The only football left in the "2009" season is in the National Football League playoffs. From 32 teams, we are now left with four: Indianapolis Colts, New York Jets, Minnesota Vikings, and New Orleans Saints. My preseason prediction of Baltimore beating Minnesota in the Super Bowl proved wrong this past weekend, with the Ravens making numerous mistakes (including dropping crucial easy passes) in their decisive loss to the Colts, who I guess decided that they actually do want to play football after their shameful decision to forfeit to the Jets in their fifteenth game by putting in the second-string lineup in a close third quarter. But lo and behold, here come the Jets again, and with a vengeance, having dismantled the favored San Diego Chargers. Indianapolis and New York will play their rematch next week with the winner (hopefully the Jets) going to the Super Bowl. In the other conference championship game to be played, Minnesota is pitted against New Orleans. I will be rooting for future Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre's underdog Vikings in this one.
But does it really matter who goes on to win the Super Bowl? I suppose it does if your team is one of those still left. But in the long run, I probably will forget who won this year's championship three or four years down the line. Still, it's fun to pick out a team and root for it, even if I make that decision based on a coin flip or by whose mascot I like the most.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Philip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle
The Man in the High Castle is Philip K. Dick's examination of a alternative history world where the Japanese and Germans have emerged victorious in World War II and the United States has been carved up between the two. The story's setting is the American West, run by Japan, which turns out to be a more more benevolent occupier than the Germans in the American East (there is also a relatively autonomous region in the Rockies). The protagonists (there is no one "standout" character), Japanese and American alike, all consult with the ancient Chinese book I Ching to discern their futures and best strategies for living.
I think that Dick showed how the losing side of a war can adapt to occupation by adopting much of the culture of the victors. That is, to some extent, how the Japanese were able to adjust following their "real" loss in World War II and their relatively benevolent occupation by the Americans and the reconstruction of their political system to conform with Western culture.
In the story is a book, written by a man living in Wyoming (in that aforementioned autonomous region), that espouses an alternative history in which the Allies instead won the war and occupied Japan and Germany. This book, naturally frowned upon by the authorities, becomes an enormous underground hit and, along with the I Ching, is in the possession of the protagonists as well. Eventually, one of them decides to visit the author and discover how he was able to write his "history" in such vivid detail, as if he had actually experienced it himself. And this is revealed at the end, an explanation that is disturbing to no end!
The Man in the High Castle won the esteemed Hugo award in 1963 for best science fiction novel. It impressed me as well, although it is not my favorite alternative history story. That personal honor goes to Stephen Baxter's incredible 2006 novella The Pacific Mystery, which also sets up a world in which the "bad guys" won World War II. I recommend both Baxter's and Dick's very different versions of a world where Nazis run rampant and the protagonists begin to sense that something is not quite right with reality.
I think that Dick showed how the losing side of a war can adapt to occupation by adopting much of the culture of the victors. That is, to some extent, how the Japanese were able to adjust following their "real" loss in World War II and their relatively benevolent occupation by the Americans and the reconstruction of their political system to conform with Western culture.
In the story is a book, written by a man living in Wyoming (in that aforementioned autonomous region), that espouses an alternative history in which the Allies instead won the war and occupied Japan and Germany. This book, naturally frowned upon by the authorities, becomes an enormous underground hit and, along with the I Ching, is in the possession of the protagonists as well. Eventually, one of them decides to visit the author and discover how he was able to write his "history" in such vivid detail, as if he had actually experienced it himself. And this is revealed at the end, an explanation that is disturbing to no end!
The Man in the High Castle won the esteemed Hugo award in 1963 for best science fiction novel. It impressed me as well, although it is not my favorite alternative history story. That personal honor goes to Stephen Baxter's incredible 2006 novella The Pacific Mystery, which also sets up a world in which the "bad guys" won World War II. I recommend both Baxter's and Dick's very different versions of a world where Nazis run rampant and the protagonists begin to sense that something is not quite right with reality.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Tennessee Deserves Better than Kiffin
I have been to Knoxville, Tennessee a few times and thoroughly love the place and its friendly people. As a state university city, its reminds me a lot of my Gainesville. But it also has another, industrial element to it, giving it more of a big-city image. For most of the country, Knoxville is known for being the location of the University of Tennessee, right off the banks of the Tennessee River. And the University of Tennessee is probably most known for its football team and its fans' utter, undying fanaticism.
For decades, Tennessee head football coach Phillip Fulmer has delivered to those fans with strong, competitive Volunteer teams. His long tenure was spotlighted by the unforgettable teams of Peyton Manning in the mid-1990s and a national championship in 1998. They had a great rivalry going with my University of Florida Gators as well, with the seasons of each school often hinging on who won the early-season matchup. In 2007, although the Gators beat Tennessee early on, the Vols still managed to win the Southeastern Conference East Division, quite an accomplishment. But the following year, they had only the second losing season in Fulmer's 17 year stint there and he lost his job. Pretty shabby treatment for someone who was locally so revered that he had a street named after him!
