Wooden Roller Coaster Chatter

While looking at YouTube to see if I could find that long wooden roller coaster I had described before on this blog as being “legendary” (it is Shivering Timbers at Michigan’s Adventure park in Muskegon County, Michigan), I discovered a few others worth that high billing. The most interesting of the bunch is much closer than Muskegon, Michigan: it is The Voyage at Holiday World in Santa Claus, (southern) Indiana (on Christmas Boulevard). Here is the link to a video of that ride. The above picture of The Voyage is from Wikipedia.

I have an annual-pass to Busch Gardens in Tampa, which is much, much closer than is Holiday World. And still it seems like a major ordeal to drive down there (about 130 miles distance from Gainesville). But that’s not all.

I have yet to visit a theme park where the simple act of walking through it isn’t thoroughly exhausting in itself. And in the hot summertime? Forget it! It makes me appreciate even more the single big coaster that Boomer’s of Dania, Florida had (well, I guess Boomer's is kind of like a theme park). If I lived down there I probably would have ridden it more than 100 times by now!

The Movie Star Trek and Its Trick

With the new Star Trek movie, which I recently saw, comes a new departure from reality. We find out over the course of events in the movie that we are experiencing an “alternate” universe of Star Trek, put into play by using the device of time travel through a black hole. Nice ploy. Now, in subsequent Star Trek movies, the writers are free to mess around with this alternate universe, changing ITS course of (fictional/speculative) history with impunity and without any concern as to how it would affect future Star Trek scenarios (especially that of Star Trek: The Next Generation). Any character can now be killed off and any planet destroyed. After all, this is a different universe! As “cheap” as this strategy may seem, it does add a much-needed element of suspense to the series. Now, when Kirk (or Spock or Uhura or McCoy or Scotty or anyone else) is hanging by one hand on the edge of a cliff with his adversary trying to pry it off, we can never be too sure that (s)he’s going to get out of it alive. The writers are also free to write new scenarios regarding the Klingons and Romulans. And they are also free to introduce the Borg and Q, staples of Star Trek: the Next Generation (occurring later on the original Star Trek timescale), earlier in time to allow interaction with Kirk, Spock, and company.

Yes, I generally feel that time travel can often be used as a “cop-out” science fiction trick in that it is all-too-easy to present mind-boggling paradoxes to the viewer. Although this does happen with the 2009 movie Star Trek, it also works to liberate this series from any constraints regarding its adherence to the fictional “Star Trek history”. I say bravo!

Gandhi Statue at UNF

Here is a photo I took today of an interesting statue in the middle of the University of North Florida campus in Jacksonville, Florida. It is of the great twentieth-century Indian non-violent activist Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi.

His example is sorely needed in the midst of today's pervasively bellicose political climate, both domestically and abroad.

Poppy the Jumper and His Sons

One of the recent “light” news events adorning the national news channels was former President George H.W. Bush’s annual birthday sky-diving jump. This year, HLN’s Robin Meade was invited to jump as well, and was then granted an exclusive interview with the former President. I thought it was funny how the other networks covered this event, trying to crop out and marginalize Robin’s presence there.

After the event, “Poppy” Bush, still dressed in his flight gear, stood before the cameras and microphones, flanked on each side by sons George W. Bush and Jeb (I guess Neil didn’t quite count as a son on this occasion). I felt that our last President really looked small and insignificant standing next to his father. But he did seem very comfortable and happy in his retirement! Although I recognize that as President and Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush is ultimately responsible for the failures of his presidency (there were some successes as well), I can see from contrasting how he and other former members of his administration (like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) behave nowadays that he would have been more successful had he been surrounded by a more decent, public-spirited circle in the Oval Office during his tenure.

And then there was Jeb standing there quietly on the other side. While his brother George was making his trademark offhand comedic remarks, Jeb was careful and polite with his comments. No doubt in my mind exists on his future in national politics, like him or not.

Lakers Win NBA Championship

Congratulations to the Los Angeles Lakers for defeating the Orlando Magic four games to one and winning this year's National Basketball Association championship. The Magic did blow two golden opportunities during the series to win games but played poor defense and missed easy shots. Oh well, they're unhappy now. But they exceeded everyone's expectations of how far they would go this year and had a wonderful season. As for Los Angeles, they played the Magic as a complete team (unlike Cleveland with Lebron James and his "cast of extras") in spite of the superstar presence of Kobe Bryant. They deserve all of the accolades they are receiving!

Starting Twitter Anyway

Having just written an article warning about the dangers of Twitter for short-tempered people (like Senator Grassley), and having also identified myself in said article as such a short-tempered person, I naturally decided to screw everything up by signing up on it myself.

For those already thriving on Facebook, Twitter may seem a bit redundant, as Facebook junkies already have a pretty good means of communicating every dinky little trivial thing going on in their lives (and with dinky little trivial pictures). The present (and future) value of Twitter for me depends on how much certain parties use it to dispense information about themselves. So, at least at the beginning, I have confined my "following" to various musical artists I enjoy listening to with the aim of finding out when their next CDs are coming out. I had quick success with this when I read that the Canadian band Broken Social Scene, one of my favorites, is back in the studio recording their next album!

As far as more personal "following" is concerned, I still don't get Facebook, much less Twitter. The way I see it, I say pretty much everything I want to say on this blog. Anyone with Internet access can read it if they want to. And many people who know me know of it, but don't read it. So why should I invest MORE time on other sites trying to reach them, already knowing how apathetic they are??!!

I never was much of a "show and tell" kid in early elementary school. But I do remember some classmates who would regularly get up in front of the class and relate everything that happened to them the previous day, from the moment they got out of bed in the morning to the moment they fell asleep at night. Right or wrong, I instinctively feel uncomfortable with this type of behavior. Which may go a long way toward explaining my current attitude about Facebook and Twitter.

Anyway, with sites like Twitter, I am certain that caution is the best policy!

Weather "Blown"-Casts

Last weekend, I turned on my television and tuned in to the weather station. The forecast was for generally clear-to-partly-cloudy skies, but for Monday there was nothing but rain and storms predicted. So I braced myself for a dark and damp Monday. Come Monday morning, though, I looked at the same channel and saw a forecast of clear skies and sun! But lo, ahead, on Wednesday, it did look quite stormy (to the prognosticators). On Tuesday, that prediction for Wednesday held up. But once again, come Wednesday morning, the outlook was once again for clear sunny skies. But wait, a very rainy Thursday was forecast! Then Thursday morning came around (are you sensing a pattern here?) and the forecast once again was severely changed. And not a drop of rain fell the entire day (leading to my previously reported excursion to Devil's Millhopper).

So this past week, there have been three days (Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday) for which the meteorologists predicted much rain and stormy weather. And each time the forecasts were drastically altered when the actual days arrived.

Which brings me to the question: Since weather forecasts are continually changing as the forecast day approaches, when (if ever) can one come out and they that they "blew it"? I've heard a lot over the past several years about how accurate forecasters are regarding the severity of the upcoming hurricane season. Almost always, these "predictions" are modified as the hurricane season progresses. But isn't that kind of like "cheating"? I mean, if I were watching a football game and one team unexpectedly scored five touchdowns against the other in the first quarter, wouldn't it be a little too late for me to change my bets (if I gambled, that is)? With the weather, shouldn't the term "forecast" be altered to "mid-cast" or "blown-cast" when the target day (or hurricane season, if that's the subject of the forecast) is already upon us and the prediction is being changed?

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.