Charles E. Hughes, and William H. Taft were)? The trend lately has been to tap the pool of appeals court judges for the Supreme Court. But Obama has laid down some subtle hints that he may broaden his scope in search for the best candidate. I wish him great success. I only hope that he finally will choose someone without tax problems (as some of his cabinet selections have experienced)!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The New Star Trek Movie
I'm looking forward to eventually seeing the new Star Trek movie, which apparently seeks to go back in time to the old TV series' "generation" and examine its characters in their youth. Naturally, with the original cast either deceased or aging, different, younger actors play the old roles. From the previews, they seem to fit them well. But the special effects seem so well done that they are bound to belittle the original series that inspired the movie.
The original Star Trek television series aired from 1966 to 1968. The set designs, props, and special effects today look very primitive. But back then, they were "cutting edge", at least for television. When Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out in 1979, it finally renewed the Enterprise's "quest" after an eleven year hiatus. During this time, space movies underwent a dramatic change in their appearance, starting with 1967's 2001: A Space Odyssey and continuing with 1977's Star Wars. Those responsible for the 1979 Star Trek movie were apparently very self-conscious about this gap between the old series and the current special effects technology. For they went to excess, trying to dazzle the movie audience with their new (for 1979) special effects. Even the Enterprise crew, during the movie, were portrayed for long periods standing there in astonishment, mouths agape and eyes bulging, at the impressive sights that the special effects department had produced. This hurt the flow of the story, and many (myself included) consider this movie to have been the worst of all the Star Trek movies.
I'm hoping that those responsible for the new "retro" Star Trek movie didn't get carried away with their own self-consciousness and instead concentrated on producing a good, memorable story with characters that resonated reasonably with the old sixties series. Without getting carried away with "perfection". The original TV series certainly didn't.
One problem with making "retro" movies (like Star Wars): you already know pretty much how they're going to end. If Captain Kirk is hanging on a cliff thousands of feet in the air, then ho-hum, the only mystery will be how he gets out of the predicament. This makes it more like a MacGyver episode than a singular movie. The only characters whose lives may be in peril are the "guest" characters who don't appear in "later" movies or episodes. Of course, the same can be said for other movie series as well (such as the James Bond series).
I usually don't go to see a new movie at the theatre on its first run, instead waiting for it to come out on DVD or on a television movie channel. But I would like to shell out a few bucks and go out to see Star Trek.
The original Star Trek television series aired from 1966 to 1968. The set designs, props, and special effects today look very primitive. But back then, they were "cutting edge", at least for television. When Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out in 1979, it finally renewed the Enterprise's "quest" after an eleven year hiatus. During this time, space movies underwent a dramatic change in their appearance, starting with 1967's 2001: A Space Odyssey and continuing with 1977's Star Wars. Those responsible for the 1979 Star Trek movie were apparently very self-conscious about this gap between the old series and the current special effects technology. For they went to excess, trying to dazzle the movie audience with their new (for 1979) special effects. Even the Enterprise crew, during the movie, were portrayed for long periods standing there in astonishment, mouths agape and eyes bulging, at the impressive sights that the special effects department had produced. This hurt the flow of the story, and many (myself included) consider this movie to have been the worst of all the Star Trek movies.
I'm hoping that those responsible for the new "retro" Star Trek movie didn't get carried away with their own self-consciousness and instead concentrated on producing a good, memorable story with characters that resonated reasonably with the old sixties series. Without getting carried away with "perfection". The original TV series certainly didn't.
One problem with making "retro" movies (like Star Wars): you already know pretty much how they're going to end. If Captain Kirk is hanging on a cliff thousands of feet in the air, then ho-hum, the only mystery will be how he gets out of the predicament. This makes it more like a MacGyver episode than a singular movie. The only characters whose lives may be in peril are the "guest" characters who don't appear in "later" movies or episodes. Of course, the same can be said for other movie series as well (such as the James Bond series).