To succeed Fulmer, UT hired Lane Kiffin, whose chief assets were that he was defensive coach Monte Kiffin's son and that he was an assistant coach at USC a few years ago when they won two national championships. But his only head coaching experience had been with the NFL's Oakland Raiders, where he compiled a horrendous 5-15 record before being angrily sacked by that team's owner Al Davis in an infamous press conference.
But Tennessee treated Kiffin as a savior, much in the same manner that Florida had done with Urban Meyer and Alabama with Nick Saban. Football fans can be funny that way; all you need is for "Coach Fix-It" to sign on the dotted line and you're supposed to be good for a string of conference titles and national championships!
Tennessee was so taken by the brash, verbally combative new head coach that, during his first (and it turns out his only) season, they tended to treat close losses as victories. This never happened under Fulmer. Tennessee finished the season at 7-6 and Kiffin was regarded as a great success who turned around their football program. Huh? (Or, in more vulgar terms: WTF?)
As a UF fan, I would have been content to have Lane Kiffin stay with Tennessee and pilot the Vols to more "close" losses to the Gators (while claiming moral victories). But alas, his dream job of coaching his old haunt USC came up and that premier college football school hired him, with his lifetime head coaching record of 12-21 and a trail of angry people trashing him! The job switch happened in a span of hours, and Kiffin naturally took along with him his assistant coaching staff as well (including his father). Tennessee fans deservedly feel betrayed.
But I say to the good folks in Knoxville and beyond who follow the Vols, you deserve better than Lane Kiffin. What you need is a good old-fashioned Phillip Fulmer/Bobby Bowden type who will stay around, be a mentor to his players, and make you proud. And Tennessee football will rebound, let there be no mistaking that. I look forward to the days when the Tennessee/Florida rivalry will once again heat up, with the schools trading victories from year to year.
For decades, Tennessee head football coach Phillip Fulmer has delivered to those fans with strong, competitive Volunteer teams. His long tenure was spotlighted by the unforgettable teams of Peyton Manning in the mid-1990s and a national championship in 1998. They had a great rivalry going with my University of Florida Gators as well, with the seasons of each school often hinging on who won the early-season matchup. In 2007, although the Gators beat Tennessee early on, the Vols still managed to win the Southeastern Conference East Division, quite an accomplishment. But the following year, they had only the second losing season in Fulmer's 17 year stint there and he lost his job. Pretty shabby treatment for someone who was locally so revered that he had a street named after him!
To succeed Fulmer, UT hired Lane Kiffin, whose chief assets were that he was defensive coach Monte Kiffin's son and that he was an assistant coach at USC a few years ago when they won two national championships. But his only head coaching experience had been with the NFL's Oakland Raiders, where he compiled a horrendous 5-15 record before being angrily sacked by that team's owner Al Davis in an infamous press conference.
But Tennessee treated Kiffin as a savior, much in the same manner that Florida had done with Urban Meyer and Alabama with Nick Saban. Football fans can be funny that way; all you need is for "Coach Fix-It" to sign on the dotted line and you're supposed to be good for a string of conference titles and national championships!
Tennessee was so taken by the brash, verbally combative new head coach that, during his first (and it turns out his only) season, they tended to treat close losses as victories. This never happened under Fulmer. Tennessee finished the season at 7-6 and Kiffin was regarded as a great success who turned around their football program. Huh? (Or, in more vulgar terms: WTF?)
As a UF fan, I would have been content to have Lane Kiffin stay with Tennessee and pilot the Vols to more "close" losses to the Gators (while claiming moral victories). But alas, his dream job of coaching his old haunt USC came up and that premier college football school hired him, with his lifetime head coaching record of 12-21 and a trail of angry people trashing him! The job switch happened in a span of hours, and Kiffin naturally took along with him his assistant coaching staff as well (including his father). Tennessee fans deservedly feel betrayed.
But I say to the good folks in Knoxville and beyond who follow the Vols, you deserve better than Lane Kiffin. What you need is a good old-fashioned Phillip Fulmer/Bobby Bowden type who will stay around, be a mentor to his players, and make you proud. And Tennessee football will rebound, let there be no mistaking that. I look forward to the days when the Tennessee/Florida rivalry will once again heat up, with the schools trading victories from year to year.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Haiti's Devastation
A devastating earthquake of magnitude 7.0 struck Haiti, with as many as 28 aftershocks averaging 5.0. It seems that the horrors that have been inflicted on this impoverished nearby little Caribbean nation are being revealed almost exponentially as the media gains greater access to the focus of the catastrophe. Different estimates of fatalities have been given, from as many as 100,000 to even a half million. In a country encompassing only nine million people!
