Devil's Millhopper Visit

This past Thursday, I drove over the two miles from my home to where Devil's Millhopper, a Geological State Park, is located. It is a huge, ancient sinkhole sporting its own special variety of plant life (as opposed to the surrounding land's flora). This is a rather modest, small park, with a $2 parking fee, a small picnic area, and visitor's office in the front. A 0.6 mile nature trail loop (which I naturally had to run) encircles the sinkhole. The bottom of the Devil's Millhopper sinkhole (117 feet deep) can be gradually reached by descending a long, twisting wooden path/stairway. Actually, the descent was quite easy; the walk back up was a killer!

Anyway, here are some pictures I took of my experience.

Baseball Geniuses, Please Explain

I'm sitting in my recliner late in the evening, surfing channels on my television. There are a few baseball games on, although none of them have any of the American League Central Division teams that I'm following. But there was a close National League game involving the St. Louis Cardinals and the Houston Astros. It was the bottom of the ninth, the score was tied 1-1, and the home team Astros were up at bat to try and win the game. The Cardinals pitcher was throwing a lot of balls, even walking a batter. The inning progressed to the point where Houston had runners on first and third with only one out. And then the St. Louis manager did something that leaves me scratching my head (I'm glad I'm not a Cardinals fan).

Remember me telling you that the St. Louis pitcher was having trouble pitching the ball into the strike zone? Well, their manager decided to intentionally walk the next Astro batter, loading the bases with one out. Yeh, I understand that only the runner at third counted at this stage of the game and that this tactic would give more opportunities for putouts and double plays. But it also had the harmful effect of putting the Cardinal pitcher's back up against the wall. He could no longer afford to walk another Houston batter (or else walk in the winning run for them), and worse, they knew it. So naturally, the next Houston batter came out swinging, since he knew that he would be getting good pitches in the strike zone to hit. And surprise, surprise, he looped a single into shallow centerfield, allowing the winning run to easily cross the plate.

Sometimes I think that these managers simply think too much and end up outwitting themselves. This sort of nonsense usually happens at the end of close games. Deliberately loading up the bases by intentionally walking a batter is only useful if both (1) first base is the open base (thereby creating a very viable double play scenario) and (2) the pitcher is confidently throwing strikes and is having no control problems. Or, if a particularly dangerous, clutch hitter like Derek Jeter (of the Yankees) is up at bat (better having him as a base runner instead of a batter in this situation). None of these conditions existed for this game, so I'm really not sure what the St. Louis manager was thinking.

Hotheads: Avoid Twitter!

It may be time to consider the potential for harm with Twitter, the booming Internet short-message site. Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa recently "tweeted" a couple of nasty comments about President Obama's "sightseeing" tour of Paris. The President was on an official trip to commemorate the June 6, 1944 D-Day landing of the Allies on the coast of Normandy, France during World War II. One might have thought that Grassley, a major-league flag waver and approver of just about anything promoting war, would have been on the President's side in this matter. Instead, he angrily (and almost incoherently) commented on Twitter that Obama thought he was a "hammer" and that Grassley and other senators were "nails". You see, Grassley is angry, angry, angry, because this very active president is prodding the Senate to act on health care. Had Senator Grassley not had this "instant" medium to spew out his wrath, he might have let matters cool down by waiting a while. But now, the already short-tempered senator has made the news with his ridiculous, anger-inspired remarks on Twitter. Also, Grassley needs to become reconciled to the fact that Obama is now the President (something many Republicans seem to have a problem respecting) and no longer a junior senator that Grassley can feel (and act) superior to.

The Twitter phenomenon is just a high-tech manifestation of what can happen to any of us in our daily walk through life. For during the course of a day, many things can happen to anger us and cause us to speak or act out of anger. The results could last much longer than the few seconds that brought on the reaction. And even ruin a career, destroy relationships, and bring on personal peril.

I brought this up because I myself have a tendency to speak impulsively out of anger. Almost always, when this happens, I come away from whatever incident provoked my angry reaction much more upset with my own reaction to it than with the cause. I've seen Senator Grassley before display his short temper, be it on the Senate floor, on a committee, or talking to the press. Twitter really isn't a very positive mode of communication for such a "hothead". If he opposes genuine, meaningful health care reform in this country, he needs to come up with a more effective political strategy than pitching fits on Twitter!

Sick? Stay Home!