I usually don't go to see a new movie at the theatre on its first run, instead waiting for it to come out on DVD or on a television movie channel. But I would like to shell out a few bucks and go out to see Star Trek.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Putrid Gainesville Radio Reeks
I like variety on my radio. But, unfortunately, my radio doesn't agree:
The one FM station I could get that had sports programming late at night just recently decided to abandon that format in favor of being just another loony bird right wing extremist talk show station around the clock. Making two stations of this type, right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee! All of the hate, derision, and conspiracy talk you care to listen to!
I used to be able to listen to an alternative rock station, but a year ago it decided to copy another mainstream/hard rock station, leaving those two right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee!
There used to be a station that played hits from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. But it recently decided to change its programming to today's Top Forty, just like another station--you guessed it-- right next to it on the radio dial. Whoopee!
Now we come to 89.1/WUFT Public Radio, the ONLY FM station that makes a concerted effort to offer diverse programming. It plays classical music, jazz, blues, new age, African music, 70's soul, Celtic music, news and analysis, interviews, local news, old time radio broadcasts, alternative political radio, summaries of the week in the Florida legislature, and The Prairie Home Companion Saturday evening show. And I'm leaving other stuff out, too. Naturally, it's THIS station that my increasingly despicable local newspaper The Gainesville Sun is scrutinizing as an ongoing debate topic in its editorial section.
I think it is sad that the public at large seems to feel that they can only hold Public Radio accountable for its programming. They seem to have bought into the notion promoted by the political right that commercial radio stations, although they are licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves, have little or no responsibility to offer diverse programming any more.
Recently, I discovered a few good independent/alternative musical acts on the Internet: Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Beirut, and Broken Social Scene, to name a few. They produce really good, high quality material. But I have never heard ANYTHING of theirs on my radio, and probably never will. To say that Gainesville radio is of poor quality is to make a gross understatement: it reeks!
The one FM station I could get that had sports programming late at night just recently decided to abandon that format in favor of being just another loony bird right wing extremist talk show station around the clock. Making two stations of this type, right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee! All of the hate, derision, and conspiracy talk you care to listen to!
I used to be able to listen to an alternative rock station, but a year ago it decided to copy another mainstream/hard rock station, leaving those two right next to each other on the radio dial. Whoopee!
There used to be a station that played hits from the 70's, 80's, and 90's. But it recently decided to change its programming to today's Top Forty, just like another station--you guessed it-- right next to it on the radio dial. Whoopee!
Now we come to 89.1/WUFT Public Radio, the ONLY FM station that makes a concerted effort to offer diverse programming. It plays classical music, jazz, blues, new age, African music, 70's soul, Celtic music, news and analysis, interviews, local news, old time radio broadcasts, alternative political radio, summaries of the week in the Florida legislature, and The Prairie Home Companion Saturday evening show. And I'm leaving other stuff out, too. Naturally, it's THIS station that my increasingly despicable local newspaper The Gainesville Sun is scrutinizing as an ongoing debate topic in its editorial section.
I think it is sad that the public at large seems to feel that they can only hold Public Radio accountable for its programming. They seem to have bought into the notion promoted by the political right that commercial radio stations, although they are licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves, have little or no responsibility to offer diverse programming any more.
Recently, I discovered a few good independent/alternative musical acts on the Internet: Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Beirut, and Broken Social Scene, to name a few. They produce really good, high quality material. But I have never heard ANYTHING of theirs on my radio, and probably never will. To say that Gainesville radio is of poor quality is to make a gross understatement: it reeks!
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Sprout Channel Late Night
I have discovered a new television channel to enjoy late at night: PBS's Sprout, which is aimed at a pre-school audience. So how am I able to watch this type of programming at one in the morning? Showing programs targeted at young children this late at night may be explained in three ways: one, maybe we have a lot of little night owls who burn the midnight oil. Two, maybe Sprout has discovered that grown-ups like this type of programming, too. Or three, Sprout gives little children who have gone off to bed something that gives them a sense of security (and a kind of night light as well).