Haiti is so poor that 80% of its GDP is in the form of foreign aid bestowed upon it, according to a Public Radio segment I recently heard. The same source, however, goes on to say that this may be misleading as a moneyless barter system tends to account for much of their domestic economy. But for Haiti to ever climb out of their despair, they need to have a stable, available currency that can enable them to develop the infrastructure necessary for them to exist as a viable country that is friendly to small business development and trade, both domestic and international.
"1-12" probably won't go down in history with the same instant, emotionally arousing effect that "9-11" did. To be sure, "9-11" was the wake-up call that mobilized us to the real, dire threats that terrorism posed to us if left unchecked; earthquakes are, on the other hand, naturally and (seemingly) randomly occurring events that sometimes tragically affect heavily populated areas. Especially heavily populated areas devoid of effective building standards, as is now the case with Haiti.
When I was a little kid in the early 1960s, I would hear references to places like Jamaica and Haiti as vacation paradises. One could travel there, be in exotic surroundings, and be pampered while lounging around on the beautiful beaches. Jamaica still enjoys a vibrant tourism industry, which contributes greatly to its economy. But Haiti has gone down a different path, with corrupt dictators and its military sapping the country's wealth and repelling visitors instead of luring them. Well, for a few years Haiti has enjoyed a very fragile democracy of sorts. This, though, is only a tiny step in the right direction. Things will have to change there on a grand scale in order to turn the country around. But short of a long term international takeover, I don't see this happening.
The 2004 "Christmas" tsunami that killed so many in southeast Asia seemed so far away, on the other side of the world. This earthquake, though, was too close. Especially when you consider that when a hurricane brushes by Haiti, people in south Florida begin to board up their homes and businesses. Yet Haiti and Florida, in spite of their proximity to each other, are in vastly different geologic zones. Or are they really?
Haiti is so poor that 80% of its GDP is in the form of foreign aid bestowed upon it, according to a Public Radio segment I recently heard. The same source, however, goes on to say that this may be misleading as a moneyless barter system tends to account for much of their domestic economy. But for Haiti to ever climb out of their despair, they need to have a stable, available currency that can enable them to develop the infrastructure necessary for them to exist as a viable country that is friendly to small business development and trade, both domestic and international.
"1-12" probably won't go down in history with the same instant, emotionally arousing effect that "9-11" did. To be sure, "9-11" was the wake-up call that mobilized us to the real, dire threats that terrorism posed to us if left unchecked; earthquakes are, on the other hand, naturally and (seemingly) randomly occurring events that sometimes tragically affect heavily populated areas. Especially heavily populated areas devoid of effective building standards, as is now the case with Haiti.
When I was a little kid in the early 1960s, I would hear references to places like Jamaica and Haiti as vacation paradises. One could travel there, be in exotic surroundings, and be pampered while lounging around on the beautiful beaches. Jamaica still enjoys a vibrant tourism industry, which contributes greatly to its economy. But Haiti has gone down a different path, with corrupt dictators and its military sapping the country's wealth and repelling visitors instead of luring them. Well, for a few years Haiti has enjoyed a very fragile democracy of sorts. This, though, is only a tiny step in the right direction. Things will have to change there on a grand scale in order to turn the country around. But short of a long term international takeover, I don't see this happening.
The 2004 "Christmas" tsunami that killed so many in southeast Asia seemed so far away, on the other side of the world. This earthquake, though, was too close. Especially when you consider that when a hurricane brushes by Haiti, people in south Florida begin to board up their homes and businesses. Yet Haiti and Florida, in spite of their proximity to each other, are in vastly different geologic zones. Or are they really?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Crossword Lite
I am a notoriously bad crossword puzzle enthusiast. Not bad in the late Michael Jackson's sense of "good", but bad in the sense of "really crappy"! Usually, I can whip through those "easy" crossword puzzle books I buy from time to time, giving me a false sense of expertise with this genre of diversion. But then I'll come across a Sunday New York Times puzzle and I'm instantly and hopelessly lost, desperately looking for at least ONE clue that I can solve on it. When I was much younger and actually followed prime time television, I could fill out much of the weekly TV-based crossword in TV Guide magazine. But nowadays, forget it!
But all is not lost; help is on the way. In the (incidentally free) Independent Florida Alligator is published the Los Angeles Times daily crossword puzzle. Which I guess is about halfway between the difficulty of the Sunday NY Times and the "easy" puzzles. Then I discovered that the weekday New York Times crossword puzzle, included in the (not free) Gainesville Sun is also much simpler than their Sunday monstrosity.
I am not one of those strange people who look up the answers to the clues that they can't figure out. If I can't solve 42-down, then I'll try to solve the horizontal clues that overlap it. And not completely finishing a puzzle is no big deal, either. I just enjoy the process of "backward thinking" that deriving a term from its oft cleverly constructed description entails. How about you?