Recently, in my local newspaper, was an article about a girl who had just graduated from high school. Her great accomplishment? She had gone all the way from kindergarten through her senior year in high school with a perfect attendance record, including never missing school due to illness. Sure, the article pointed out, she was sick from time to time, but went to school anyway on those occasions.

I've read this sort of article before, where a student pulls off this supposedly heroic attendance feat. And each time, I groan, wondering how many other students were infected by one of these "great attenders" over the course of their years in school. For myself, I had numerous illnesses, especially during elementary school. Some of them, like chicken pox, measles, mumps, and flu, were highly infectious. I don't count it as a mark of personal shame that I missed out on school during those times.

Even though I often didn't like school, I still wanted even less to miss it because of sickness. I came down with the flu at the end of the sixth grade, totally missing out on the last few days I would have had at my old elementary school (I'm 52; there wasn't a "middle school" yet). And I missed two weeks at the close of my senior year in high school, also due to flu. I also was hospitalized due to surgery earlier that year and missed school for a few days.

I don't see any virtue in compiling a perfect attendance record at school. But this sort of mania about attendance can also transfer to workplaces, many of which give out annual awards to employees who never call in sick. And as is the case with school, I know from personal experience that many of these employees come to work sick and make others sick! In this age of pandemics, can we still afford to carry on with this counterproductive mindset about attendance?!!

AL Central Hard to Follow

In an earlier article, I wrote about my decision to change how I follow Major League Baseball this year. Instead of following the home state teams (along with the Braves and Yankees), I instead chose to concentrate my attention on the five teams of the American League Central Division. As it happens, I probably chose the division with the least exposure in the national media.

After the first game I saw this year, which introduced me to the Chicago White Sox and their players, I haven't been able to watch a full game with any of the other teams. I was able to catch small segments of games involving the Cleveland Indians and Minnesota Twins, but not complete games.

The other day, I was watching the disappointing MLB Channel (too many highlights and analysis, not enough actual games). And lo and behold, they were showing a game involving the Detroit Tigers, which I hadn't been able to see play so far this year. It was an exciting game (tied in extra innings), and the Tigers pulled out a victory. But I later discovered that this was an old American League Championship Series game rebroadcast from many years earlier.

The MLB Channel keeps putting on old "classic" games like that. The problem I have with this is that I want to watch games that are happening NOW, please. Like, how are THIS YEAR'S Tigers doing (I heard they were leading the division)?

It's been harder for me to find baseball games, both on TV and radio, than I had expected. It seemed to be, at least in the past, that I was always unintentionally stumbling across a game when surfing TV or tuning the radio dial. Now it seems that the sources for that programming have dried up somewhat. Well, maybe that's not so bad; after all, I don't really want to spend my entire existence watching or listening to baseball games!

Beck and Scientology

During this current "retro" period of my lifelong odyssey through popular music listening, my interests have fallen upon certain musical artists, one of them being Beck (Beck Hansen). He first achieved nationwide fame in 1993 with his quirky single Loser and followed that with several critically-acclaimed albums, most famous of which were Odelay and Sea Changes. Through the years, though, my only exposure to his works came via radio play. So I've missed out on the great body of work that this talented artist has produced. Recently, besides obtaining CDs of his, I have watched some of his videos on YouTube.

In the comments section under one of the Beck videos, someone had written of being a big Beck fan until hearing that he followed Scientology. Now that person won't listen to his music anymore (I suppose that (s)he accessed that particular video not to watch it, but to deliver the negative comment).

I have heard of several celebrities involved with Scientology, most famous of which are Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Isaac Hayes, and (now) Beck. As a collective group, I have found these people to be much more professional in their work and poised and gracious in their behavior toward others than are others in their fields. These are not the sort of people who get arrested for drugs, DUI's, or violent crimes. But be that may, the media nevertheless seems to have stigmatized them just because of their membership in this offbeat religion.

It's one thing to criticize some aspects of a religion; it's another to stigmatize people because they follow that religion. But I suppose that if that individual wants to reject Beck because he has followed Scientology, then so be it. I suppose I could get mired into a discussion on the relative pros and cons of this religion, but then I would be digressing from the main point of this article, which is to defend Beck.

I will say this, though: a lot of what followers of more mainstream faiths have against Scientology are present in their own religions, but they are blind to this. And those whose religions preach exclusivity (only through THEIR doctrine can an individual attain salvation, and all others are condemned) will naturally frown upon ANY outside faith. Although I personally have no interest in Scientology, I respect the rights of others in society to come to their own conclusions about it and won't ostracize anyone who subscribes to its beliefs.