Regarding the first explanation, I really don't think that there are many kids out there in the wee hours of the morning watching Sprout. If they did have a TV set available to them, they would most likely watching the evening programming, since it is just repeated after midnight. So either Sprout's late night showing of this programming is either aimed at an older audience or it is used as a "sleep enhancer" for youngsters.
I stand for at least one adult who likes Sprout at night. For one, I'm human like everyone else and sometimes like to watch and hear others speaking in a very friendly, positive manner (even if it's from the impersonal television set). On Sprout, Nina (the token human adult) and Star (a cute stuffed pillow-sized star puppet with a face) sit together on a comfortable-looking sofa in an "astral" setting, amiably conversing and introducing different short episodes (like Thomas the Tank Engine or the Berenstain Bears, for example). They show several of these over the course of the night, always returning to their sofa "base of operations". The end of the show always has Star falling asleep. What appeals to me about this is the idea of being able to accomplish different things by working out of a base. Well, I get it if no one else does!
But probably the greatest use the "viewing" audience gets out of Sprout late at night is its usefulness at lulling children to sleep and keeping them from being in the sometimes scary darkness. While I understand this, I wonder a little whether or not that's such a wise idea, at least in the long run. After all, while their brains are growing and developing in complexity at this early age, don't young children need to learn how to come to grips with natural fears, such as the normal fear of the dark? I know I did, but I wonder whether I would have adjusted as well had I had soothing television programming like that offered on Sprout.
Sprout is now my current default channel, when I've run out of reasonably interesting programming on the others. I recommend it to anyone regardless of their age, not because it is intellectually stimulating or terribly exciting (it is neither). No, watch it for its good vibes! One warning, though: you stand a risk of being overcome by its excruciating cuteness.
Regarding the first explanation, I really don't think that there are many kids out there in the wee hours of the morning watching Sprout. If they did have a TV set available to them, they would most likely watching the evening programming, since it is just repeated after midnight. So either Sprout's late night showing of this programming is either aimed at an older audience or it is used as a "sleep enhancer" for youngsters.
I stand for at least one adult who likes Sprout at night. For one, I'm human like everyone else and sometimes like to watch and hear others speaking in a very friendly, positive manner (even if it's from the impersonal television set). On Sprout, Nina (the token human adult) and Star (a cute stuffed pillow-sized star puppet with a face) sit together on a comfortable-looking sofa in an "astral" setting, amiably conversing and introducing different short episodes (like Thomas the Tank Engine or the Berenstain Bears, for example). They show several of these over the course of the night, always returning to their sofa "base of operations". The end of the show always has Star falling asleep. What appeals to me about this is the idea of being able to accomplish different things by working out of a base. Well, I get it if no one else does!
But probably the greatest use the "viewing" audience gets out of Sprout late at night is its usefulness at lulling children to sleep and keeping them from being in the sometimes scary darkness. While I understand this, I wonder a little whether or not that's such a wise idea, at least in the long run. After all, while their brains are growing and developing in complexity at this early age, don't young children need to learn how to come to grips with natural fears, such as the normal fear of the dark? I know I did, but I wonder whether I would have adjusted as well had I had soothing television programming like that offered on Sprout.
Sprout is now my current default channel, when I've run out of reasonably interesting programming on the others. I recommend it to anyone regardless of their age, not because it is intellectually stimulating or terribly exciting (it is neither). No, watch it for its good vibes! One warning, though: you stand a risk of being overcome by its excruciating cuteness.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Doing Endeavors Whenever, Wherever
The late, very prolific writer Isaac Asimov once wrote that he was always writing (when awake, that is), even when he wasn't physically producing some text. While simply going about his daily life, he would come up with ideas and could plan out stories in advance and in pretty good detail. And with his extraordinary memory, he would often do this and then later sit down and type out what he had conceived.