I dig crosswords because I can just rip them out of the paper and carry them around with me, working on them during "down" moments when I am waiting in line or during a break in my routine.
When I was a kid, we used to have cruddy crossword puzzles to do at school or in those cheap children's magazines. By "cruddy", I mean crosswords that had squares that weren't covered by both vertical and horizontal words. In these inferior puzzles, one had to just "know" the answer with the minimal help of having only a few vertical/horizontal overlaps. Of course, mitigating against this glaring flaw was the tendency for the puzzles to be mind-bogglingly simple to solve!
My parents were both avid and expert crossword puzzle enthusiasts, having become so adept at the game that they ended up concentrating on the much more difficult "diagramless" puzzles. As a matter of fact it was while looking over their diagramless puzzles as a kid when I first realized that my parents were pretty damned smart!
Not that being a lousy crossword "puzzler" conversely means I'm stupid (or so I try to convince myself). For me, diagramless is "off the table" for now. Weekday newspaper puzzles rule!
But all is not lost; help is on the way. In the (incidentally free) Independent Florida Alligator is published the Los Angeles Times daily crossword puzzle. Which I guess is about halfway between the difficulty of the Sunday NY Times and the "easy" puzzles. Then I discovered that the weekday New York Times crossword puzzle, included in the (not free) Gainesville Sun is also much simpler than their Sunday monstrosity.
I am not one of those strange people who look up the answers to the clues that they can't figure out. If I can't solve 42-down, then I'll try to solve the horizontal clues that overlap it. And not completely finishing a puzzle is no big deal, either. I just enjoy the process of "backward thinking" that deriving a term from its oft cleverly constructed description entails. How about you?
I dig crosswords because I can just rip them out of the paper and carry them around with me, working on them during "down" moments when I am waiting in line or during a break in my routine.
When I was a kid, we used to have cruddy crossword puzzles to do at school or in those cheap children's magazines. By "cruddy", I mean crosswords that had squares that weren't covered by both vertical and horizontal words. In these inferior puzzles, one had to just "know" the answer with the minimal help of having only a few vertical/horizontal overlaps. Of course, mitigating against this glaring flaw was the tendency for the puzzles to be mind-bogglingly simple to solve!
My parents were both avid and expert crossword puzzle enthusiasts, having become so adept at the game that they ended up concentrating on the much more difficult "diagramless" puzzles. As a matter of fact it was while looking over their diagramless puzzles as a kid when I first realized that my parents were pretty damned smart!
Not that being a lousy crossword "puzzler" conversely means I'm stupid (or so I try to convince myself). For me, diagramless is "off the table" for now. Weekday newspaper puzzles rule!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Curse of Conspicuous Consumption
Normally, I like to claim that I am modest...so modest, in fact, that I can usually admit to having just about every personality fault in the world to some extent, if only minor. Of course, you could argue that this is really false modesty, for in doing so, that gives me leverage to talk about the subject as if I were somehow a big expert on it. But there is one "flaw" that I had in early childhood but since early adolescence have pretty much obliterated from my life: conspicuous consumption (or the deliberate flaunting of one's material possessions in front of others).
Originally, I learned about the term "conspicuous consumption" from U.S. history class, in which it was revealed that the nouveau riche of America's 19th century industrial boom (e.g. Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt) would build opulent estates, hold lavish parties, and indulge in just about anything (jewelry, clothes, transportation, furnishing, travel) that they could use to publicly delineate how successful they were and "different" from the hoi polloi. But that trait doesn't just apply to the long-dead super-rich. I see it in people running small businesses, who feel the need to drive a BMW or Mercedes to distinguish themselves from their employees. I see it in coworkers who, finally having a decent source of income in their lives, buy the latest miniature phone/MP3/Internet gadgetry to show off. I see it in yuppie couples who buy expensive homes that they can't afford in order to keep up with their friends, who also tend to live in unaffordable homes. But I see it in children most of all. And that breaks my heart.
Kids don't necessarily intend to be mean about showing off their possessions to others (although some are truly dirt-dog mean to the core). But deriving a sense of pride from owning and displaying one's material possessions can lead to some unintended consequences. One, it creates a sense of inferiority and envy in kids who are not so fortunate with their possessions, possibly even leading to dishonest behavior (lying and even theft) on their part to try to "keep up". Two, it skews values to the point where owning things is more important than accomplishing things. This is never more apparent than during the annual Greedfest (aka "Christmas"), when children (and sadly too many adults) just let their fantasies of material greed run rampant as they throw them out, hoping that someone (typically a parent) will "catch" them and dish them back out to them on Greedfest morning. Hey, I admit to having some greed as well (see, this is where my false modesty kicks in), having asked for and received some very nice presents (thank you Melissa, Will, Rebecca, Dad, Anita, Jim, Jerry, Keith, Krista, James, Amy, etc). But you know, I didn't then turn around and show them off to others, some of whom may not have been so abundantly fortunate.