I think Beck is a great artist and am coming to more fully appreciate the depth and beauty of his music. To make his Scientology connections a litmus test for whether or not I listen to him makes no sense to me. I have no problem with various religions coming under scrutiny and being criticized. I do have a (very big) problem with followers of various religions being stigmatized for their beliefs.

Beirut's Song: In the Mausoleum

Above is a video of one of my favorite bands: Beirut, led by singer/songwriter/multi-instrumentalist Zach Condon. Beirut is greatly influenced by French, East European and Mediterranean music. This track is from the recent The Flying Club Cup CD. Following the recording of the CD, each track thereof was performed again by Beirut and filmed by the group La Blogothèque at different locations in Brooklyn, New York. You can access the other videos from the website Flying Club Cup.

A Dog's Plea

[Author unknown; probably a pretty smart dog, though]Treat me kindly, my beloved friend, for no heart in all the world is more grateful for kindness than the loving heart of me.

Do not break my spirit with a stick, for although I should lick your hand between blows, your patience and understanding will quickly teach me the things you would have me learn.

Speak to me often, for your voice is the world’s sweetest music, as you must know by the fierce wagging of my tail when your footsteps fall upon my waiting ear.

Please take me inside when it is cold and wet, for I am a domesticated animal, no longer accustomed to bitter elements. I ask no greater glory than the privilege of sitting at your feet beside the hearth. Keep my pan filled with fresh water, for I cannot tell you when I suffer thirst.

Feed me clean food that I may stay well, to romp and play and do your bidding, to walk by your side and stand ready, willing and able to protect you with my life, should your life be in danger.

And, my friend, when I am very old, and I no longer enjoy good health, hearing and sight, do not make heroic efforts to keep me going. I am not having any fun. Please see that my trusting life is taken gently. I shall leave this earth knowing with the last breath I draw that my fate was always safest in your hands.
******************************************
Actually, the above "A Dog's Plea" adorned the wall at my local veterinarian, whom I visited yesterday. I found a copy on the Internet, and the author is apparently unknown. I thought the text really captured the essence of what it's like to have a wonderful, loving dog as a pet. Our household has two: Cuddles and Freckles (pictured).

Self-Esteem, Aspirations, and Obligations

Having spent my formative adolescent years in the seventies (actually, I thought I had pretty much figured everything out about life by the time I was eight and man, was I wrong), I was immersed in the burgeoning self-esteem movement. And what, you may ask, was that? Well this is (and thank you for asking) the idea that, more than anything, people, especially the young, have to be treated as special, unique individuals whose choices in life are all good, as long as it's THEIR choices. Who's to say what's good or not? And their enthusiasm and creativity mustn't be squelched in any event.

So, the way I see it, my obligation to society isn't just to follow the rules, responsibly take care of my family and myself, and to show charity and benevolence to others. Now I'm expected to chart out and live my own "unique" path, dazzling others with my creativity and personal pizazz. Did others before the 1970s feel this burden on themselves? Maybe, but not to the degree that folks nowadays generally do.

I think it's great to hear when my friends and family accomplish interesting things in their lives. I hope that they are possibly feeling the same about me whenever I occasionally do a "good work". But I think that I still pretty much subscribe to John Lennon's Watching the Wheels message instead of being a terribly busy type.

Perhaps you fail to make the connection with the "self-esteem" movement and the pressure to conform to an expanded idea of living a self-fulfilled life. But any good idea (and self-esteem is a good idea) can be twisted into something that is counterproductive. That all of us, as unique individuals, are innately worthy and have something to say certainly sounds great on the surface. But if you were to extrapolate from this the notion that society EXPECTS us to express that "something" through our works, then self-esteem does become a burden of sorts.

I can't begin to count the times someone has told me that I was smart (or even a genius) as an introduction to berating me for not putting my supposed higher intelligence to better use. Looking around and comparing myself with the people in my life, I don't see myself as being especially smart, but I don't think that I'm stupid, either. I do want to improve myself in some areas and would like to realize whatever potential I do have. And receive recognition for it. But I can't fall into the trap, at this age of mine (52), of judging the value of my own life by others' perceptions of how well I have been using my talents to serve society.