Although I possess neither the memory nor the writing talent of Dr. Asimov, I do think there is something here of universal application. For if I am involved in an endeavor of any significance, I will need to make it something that I can engage in, at least to some degree, at any time or place I find myself in.
Take running, for example. If it's the middle of summer (which can get unbearably hot here in Florida) I can choose to run in the early morning hours around 1 or 2 AM if I like. I feel uncomfortable running up and down public streets at this time, but I do have a reasonably-sized back yard that I can run around for indefinite periods of time. I don't need to tailor my running for when the YMCA treadmill is available either. But of course, if I find myself wanting to run and the YMCA is open, then I can surely avail myself of that opportunity.
Practicing piano is another area. I don't need to physically be sitting at the piano in my house to make progress here. I own a portable keyboard that I can lug around to other places, even possibly carrying it in my car. But even without a keyboard, I can study music theory, as well as various pieces that I am practicing. I can also imagine a keyboard in front of me and try playing different pieces (of course without the helpful audio feedback of a real keyboard).
Or take studying Chinese. I have a small MP3 that I carry around with me in my pocket. On it are several Chinese language podcasts. Also, I am memorizing a rather lengthy list of Chinese characters that I can review at any time, either by writing them down or by visualizing them. If opportunities for speaking with Chinese speakers arise, then so much the better.
I can extend this idea to other areas as well. The point is to deeply convince myself of an endeavor's importance by making it something to do whenever and wherever I decide to do it. This makes it a priority and facilitates learning, retention, motivation, and ultimately, greater progress. Of course, I can't be engaging myself with too many different endeavors at one time, either. After all, Asimov was an admitted fanatic about his writing!
Although I possess neither the memory nor the writing talent of Dr. Asimov, I do think there is something here of universal application. For if I am involved in an endeavor of any significance, I will need to make it something that I can engage in, at least to some degree, at any time or place I find myself in.
Take running, for example. If it's the middle of summer (which can get unbearably hot here in Florida) I can choose to run in the early morning hours around 1 or 2 AM if I like. I feel uncomfortable running up and down public streets at this time, but I do have a reasonably-sized back yard that I can run around for indefinite periods of time. I don't need to tailor my running for when the YMCA treadmill is available either. But of course, if I find myself wanting to run and the YMCA is open, then I can surely avail myself of that opportunity.
Practicing piano is another area. I don't need to physically be sitting at the piano in my house to make progress here. I own a portable keyboard that I can lug around to other places, even possibly carrying it in my car. But even without a keyboard, I can study music theory, as well as various pieces that I am practicing. I can also imagine a keyboard in front of me and try playing different pieces (of course without the helpful audio feedback of a real keyboard).
Or take studying Chinese. I have a small MP3 that I carry around with me in my pocket. On it are several Chinese language podcasts. Also, I am memorizing a rather lengthy list of Chinese characters that I can review at any time, either by writing them down or by visualizing them. If opportunities for speaking with Chinese speakers arise, then so much the better.
I can extend this idea to other areas as well. The point is to deeply convince myself of an endeavor's importance by making it something to do whenever and wherever I decide to do it. This makes it a priority and facilitates learning, retention, motivation, and ultimately, greater progress. Of course, I can't be engaging myself with too many different endeavors at one time, either. After all, Asimov was an admitted fanatic about his writing!
Friday, May 1, 2009
GOP's Heavy Ideology a Mistake
A few months ago, I had the opportunity to view Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention. Goldwater represented the conservative wing of the GOP and had defeated liberal Nelson Rockefeller to win the presidential nomination. The acceptance speech, though, was bizarre, full of ideology and divisive language. It must have made the same impact on the voters at that time that it made on me, for Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson in the general election by one of the biggest landslides ever.
Nowadays, I'm hearing the same kind of ideological talk emanating from the Republicans. There are ideologues on the left as well, but these are not part of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which seems to have been transformed into the party of pragmatism.