Let's not confuse conspicuous consumption with responsible maintenance and cleaning, either. People who want their property to look clean and well-maintained, be it a home, car, or anything else, are simply reflecting their responsible behavior in how they take care of their possessions, which can run the range from simple to extravagant. Doesn't walking into a well-kept, modest house impress you more than walking into one that is larger and more ornate, but untidy and possibly dirty? If you agree, then you are on my "wavelength". Comments of affirmation are most certainly welcome! And if you think that your possessions define you, than please explain how and why. I just might be missing something here (another false modesty ploy of mine, I'm afraid).
Originally, I learned about the term "conspicuous consumption" from U.S. history class, in which it was revealed that the nouveau riche of America's 19th century industrial boom (e.g. Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt) would build opulent estates, hold lavish parties, and indulge in just about anything (jewelry, clothes, transportation, furnishing, travel) that they could use to publicly delineate how successful they were and "different" from the hoi polloi. But that trait doesn't just apply to the long-dead super-rich. I see it in people running small businesses, who feel the need to drive a BMW or Mercedes to distinguish themselves from their employees. I see it in coworkers who, finally having a decent source of income in their lives, buy the latest miniature phone/MP3/Internet gadgetry to show off. I see it in yuppie couples who buy expensive homes that they can't afford in order to keep up with their friends, who also tend to live in unaffordable homes. But I see it in children most of all. And that breaks my heart.
Kids don't necessarily intend to be mean about showing off their possessions to others (although some are truly dirt-dog mean to the core). But deriving a sense of pride from owning and displaying one's material possessions can lead to some unintended consequences. One, it creates a sense of inferiority and envy in kids who are not so fortunate with their possessions, possibly even leading to dishonest behavior (lying and even theft) on their part to try to "keep up". Two, it skews values to the point where owning things is more important than accomplishing things. This is never more apparent than during the annual Greedfest (aka "Christmas"), when children (and sadly too many adults) just let their fantasies of material greed run rampant as they throw them out, hoping that someone (typically a parent) will "catch" them and dish them back out to them on Greedfest morning. Hey, I admit to having some greed as well (see, this is where my false modesty kicks in), having asked for and received some very nice presents (thank you Melissa, Will, Rebecca, Dad, Anita, Jim, Jerry, Keith, Krista, James, Amy, etc). But you know, I didn't then turn around and show them off to others, some of whom may not have been so abundantly fortunate.
Let's not confuse conspicuous consumption with responsible maintenance and cleaning, either. People who want their property to look clean and well-maintained, be it a home, car, or anything else, are simply reflecting their responsible behavior in how they take care of their possessions, which can run the range from simple to extravagant. Doesn't walking into a well-kept, modest house impress you more than walking into one that is larger and more ornate, but untidy and possibly dirty? If you agree, then you are on my "wavelength". Comments of affirmation are most certainly welcome! And if you think that your possessions define you, than please explain how and why. I just might be missing something here (another false modesty ploy of mine, I'm afraid).
Monday, January 11, 2010
Nevada's Questionable Senators
Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John Ensign are about two of the most diametrically opposed senators that even served the same state at the same time, in terms both of their projected images and of their political orientation. Reid is a pugnacious ex-boxer with a heart for working people and a problem with speaking coherently. Ensign is the quintessential corporate hack politician, with a suave manner that would seem to make him more befitting of a stage act in Las Vegas. Yet the two have reportedly gotten along quite well with each other over the years, with each refusing to campaign against the other's reelection bids. And I kind of respect each of them in their own way, for the strengths that they project. But...
John Ensign has been one of those senators who has used his religious faith (right-wing Christian evangelist) as a tool to further his political ambitions. He was, though, recently exposed as having an extramarital affair, while some his GOP colleagues "in the faith" and "in the ideology" have been quick to forgive and forget. So to me, Ensign comes across as a walking, talking self-righteous (but very glib) hypocrite. I have no doubt of his reelection in the future.
Harry Reid, on the other hand, keeps his Mormon religious faith close to his vest. He is personally pro-life, but has respected the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision regarding abortion and has opposed efforts to overturn that ruling by placing hardships on poor women seeking abortions (restrictions which Ensign has supported). Unlike Ensign, Reid seems to have a bit of trouble enunciating his ideas into clear, coherent speech. Which makes me wonder why, of all the people in the Senate that the Democrats could draw upon, he was the one chosen to be the Majority Leader!
It has come out in the news recently that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid had made an idiotic statement to someone about how candidate Barack Obama's relatively light skin color for an African-American, coupled with his lack of a "Negro dialect" (unless he wanted to use one) would help him in the election. A really stupid thing to say, I'll admit. But the furor being raised over this revelation, chiefly by the Republicans, is overblown. Reid wasn't making a racist comment per se; he was giving his opinion, albeit very poorly expressed, as to how others in the electorate perceive race and make voting choices from those perceptions. But, like I said earlier, there seems to be some sort of disconnect between what Harry Reid's mind produces and what ultimately comes out of his mouth!