Let's just say that I have my aspirations, and that I am careful to keep those separated from my obligations. I have enough self-esteem both to feel hopeful for my future progress in the areas I have mapped out for self-improvement, as well as to reject any negative criticism from others for "not doing enough".

Retro-Music Again

From late 1990 until early 1995, I was deeply immersed in rediscovering famous musical acts by purchasing and listening to their albums, including "deep" tracks I had never heretofore heard. The triggering event for this occurred with the release of Led Zeppelin's first box set late in 1990, and a local radio station's (103.7/WRUF) playing of the entire set on the air. Sitting there listening to songs I had never heard, I realized what an incredibly talented and creative band this was. And for the next two years, I got to know every Zeppelin tune out there and became quite fanatical about their music.

I still listened to music on radio then, as it had not yet deteriorated in quality to the sad state that it's in today. But my focus was on Led Zeppelin and, later, other artists such as Rush, the Moody Blues, the Police, Yes, and REM. I call this period of time my "retro" period for my interest in past works. After 1995, although I would discover some old work from time to time, I returned to radio listening as my primary source of popular music.

Not that there weren't some times that the quality of music on the radio had dipped a lot. But in 2003, I discovered the genre of independent/alternative music, which was played on a local station (100.5 WHHZ "The Buzz"). And from then until the end of 2007, that music (and that station) was my primary focus for listening. But in 2008, WHHZ abandoned playing independent artists and copied the mainstream rock of 103.7/WRUF. That left me fumbling around the dial for ANYTHING that didn't sound like garbage (and there were some good songs out there, to be perfectly honest).

Earlier this year, I was listening to AOL Radio, on their Indie Rock Mix station. I heard a string of great songs which I had never heard before. One of them, Chicago by Sufjan Stevens, was actually from 2005. I then devised a method for investigating newly discovered musical acts. I went to YouTube and did a search on Sufjan Stevens. The result was a plethora of videos (mostly unofficial) of his music. As I listened through them, I was impressed to the same degree that I was eighteen years earlier with Led Zeppelin. So I began to personally amass his collected works, which comprise six albums (plus five Christmas albums) and put them on my MP3 for personal listening. At the same time, I went to LastFM.com and placed the name Sufjan Stevens in their search engine. The result? A radio station ("Sufjan Stevens Radio") that played artists similar to Stevens. In this way I discovered several other great artists, such as Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Beirut, Broken Social Scene, Metric, and Jose Gonzalez. I also became more interested in looking into the past works of alternative acts like Death Cab For Cutie, Beck, Arcade Fire, and the unfortunately-named New Pornographers.

So my musical interest is almost entirely concerned with the past works of this new generation of independent/alternative musical artists. The main differences between this "retro period" and the one in the early 1990s are that radio then was still listenable, radio now generally isn't, and (most of all) I have a great system on my computer, using AOL Radio, YouTube, and LastFM.com, to generate music suited precisely to my tastes.

I sometimes wonder to myself why my musical tastes have centered around the above artists. And I think I may have part of the answer. On my MP3 that has these artists on it, I also have selected Beatles songs that I like a lot (like Eleanor Rigby, Hello/Goodbye, and All You Need Is Love). When I am listening to this MP3 player (on "shuffle" mode), the Beatles songs fit in seamlessly with all of the rest! And thus my hypothesis, which follows.

In 1970, I was saddened by the breakup of the Beatles. Like many others, I searched the airwaves for similar-sounding replacements. Even the solo former Beatles all seemed to diverge from the band's former sound (especially Paul McCartney). And now I feel that the acts I have discovered have that same "something" that the Beatles had: the only difference is that these acts aren't being idolized on a mass scale as were the "Fab Four". Exception: Iron and Wine reminds me more of an acoustic Led Zeppelin than of the Beatles.

How long will this current "retro" period last? Well, that depends a lot on whether or not radio can present a better choice of programming formats. And whether or not at least one of those stations will play independent/alternative music.

Hardliner Heels

There seems to be a certain segment of society containing people who will always demand the most serious punishment for transgressors of the law and the most serious consequences for those whose lifestyles and politics differ from theirs.

After the horrific attack on the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, these people came out of the woodwork, with some even clamoring for the United States to drop nuclear bombs on unfriendly predominantly Muslim countries. This was Ann Coulter's "shining" moment, when she actually said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In this climate, desperate fear called for desperate measures, and our sad national chapter of detainee torture ensued.