After the 1964 debacle, the Republican Party abandoned ideology as its driving force and presented more pragmatic leaders, like Michigan Governor George Romney and former Vice-President Richard Nixon. By the 1968 election, the GOP had reinvented itself and was able to win back the presidency, largely by emphasizing issues of popular concern like law and order and ending the Vietnam War.
Today, though, the Republicans seem to be going in the opposite direction. They seem to be going out of their way to pander to the assorted right-wing extremist radio talk show hosts while alienating more moderate Republicans and their supporters. The result: a regional (mainly southern) and heavily ideological party. Should Obama falter during his first term in office, the Republican Party will not be in any sort of position to take back the White House like it did in 1968, in my opinion.
Nowadays, I'm hearing the same kind of ideological talk emanating from the Republicans. There are ideologues on the left as well, but these are not part of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, which seems to have been transformed into the party of pragmatism.
After the 1964 debacle, the Republican Party abandoned ideology as its driving force and presented more pragmatic leaders, like Michigan Governor George Romney and former Vice-President Richard Nixon. By the 1968 election, the GOP had reinvented itself and was able to win back the presidency, largely by emphasizing issues of popular concern like law and order and ending the Vietnam War.
Today, though, the Republicans seem to be going in the opposite direction. They seem to be going out of their way to pander to the assorted right-wing extremist radio talk show hosts while alienating more moderate Republicans and their supporters. The result: a regional (mainly southern) and heavily ideological party. Should Obama falter during his first term in office, the Republican Party will not be in any sort of position to take back the White House like it did in 1968, in my opinion.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
John Nash and Me
I don't hallucinate. I don't think that people around me are all talking about me. I don't think that the people on my TV set can see me. I don't think that conspirators are trying to kill me with microwaves and fluoridated water. I don't think that everyone in the world is waiting with baited breath for the next "big thing" I say or do. I know that I am not Napoleon, Hitler, Jesus Christ, John Lennon, or Albert Einstein. I don't think I'm on a clandestine cloak-and-dagger mission for a secret government agency. I neither have an alternative memory of my life nor alternative personalities embedded within me. I don't think that people are following me or eavesdropping on everything I do or say.
Got all that? Good, now please don't call the folks in the white suits when you read what follows.
The personality of John Nash, as portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie A Beautiful Mind, brings out a high degree of empathy from me. I understand this character, all of his mental illness notwithstanding (remember my first paragraph). For John Nash has a problem: handling the overwhelming, crushing nature of the world and the absurdly complex and manipulative nature of social interaction. Having this problem does not imply schizophrenia: I see it as a combination of two factors.
One, I am very sensitive to what goes on around me. I am painfully attuned with the emotions of those in my environment.
Two, I am much more sensitive to audio input coming in at me from multiple sources than are "normal" people. By that I mean that there are many crowded, bustling, and noisy situations where I can hardly contain the anxiety building up within me while the people around me actually seem almost ecstatic in the midst of this noise. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood before I realized this distinction between others and myself; I'm certain, though, that there are a few other kindred spirits out there who react to these situations as I do.
I can't say what the real John Nash was/is like; I never met him or read the book A Beautiful Mind. All I have to go on is the Ron Howard movie. But if what I've seen there is any clue to Nash's personality, then I can relate to his generally cynical regard for people, his suspicions about the motivations of others, and his tendency to severely judge himself according to standards that he expects no one else to live up to. The schizophrenic element to him and the way that Howard presented it in the movie made the movie more exciting, but it was the more subtle, sane characteristics of his personality that made the greatest impression on me in the long run. And I bet I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Got all that? Good, now please don't call the folks in the white suits when you read what follows.
The personality of John Nash, as portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie A Beautiful Mind, brings out a high degree of empathy from me. I understand this character, all of his mental illness notwithstanding (remember my first paragraph). For John Nash has a problem: handling the overwhelming, crushing nature of the world and the absurdly complex and manipulative nature of social interaction. Having this problem does not imply schizophrenia: I see it as a combination of two factors.