Ever since Tom Daschle was defeated for reelection in 2004 and Reid became the leader of the Senate Democrats, I have opposed him in this post. I think his heart is in the right place, but he has neither the political skills to negotiate across the aisle nor the ability to effectively express and promote his party's position on various issues. And I am sick to death of hearing him getting up on the Senate floor and sounding personally offended because, lo and behold, the opposition party was behaving like an opposition party!
I would like to see someone like Dick Durbin (Illinois) or Chuck Schumer (New York) step up to the post of Majority Leader. Either would be an vast improvement over what we have had to endure with Reid. Not only are these two much better speakers, but they also represent states that are more likely to reelect them even in the aftermath of a difficult-but-necessary legislative session.
Of course, after the 2010 election, this all may be a moot point anyway. Not that the Democrats will lose enough seats to relinquish their majority status in the Senate. But Harry Reid, at least according to current Nevada public opinion polls, is very unpopular and may be headed for defeat.
John Ensign has been one of those senators who has used his religious faith (right-wing Christian evangelist) as a tool to further his political ambitions. He was, though, recently exposed as having an extramarital affair, while some his GOP colleagues "in the faith" and "in the ideology" have been quick to forgive and forget. So to me, Ensign comes across as a walking, talking self-righteous (but very glib) hypocrite. I have no doubt of his reelection in the future.
Harry Reid, on the other hand, keeps his Mormon religious faith close to his vest. He is personally pro-life, but has respected the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision regarding abortion and has opposed efforts to overturn that ruling by placing hardships on poor women seeking abortions (restrictions which Ensign has supported). Unlike Ensign, Reid seems to have a bit of trouble enunciating his ideas into clear, coherent speech. Which makes me wonder why, of all the people in the Senate that the Democrats could draw upon, he was the one chosen to be the Majority Leader!
It has come out in the news recently that, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid had made an idiotic statement to someone about how candidate Barack Obama's relatively light skin color for an African-American, coupled with his lack of a "Negro dialect" (unless he wanted to use one) would help him in the election. A really stupid thing to say, I'll admit. But the furor being raised over this revelation, chiefly by the Republicans, is overblown. Reid wasn't making a racist comment per se; he was giving his opinion, albeit very poorly expressed, as to how others in the electorate perceive race and make voting choices from those perceptions. But, like I said earlier, there seems to be some sort of disconnect between what Harry Reid's mind produces and what ultimately comes out of his mouth!
Ever since Tom Daschle was defeated for reelection in 2004 and Reid became the leader of the Senate Democrats, I have opposed him in this post. I think his heart is in the right place, but he has neither the political skills to negotiate across the aisle nor the ability to effectively express and promote his party's position on various issues. And I am sick to death of hearing him getting up on the Senate floor and sounding personally offended because, lo and behold, the opposition party was behaving like an opposition party!
I would like to see someone like Dick Durbin (Illinois) or Chuck Schumer (New York) step up to the post of Majority Leader. Either would be an vast improvement over what we have had to endure with Reid. Not only are these two much better speakers, but they also represent states that are more likely to reelect them even in the aftermath of a difficult-but-necessary legislative session.
Of course, after the 2010 election, this all may be a moot point anyway. Not that the Democrats will lose enough seats to relinquish their majority status in the Senate. But Harry Reid, at least according to current Nevada public opinion polls, is very unpopular and may be headed for defeat.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Oh, If They Would Only Heed Me
I would advise those Democratic politicians in Congress to stop looking ahead to the next election and instead focus on doing what they were sent to Washington to do. Which is to represent their constituents and the broader interests of the country. They were elected as Democrats, and as such their electors already knew that this party was the "liberal" party and would pursue legislation that had a liberal/leftist imprint on it. It never ceases to confound me how people are suddenly "waking up" to discover that we have liberals in power! Considering how they elected them in the first place, I can only assume that a very large segment of our voting population either is extremely ignorant or suffers from memory impairment. Or perhaps they just sway to and fro, according to what they perceive as the prevailing political mood being portrayed in the media. In any event, it is frustrating that, regardless whether a politician is conservation or liberal, they have to cater to this overly malleable group of voters to win an election. Especially when it concerns the Presidency or politically divided districts and states!
So to my elected officials, be you Republicans or Democrats, just center yourselves in the present and delegate the matters concerning your reelection campaigns to others in your staffs. Your votes are crucial in the year to come, and they need to be cast by responsible representatives and senators, not hack politicians!
So to my elected officials, be you Republicans or Democrats, just center yourselves in the present and delegate the matters concerning your reelection campaigns to others in your staffs. Your votes are crucial in the year to come, and they need to be cast by responsible representatives and senators, not hack politicians!