Another "emergence" of this viciousness occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign when John McCain and/or Sarah Palin would be speaking to a crowd of supporters and, when reference was made to opponent Barack Obama, someone in the crowd would yell out "traitor!", or worse, "kill him!"

And now we have the case of the abortion physician who was murdered within his own church in Kansas. How many of these hardliners publicly denounce the murder but privately approve?

So we don't have to go to totalitarian or authoritarian countries like Iran or North Korea to discern a mean-spirited segment of the population who make a pointed effort to impose their intolerance on the rest of society. The vicious "do-gooders" abound here as well. We may think we live in a free society, and maybe compared to most other countries, we do. But I believe that, should our personal freedoms we cherish so become restricted, it will much more likely be due to homegrown, all-American hardliners than to any foreign threat.

Fading Into Obscurity vs. Big Brother Paranoia

With the increasingly intrusive Internet pervading our lives, I at least am developing a feeling that my privacy has diminished considerably over the years. Sure, I freely choose to write this blog and send it out, with my name on it, to anyone with Internet access to read. But with the technology as developed as it is, just about any "click" I make on the computer over the Web is traceable back to me and can be used to create a profile, at least one regarding the collective use of my computer (which my whole family uses at various times). I wonder whether everyone else really understands how little privacy they have on the Internet? But this loss of privacy, I believe, is quite different in nature than, say, someone sneaking a peak into your house or listening to your phone conversations.

We may all be leaving bits of information in our wake as we wander through the Internet, but this is all being done simultaneously worldwide on such a massive scale that the information we unwittingly spread around about ourselves only reaches anyone's attention after much filtering. The nightmare scenario I see in this is in the future, when someone may be applying for a job and is confronted with his/her record in Internet usage. Hopefully, our elected politicians and our judges will be attentive to this and prevent it from happening through protective laws. But I wouldn't count on it.

I know an elderly gentleman (in his eighties) who was so concerned about his lack of privacy that he had his television cable service ended after he found out that the cable companies could tell which channel he was watching (using sweep analyzers). I tried to tell him that the cable company was only trying to catch those who were stealing cable service and couldn't care less what channel he was watching, but the fear persisted with him nevertheless.

Which brings me to the point of this article. In an individual's life, what is worse: being disregarded and ignored as a nobody, or knowing that some people out there are prying into your personal life? My answer, which is becoming increasingly clear to me as I age, is the former.

Information is so dispersed in our society nowadays that anyone clamoring to be seen or heard and go to extreme lengths to accomplish this and still be generally ignored. And that includes the more talented writers, artists, and scholars. Not only is this so for the living, but the greats of the past are sinking progressively deeper into the chasms of obscurity. The fact that their books and music still adorn the shelves of stores means little; there is so much to choose to pay attention to that they are also left behind in the collective mass of material.

Isaac Asimov, a very extroverted soul who never had a problem against promoting himself, wrote five hundred books in his lifetime, until his death in 1992. Now, seventeen years later, I rarely can find more than just a handful of books by him in bookstores. He is just one example of how quickly one's legacy can diminish over a very short time. Yet we are also living in a time when his works are preserved and available to the (fewer and fewer) people who want to read them!

So what legacy do I want to have? Do I want to be so invisible throughout the one life I have that no one other than my immediate family and acquaintances is even aware of my passing when I do die? Or should I realize that I might as well just go all out and make a damned public fool of myself, since no one (except possibly those same family members and acquaintances) could really care less anyway? And leave behind a relatively permanent (though probably unexamined) record of my writings and other creative output? Well, I think I've already answered my own questions with this blog. And this is just the beginning!

Cheney Grimaces Out

I'm all in favor of former Vice-President Dick Cheney speaking out now in criticism of President Obama and his policies regarding terrorist suspect/detainees, the Guantanamo Bay facility, and torture. In interview after interview (so far I've heard he's done ten), Cheney has been accusing the President of making this country more susceptible to attack with his policies.

It's clear to me that, by going through the media with his complaints instead of voicing them directly to Obama, Cheney is preparing to reap political benefits for himself and the Republicans by playing the "I told you so" card when or if a terrorist attack is launched against this country or its interests abroad in the future. This is quite different from George W. Bush's first weeks in office in 2001, when former Clinton Administration officials PRIVATELY urged Bush and his minions to be very attentive to the serious terrorist threat that Al-Qaeda presented to the United States. Now that was the true "I told you so" scenario!