One, I am very sensitive to what goes on around me. I am painfully attuned with the emotions of those in my environment.
Two, I am much more sensitive to audio input coming in at me from multiple sources than are "normal" people. By that I mean that there are many crowded, bustling, and noisy situations where I can hardly contain the anxiety building up within me while the people around me actually seem almost ecstatic in the midst of this noise. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood before I realized this distinction between others and myself; I'm certain, though, that there are a few other kindred spirits out there who react to these situations as I do.
I can't say what the real John Nash was/is like; I never met him or read the book A Beautiful Mind. All I have to go on is the Ron Howard movie. But if what I've seen there is any clue to Nash's personality, then I can relate to his generally cynical regard for people, his suspicions about the motivations of others, and his tendency to severely judge himself according to standards that he expects no one else to live up to. The schizophrenic element to him and the way that Howard presented it in the movie made the movie more exciting, but it was the more subtle, sane characteristics of his personality that made the greatest impression on me in the long run. And I bet I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Senator Specter Switches Parties
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has decided to change his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat, giving the majority party 59 votes (including two pro-Democrat Independents), and 60 once Franken is (ever) sworn in as Minnesota's junior senator. This would give the Democrats (and President Obama) the needed 60 votes needed to defeat Republican stonewalling tactics through their filibustering.
Senator Specter reportedly didn't switch for this reason, though. He recognized that his base of support among Pennsylvania Republicans was with the party's moderates. And many of them switched parties last year. So he knew that he would have a difficult time next year winning his own party's nomination for his Senate seat against a hard-line conservative, former Representative Pat Toomey, who was leading Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans in a recent poll. Specter, as a Democrat, may also have challenges in the primary next year, but his political ideology is not that much different from his Democratic Senate colleague Bob Casey (although Casey is pro-life and Specter pro-choice). I believe that this move was wise on the part of Specter, and the way should be clear now for him to win another term of office.
I have written before of my admiration and support of Arlen Specter. During the Republican period as the Senate majority party, he showed great fairness as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman during a time of intense partisan rancor regarding Bush judicial appointees. My main concern now is for his health, for he has been suffering for some years now from cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma) and has twice had to submit himself to periods of chemotherapy. I wish the best for him, both politically and personally.
Senator Specter reportedly didn't switch for this reason, though. He recognized that his base of support among Pennsylvania Republicans was with the party's moderates. And many of them switched parties last year. So he knew that he would have a difficult time next year winning his own party's nomination for his Senate seat against a hard-line conservative, former Representative Pat Toomey, who was leading Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans in a recent poll. Specter, as a Democrat, may also have challenges in the primary next year, but his political ideology is not that much different from his Democratic Senate colleague Bob Casey (although Casey is pro-life and Specter pro-choice). I believe that this move was wise on the part of Specter, and the way should be clear now for him to win another term of office.
I have written before of my admiration and support of Arlen Specter. During the Republican period as the Senate majority party, he showed great fairness as the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman during a time of intense partisan rancor regarding Bush judicial appointees. My main concern now is for his health, for he has been suffering for some years now from cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma) and has twice had to submit himself to periods of chemotherapy. I wish the best for him, both politically and personally.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Colds, Allergies, and the Swine Flu
All around me, throughout my family, workplace, city, and region, are people with issues concerning coughing, sneezing, and sinus congestion. A lot of this (such as my case) has to do with seasonal allergies. But it seems that, at this late time in April, the cold season has peaked around us as well. And that's awfully unusual, isn't it?
Everyone in my family has coughing and sneezing to contend with. I can't go to a grocery store or a Starbucks where there aren't several people who act "contagious" with their sniffling and coughing. And my recent trips to Jacksonville revealed loads of them.