Friday, January 8, 2010
People Waving Around Books
Where I work, we have a union and a collective bargaining agreement with management. To this I say, "Great, hooray for collective bargaining"! Once, after I had been working here for a few years, my union local's leadership decided to promote a campaign whereby every member was given a copy of the national collective bargaining agreement, in the form of a small paperback book. The language contained therein was simple to read and understand. There were certain rules in the contract that management and workers were compelled to follow or else they would be in violation of the agreement. For a lay worker using the contract agreement book to monitor management compliance, though, it was an exercise in futility. For no matter how clear the language in the agreement was on any particular item, what really ruled the day was the long trail of "letters of understanding", based on real cases that formally interpreted the rules and ultimately governed their implementation. And these "letters", extraneous to the actual collective bargaining agreement, were only readily available to union officers and stewards, not the rank and file.
Similarly, I often see representatives and senators openly flaunting a little book containing the United States Constitution, as if by doing this it gives them a moral edge over their colleagues. Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV) has been the most notorious for doing this. But, as with the collective bargaining agreement, the Constitution's language may be simple and clear while its interpretation and ultimate application is murky and strewn with a mind-boggling trail of court interpretations. My personal experience with a Constitutional history course at UF introduced me to how murky and muddy the waters of interpretation can be.
And then there is the Bible (or Koran, etc.). I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen a preacher waving this book around on stage, claiming its absolute literal truth and urging listeners to read it for spiritual enlightenment. But such a preacher would in reality be horrified if people were to simply read the Bible, apply the message they personally derived from it, and then go forth with their lives. After all, that would put him (or her) out of a job, for the task of the clergy is to "interpret" scripture in such a way that furthers the church's (and preacher's) agenda. So it's apparently not enough to read the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. and arrive at our own conclusions; it has to be interpreted for us by the "experts" for us to be enlightened as to its "true" meaning.
I am personally sick of people waving around books like the Constitution, the Bible, or even my collective bargaining agreement. On one hand, they are doing this to gain an edge over others by appearing to be more principled. On the other hand, these documents, albeit important, are only the starting points, not the final products that are reflected in real world application. They are important as foundations in their respective areas, but it is deceptive to pretend that their interpretations are anything but complex, inconsistent, and convoluted. And sometimes motivated by special interest agendas.
Similarly, I often see representatives and senators openly flaunting a little book containing the United States Constitution, as if by doing this it gives them a moral edge over their colleagues. Senator Robert Byrd (D, WV) has been the most notorious for doing this. But, as with the collective bargaining agreement, the Constitution's language may be simple and clear while its interpretation and ultimate application is murky and strewn with a mind-boggling trail of court interpretations. My personal experience with a Constitutional history course at UF introduced me to how murky and muddy the waters of interpretation can be.
And then there is the Bible (or Koran, etc.). I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen a preacher waving this book around on stage, claiming its absolute literal truth and urging listeners to read it for spiritual enlightenment. But such a preacher would in reality be horrified if people were to simply read the Bible, apply the message they personally derived from it, and then go forth with their lives. After all, that would put him (or her) out of a job, for the task of the clergy is to "interpret" scripture in such a way that furthers the church's (and preacher's) agenda. So it's apparently not enough to read the Bible/Torah/Koran/etc. and arrive at our own conclusions; it has to be interpreted for us by the "experts" for us to be enlightened as to its "true" meaning.
I am personally sick of people waving around books like the Constitution, the Bible, or even my collective bargaining agreement. On one hand, they are doing this to gain an edge over others by appearing to be more principled. On the other hand, these documents, albeit important, are only the starting points, not the final products that are reflected in real world application. They are important as foundations in their respective areas, but it is deceptive to pretend that their interpretations are anything but complex, inconsistent, and convoluted. And sometimes motivated by special interest agendas.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
My NCAA Title Game Prediction
Here is my prediction for tonight's NCAA National Championship football game:
Texas 27, Alabama 16.
I know this runs against the prevailing "wisdom" of the sports media talking heads, who seem to only pay attention to what happened most recently with these teams. Texas squeaked by Nebraska in the Big 12 championship game, its vaunted offense looking rather unimpressive. And Alabama overpowered favored Florida in the SEC title match. But Nebraska may have had the best defense in the country this year and Florida was missing one of its vital defensive starters due to a suspension. The two contending teams need to be evaluated over the course of the season as a whole, not just by their most recent games. Especially when those games occurred a month ago! Texas has usually completely dominated their opponents this year while Alabama has slogged through several close contests.
Hopefully, you don't bet on sports and will take my prediction with a grain of salt. But my NFL predictions for this year were largely on-target, with me correctly predicting divisional titles for New England, Indianapolis, San Diego, Dallas, New Orleans, Minnesota, and Arizona. The only division I missed, the AFC North, was unexpectedly won by Cincinnati by only one game over my pick, Baltimore (which still finished "in the playoffs"). For what it's worth, I'm still sticking with my prediction of a Baltimore win over Minnesota in the Super Bowl.