So, with this in mind, why do I still favor Cheney speaking out this way? For one simple reason: it puts out, as the face of the Republican Party, one of the least popular Vice-Presidents in the history of this nation. If not THE least popular. Wait, I do think that Aaron Burr, who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, still can claim that title. Cheney is unwittingly joining forces with Rush Limbaugh to depict the GOP as an extremist, dishonest, and negative party, an image that stands to hurt it in future elections.

During the span of the nineties, former Defense Secretary Cheney defended former President George H.W. Bush's decision not to fully invade and occupy Iraq after liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. But just a few years later, Cheney endorsed the full, unprovoked invasion of Iraq and even had the gall to tie Iraq with Al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attack. And we are left with many more Americans killed for that action (and untold more innocent Iraqis) than the already outrageous three thousand deaths from the terror attacks on 9/11.

I also believe that Cheney may be trying to lay the groundwork for avoiding any war crimes charges in the future, either domestically or internationally. Not to mention that, like most politicians at this level, he has an inflated ego and wants to paint his own legacy regarding his tenure as Vice-President.

Funny though, I don't recall Cheney giving this many interviews while he was actually Vice-President! I'd like to see whether someone has some statistics in this regard.

But I'm sounding awfully negative about the former Vice-President, and he does have some positive traits as well. Especially the fact that, with his unpleasant, grimacing countenance, he has still managed to claw himself to positions of power and influence. Wait, that doesn't really sound so positive, does it?

Now, despite my political objections to Dick Cheney and my belief that he has been less than honest in his statements, I also have a "civics" spirit and recognize that whoever held the office of Vice-President for the previous eight years deserves a modicum of respect. But only for the office, not the individual occupying it. So I am much more receptive to Cheney defending his tenure as VP than I am for him to spew out all sorts of criticisms against the present administration. Former President George W. Bush, at least to this point, has shown much more decorum and dignity in this regard.

Focusing on American League Central

I have had a great deal of difficulty getting up any enthusiasm for Major League Baseball this year, even when I have a tradition of rooting for two teams (Atlanta Braves and New York Yankees), as well as having the Florida Marlins and the Tampa Bay Rays based in my home state. So I decided to do something radically different about it.

Instead of concerning myself about the 30 teams in the American and National Leagues or living or dying by how "my team" is doing, I decided to focus on one division in one league, without giving preference to any one particular team in that division. I deliberately picked out one that didn't have any of my aforementioned "favorites" in it, too. The choice? The American League Central division, with its five teams Chicago White Sox, Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Kansas City Royals, and Minnesota Twins. My aim is to watch any game that is available on TV (during my "free" time, of course) involving any of them (or on the radio, for that matter). I want to become familiar with each team's players and their positions, something that I haven't done too well in recent years. As far as who I will root for in a particular game is concerned, here is my policy: if an AL Central team is playing outside of their division, I will root for that Central team. Even if the opponent is one of my old-time favorites. If two Central Division teams are playing each other, then I root for the defensive (pitching and fielding) team in each half-inning. This way, I believe that I will be more involved in games as they are going on and less with the more extraneous trapping of the sport (like statistics, standings, and steroids).

I already have had an opportunity to try this new "system" out, as the Chicago White Sox just recently played a televised road game with the Los Angeles Angels, thoroughly beating them 17-3. In watching the game, I got to know the White Sox lineup, some of which were present during their World Series Championship run of 2005.

Oh yes, this is gonna be fun!

Leisure is Important

In my hectic life, I live (and die) by the clock. At least, I think my life is hectic (sometimes). And I (sometimes) live by the clock. Truth be told, I abhor being held to tight schedules and deadlines. Having free, open time lying ahead of me is something I cherish. Not that I always take advantage of that time to do something self-fulfilling. Sometimes doing nothing can be rewarding!

I look at other people and their lifestyles and I wonder why they choose to allow themselves to be so boxed in with their time. Some appear to have the notion that always being busy, busy, busy is a virtue. I've even known a couple of colleagues who have regularly, voluntary forgone work breaks, and not because there was crucial work to do either. They either don't know how to chill out for even just a few minutes or they equate rest and/or leisure with laziness.