And now, here we are with a swine flu outbreak, spreading from Mexico. That a flu epidemic can begin in mid-spring is also pretty unusual, isn't it? One wouldn't have to go to Mexico and back in order to spread it around others. Schools are letting out for the summer soon and families will be traveling around to other parts of the country and back. If the swine flu spreads just even a little more by then, we could see a critical situation developing in this country.
Although, in comparison with the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic that killed millions, the fatality rate for this swine flu is relatively low (I've heard the figure of around 4% maximum), it must be taken into account that back in 1918, the first wave of that Spanish flu was also relatively benign. And then it mutated into its deadlier strain and returned with a vengeance.
I don't want to sound like a doomsayer, but this swine flu does have me quite a bit worried. And with so many people around me (loudly) dealing with their colds and allergies, it seems more like winter than spring.
Everyone in my family has coughing and sneezing to contend with. I can't go to a grocery store or a Starbucks where there aren't several people who act "contagious" with their sniffling and coughing. And my recent trips to Jacksonville revealed loads of them.
And now, here we are with a swine flu outbreak, spreading from Mexico. That a flu epidemic can begin in mid-spring is also pretty unusual, isn't it? One wouldn't have to go to Mexico and back in order to spread it around others. Schools are letting out for the summer soon and families will be traveling around to other parts of the country and back. If the swine flu spreads just even a little more by then, we could see a critical situation developing in this country.
Although, in comparison with the 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic that killed millions, the fatality rate for this swine flu is relatively low (I've heard the figure of around 4% maximum), it must be taken into account that back in 1918, the first wave of that Spanish flu was also relatively benign. And then it mutated into its deadlier strain and returned with a vengeance.
I don't want to sound like a doomsayer, but this swine flu does have me quite a bit worried. And with so many people around me (loudly) dealing with their colds and allergies, it seems more like winter than spring.
Monday, April 27, 2009
More Sufjan Stevens, Etc.
A couple of months ago, I discovered the musical artist Sufjan Stevens and have come to appreciate his works. Last week, I bought his 2006 release The Avalanche, which contains ever more good tracks. This album is full of material that Stevens left off his acclaimed Illinois album. I've also heard other songs of his, so I now have some new personal favorites to recommend:
From Enjoy Your Rabbit:
Year of the Monkey
Year of the Rooster
Year of the Dog
Year of the Boar
Year of the Ox
Year of the Tiger
From Michigan:
Flint
For the Widows in Paradise, For the Fatherless in Ypsilanti
Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head
Sleeping Bear, Sault Ste. Marie
From The Avalanche:
The Avalanche (title track)
Dear Mr. Supercomputer
Adlai Stevenson
No Man's Land
The Perpetual Self
Pittsfield
From his Christmas albums:
Jupiter Winter
That Was the Worst Christmas Ever
Star of Wonder
Winter Solstice
And Niagara Falls, from his Michigan Outtakes.
Of the above, I like Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head, Niagara Falls, and Pittsfield the most.
Besides Sufjan Stevens, I've also recently been listening to Andrew Bird and Iron and Wine. Bird is a violinist singer/songwriter based in Chicago. So far I like his songs Heretics, Lull, and Masterfade the most. His lyrics are very clever and thought-provoking. Iron and Wine is actually independent/folk artist Sam Beam from Texas. I haven't been able to obtain much of his material, but I like what I've heard so far: the songs Boy With a Coin, Innocent Bones, Naked As We Came, and Lion's Mane.
I'm developing a good sense of the type of music I enjoy listening to the most and am using AOL Radio and LastFM.com to discover new artists.
From Enjoy Your Rabbit:
Year of the Monkey
Year of the Rooster
Year of the Dog
Year of the Boar
Year of the Ox
Year of the Tiger
From Michigan:
Flint
For the Widows in Paradise, For the Fatherless in Ypsilanti
Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head
Sleeping Bear, Sault Ste. Marie
From The Avalanche:
The Avalanche (title track)
Dear Mr. Supercomputer
Adlai Stevenson
No Man's Land
The Perpetual Self
Pittsfield
From his Christmas albums:
Jupiter Winter
That Was the Worst Christmas Ever
Star of Wonder
Winter Solstice
And Niagara Falls, from his Michigan Outtakes.