One of my new all-time favorite songs is a sad, introspective song by Sufjan Stevens that he put on his The Avalanche album. Titled Pittsfield (after an Illinois town), the lyrics reveal an individual whose childhood was less than idyllic; apparently, a parent or guardian would put in long working hours away from home and then guilt-ride him (while he was still a child) about his perceived laziness:

You can remind me of it that I was lazy and tired
You can work all your life as I'm not afraid of you anymore

As adults of course, we need to be responsible regarding our obligations to ourselves, our dependents, and the society at large. But this doesn't imply that we should beat ourselves down with work, as if we are paying penance for simply being alive! And worse, using our perception of our own "virtue" to put down others.

Once, I was having (I thought) a light conversation with one of my co-workers. I mentioned that I liked to go the theme parks with my family and ride roller coasters. To which he replied that, yes, he used to like those sorts of things, but he's grown up now and has gone on to more important things. He didn't say this in meanness toward me; he really believed that, at his age (he was about 10-15 years younger than me) that engaging in fun, leisure activities was immature and irresponsible. I hope that this individual, who since left to work elsewhere, will "grow up" out of this potentially self-destructive delusion (well, I think it's a delusion). For occasionally breaking away from tight schedules and enjoying some leisure activity (or inactivity) is important for our health, both mental or physical. And I don't have to be a physician to know that: I have lived it, and have seen this in others as well!

A Tale of Two MP3 Players

Back in early 2007, I began to load my new Philips MP3 player with my all-time favorite songs. Eventually, I amassed more than 200 of these, most of which I have listed as all-time favorites in earlier blog articles. And I would take this MP3 with me to work and happily listen to them!

Late last year, I bought a Sansa MP3 player with more memory space (but occupying much less physical space). I hadn't put too many songs on it until this year, when I discovered several great independent/alternative acts (like Sufjan Stevens, Andrew Bird, Iron and Wine, Metric, and Broken Social Scene). And this MP3 player is loaded with their works (although it is rather incomplete, it still has 300+ songs on it). It is this player, not the former with my all-time favorites, that I have regularly been listening to.

One day last week, I accidentally left the Sansa MP3 player at home and was left with the options of listening to my "all-time favorites" or nothing at all. Of course, I tried out the old Philips MP3 playlist, thinking that it would be fun to hear the old classics again. I didn't expect what happened.

I could only listen to my old MP3 a few minutes before I had to turn it off! Why? The songs that I had come to love through the years were grating on my ears and sounded almost strange in their dissonance. Sure, I knew all of them almost by heart from earlier repetitive listening, but my tastes had drastically changed over the past three months.

In February this year, I began to refine my exposure to the enormous variety of music available by using the Internet. Specifically, AOL Radio and LastFM.com, which sets up personalized radio stations based on preferred artists. On AOL Radio, I listened to their Indie Rock station, which introduced me to Sufjan Stevens. From there, I plugged this artist's name into the LastFM setup search engine and generated a station that introduced me to the others that I now enjoy (and greatly prefer) listening to.

So now I have two MP3's: one plays the old favorites and one plays a narrow, Web-defined genre of music that is tailored to my tastes. And I find myself now greatly preferring obscure tracks from obscure albums by obscure artists over my beloved lifetime favorites.

From 1964 to the beginning of 2009, I picked my favorite songs from the pool of music that radio programmers deemed fit to broadcast. Sure, some of those songs were deep tracks from albums, but although the radio didn't play them, they still originated from acts receiving air play. So in a way I was a sort of "musical scavenger" picking my way through material others had left to choose from. In the process, I sometimes made favorites out of songs that were just the best of the sometimes mediocre pool of songs selected for airplay.

But now, with the Internet, I can forge my own tastes and "conjure up" acts that fit them best. Radio has become almost completely irrelevant to me, at least as far as music is concerned!

The time for me to purchase a third MP3 player is approaching, for I have almost filled the second one. I wonder whether the content of the third will be as different in nature from the second (Sansa) as that one is from the first (Philips)?

TV Sports Biased Toward Cavs in Series

I am getting quite tired of the general national media bias being expressed against the National Basketball Association's Orlando Magic in favor of superstar Lebron James and his Cleveland Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference championship series. The Magic, who are leading three games to one, are getting relatively little attention or praise for their success so far. In fact, far more attention was given to Cleveland's one victory, only accomplished through a last-second desperation three-point shot by James. You would think that Cleveland had won the series (and the whole NBA Championship to boot) by dint of that one shot.