Of the above, I like Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head, Niagara Falls, and Pittsfield the most.
Besides Sufjan Stevens, I've also recently been listening to Andrew Bird and Iron and Wine. Bird is a violinist singer/songwriter based in Chicago. So far I like his songs Heretics, Lull, and Masterfade the most. His lyrics are very clever and thought-provoking. Iron and Wine is actually independent/folk artist Sam Beam from Texas. I haven't been able to obtain much of his material, but I like what I've heard so far: the songs Boy With a Coin, Innocent Bones, Naked As We Came, and Lion's Mane.
I'm developing a good sense of the type of music I enjoy listening to the most and am using AOL Radio and LastFM.com to discover new artists.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Gainesville 15K Run and Coverage
I had signed up in advance over the Internet (and paid $30) to run in a 15-kilometer road race west of Gainesville Saturday. As many as 1000 runners were touted as being in the event (divided between 5K, 10K, and 15K runs). But the night before the race, I knew that I was physically feeling too bad to run it. So I skipped it, in my mind counting the $30 fee as a donation to the race's organizers (a non-profit group promoting cancer research). But it did make me feel that it would be better in the future for me to just wait until race day to sign up to run.
The Gainesville Sun was one of the local companies sponsoring this event. So, with its support and the large number of runners, I presumed that they would publish the race's results the next day. I presumed wrong. Although they did have enough space in the paper to publish a lengthy article by someone (once again) claiming that 89.1/WUFT (Gainesville's Public Radio station) plays too much classical music. Which it doesn't. Much of the sports section wasn't about actual sports events, but rather about the NFL Draft (which I couldn't care less about).
But back to the race: when I went to see the race course beforehand, I was told that it was over a 5K course. All three races would start simultaneously. The 5K runners would do one lap, the 10K runners two laps, and the 15K runners three. I drove around the course, which was simply a lot of zigzagging through the neighborhoods in the area.
If I am going to run a 15K road race, I would like the course to be more interesting. And not a matter of running laps! I wasn't there for the race Saturday, but I can imagine how confusing it must have been for the various runners of the three different distances at the lap marker.
In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't run. My body needs to recuperate and I didn't need to tax it any more than necessary. The above criticisms were more annoyances than anything else, so those alone wouldn't have kept me from the race. It's just too bad that my local newspaper once again is displaying its misplaced sense of priorities. Here was a community event with many participants, and for a good cause.
The Gainesville Sun was one of the local companies sponsoring this event. So, with its support and the large number of runners, I presumed that they would publish the race's results the next day. I presumed wrong. Although they did have enough space in the paper to publish a lengthy article by someone (once again) claiming that 89.1/WUFT (Gainesville's Public Radio station) plays too much classical music. Which it doesn't. Much of the sports section wasn't about actual sports events, but rather about the NFL Draft (which I couldn't care less about).
But back to the race: when I went to see the race course beforehand, I was told that it was over a 5K course. All three races would start simultaneously. The 5K runners would do one lap, the 10K runners two laps, and the 15K runners three. I drove around the course, which was simply a lot of zigzagging through the neighborhoods in the area.
If I am going to run a 15K road race, I would like the course to be more interesting. And not a matter of running laps! I wasn't there for the race Saturday, but I can imagine how confusing it must have been for the various runners of the three different distances at the lap marker.
In retrospect, I'm glad I didn't run. My body needs to recuperate and I didn't need to tax it any more than necessary. The above criticisms were more annoyances than anything else, so those alone wouldn't have kept me from the race. It's just too bad that my local newspaper once again is displaying its misplaced sense of priorities. Here was a community event with many participants, and for a good cause.
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.
**************************************************
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.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, April 24, 2009
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.
--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.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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).
....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).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
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!"
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!"
Monday, April 20, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