After the one Cleveland win, sports announcers on TV were all excited and happy. After Orlando's big THIRD win, they all seem sad, subdued, and worried. They have been quick to pin Cleveland's losses on its own players instead of given the very talented Orlando team the credit that they justly deserve for their victories.

Well, I have a message to all of the so-called sports journalists who ply their trade on television. You don't write the scripts: the players do that! And Lebron James, as good as he is, isn't the whole team, either. He deserves the Most Valuable Player award this year hands down, in my opinion. But his Cleveland Cavaliers? Sure they're a good team; they had the best regular season record in the league this year. And they could well come back and win the series against Orlando. But I have yet to be convinced of their greatness. Certainly they don't deserve the weighted attention that they are getting on the air. At least that's how this admittedly biased pro-Orlando viewer sees it.

Sonia for the Supreme Court

President Barack Obama has chosen Justice David Souter's replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor, a federal appeals court judge from New York. Much is being made of the fact that she is a Latina, with some on the (bitter) right complaining that this was why she was wrongly (to them) picked in the first place. And already the nitpicking against her has commenced, with Fox News and its commentator, former Bush Administration sludge-master Karl Rove, taking the lead. All I heard on the "fair and balanced" channel was a procession of critics to this nomination. So I switched over to MSNBC to hear Andrea Mitchell interview a right-wing legal think tank spokesman rail against it as well. And his number one reason to oppose Obama's nomination? Because it was Obama's nomination!

It may be useful to remind some of these people that Obama is the elected President and will be making nominations for a while, thank you. From what I see of Sonia Sotomayor, she is a very capable, accomplished jurist who will make the Supreme Court a better institution. I wish the best for her confirmation and am keenly interested in seeing whether the Senate Republicans will allow the confirmation to proceed or whether they will decide to decimate their own party by rejecting such a highly qualified candidate from the increasingly politically powerful Hispanic community.

But now I hear that right wing extremist Rush Limbaugh, the de facto leader of the Republican Party and an authority on racist comments (he is a master at making them), has publicly pronounced Judge Sotomayor as being "racist". Now that their "master" has spoken, it will be interesting to see how many Republican senators pander to Limbaugh on this viewpoint!

Planned Running Detour Blocked

As I wrote on April 14, I had a great idea for a personal running course that ran directly past my home. The only problem was that a .46 mile section of it involved running on someone else's possibly private land. Since there were no "no trespassing" signs around, I decided that I would chance running through this stretch, which was directly behind two subdivisions (mine and the one adjacent) which, unfortunately had no connecting street between them. Hence the necessity of taking this detour behind them.

Anyone who knows me well is aware of the sometimes extreme lag time between my expressed desire to do something and me finally getting up off my butt and doing it. But last Tuesday, we were in a freaky weather pattern, very stormy with daytime temperatures dipping into the fifties (this in late May in northern Florida). I thought hey, this is a good opportunity to try out this course, and I set out intrepidly on my adventure. I entered the "mystery stretch" from my own subdivision, running between two homes down a public pathway and then turning west (left). I then ran about .11 mile past the backs of the houses in my subdivision and then encountered a thick patch of trees and brush, blocking any further advance. I couldn't go around it, because there was a drainage canal running parallel to my course, cutting that option off. So I walked into the Mirkwood-like "forest", looking around to find any way through. And then I heard loud barking. I turned to my left and saw a fenced-in back yard to the first house in the next subdivision, with two large, angry dogs growling, barking, and running toward the low fence that separated them from me. Not panicking, I quietly turned around, picked my way through the brush, and backtracked into my own subdivision.

So that option is out. But at least I finally tried it! Actually, I have plenty of good places to run, so perhaps I'm just trying too much to add a little more variety to my routine by exploring new courses in places where they are nonexistent.

Memorial Day Salute

On this year's Memorial Day, I express my appreciation for those Americans who died while protecting their country in all of our armed conflicts, past and present, popular and unpopular. And I wish the best for their survivors, be they fellow soldiers, friends or family.

It takes a special brand of courage to step out into harm's way and be willing to sacrifice oneself for the sake of a mission, or to save a fellow soldier. Many, many more have done this and survived than were killed in action. And many who have survived sustained injuries causing varying degrees of incapacitation to them, some injuries being permanent in effect. To me, they are all heroes and deserve recognition and respect for their service. And we should collectively, as a society, make sure that no combat veteran or his/her family is lacking for a home, food, or medical care. That's the LEAST we can do for these brave men and women!