One factor that I believe is skewing the opinion of others toward Alabama is the notion that the Southeastern Conference is pretty much invincible now. After all, it has won the last three national championships, splitting the titles between LSU and Florida. But past seasons, like most recent games, are not the best indicators about Alabama and Texas. Rather look at their current season records and judge for yourself.
Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But I am more likely to believe that Texas could blow out Alabama by an even larger margin than lose to them. Well, let's see what happens tonight!
Texas 27, Alabama 16.
I know this runs against the prevailing "wisdom" of the sports media talking heads, who seem to only pay attention to what happened most recently with these teams. Texas squeaked by Nebraska in the Big 12 championship game, its vaunted offense looking rather unimpressive. And Alabama overpowered favored Florida in the SEC title match. But Nebraska may have had the best defense in the country this year and Florida was missing one of its vital defensive starters due to a suspension. The two contending teams need to be evaluated over the course of the season as a whole, not just by their most recent games. Especially when those games occurred a month ago! Texas has usually completely dominated their opponents this year while Alabama has slogged through several close contests.
Hopefully, you don't bet on sports and will take my prediction with a grain of salt. But my NFL predictions for this year were largely on-target, with me correctly predicting divisional titles for New England, Indianapolis, San Diego, Dallas, New Orleans, Minnesota, and Arizona. The only division I missed, the AFC North, was unexpectedly won by Cincinnati by only one game over my pick, Baltimore (which still finished "in the playoffs"). For what it's worth, I'm still sticking with my prediction of a Baltimore win over Minnesota in the Super Bowl.
One factor that I believe is skewing the opinion of others toward Alabama is the notion that the Southeastern Conference is pretty much invincible now. After all, it has won the last three national championships, splitting the titles between LSU and Florida. But past seasons, like most recent games, are not the best indicators about Alabama and Texas. Rather look at their current season records and judge for yourself.
Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But I am more likely to believe that Texas could blow out Alabama by an even larger margin than lose to them. Well, let's see what happens tonight!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Colts and Bengals Incur My Wrath
I am more than a little dismayed at how the New York Jets managed to get into the NFL playoffs this season. Not that it's any of their fault, mind you. The reason I usually root against NY is simply because they are divisional rivals of "my" team, the Miami Dolphins. Of course, if they end up playing the Dolphins' other "good" divisional rival, the New England Patriots, later in the playoffs, I'll be a big Jets fan (for the duration of that hypothetical game, that is).
No, for the last two games of the regular season, the New York Jets just went out and played some good old solid, spirited football. Their fans should be proud of them. It's just that their opponents for those two games, the Indianapolis Colts and the Cincinnati Bengals, essentially conceded victory to the Jets by resting their first stringers, and especially their star players, for the upcoming playoffs.
I am especially down on the Colts, who at 14-0, had a chance to go undefeated, but who instead chose to bench star quarterback Peyton Manning early in the third quarter of a close contest against New York. The Jets, playing against a substitute Colt lineup, took over the game and never looked back.
The following week, Cincinnati, having just clinched their division, decided to rest their starters as well. And who should they be playing, but the Jets! And those Jets coasted into the playoffs with a too-easy 37-0 win.
What is the most disturbing about all this is that there were other teams, like Houston, Pittsburgh, and Denver, who were in the thick of the playoff hunt as well. They were cheated out of an opportunity to compete on the same level as New York, which was essentially forfeited the last two games. This badly tarnishes the integrity of the sport.
I was rooting for the Miami Dolphins, which once had a 7-6 record (including two wins over those Jets) but lost their final three games of the season. So my gripe has nothing to do with them being cheated out of anything. They blew their playoff chances on their own, injury excuses notwithstanding (but forthcoming).
As long as the Colts or the Bengals have the coaches that they presently have, I will no longer root for them. Even if New England is the scheduled opponent (that's how bad I feel about them)! As a matter of fact, the Jets are scheduled to once again play against Cincinnati this weekend in the first round of the playoffs. Go Jets!
No, for the last two games of the regular season, the New York Jets just went out and played some good old solid, spirited football. Their fans should be proud of them. It's just that their opponents for those two games, the Indianapolis Colts and the Cincinnati Bengals, essentially conceded victory to the Jets by resting their first stringers, and especially their star players, for the upcoming playoffs.
I am especially down on the Colts, who at 14-0, had a chance to go undefeated, but who instead chose to bench star quarterback Peyton Manning early in the third quarter of a close contest against New York. The Jets, playing against a substitute Colt lineup, took over the game and never looked back.
The following week, Cincinnati, having just clinched their division, decided to rest their starters as well. And who should they be playing, but the Jets! And those Jets coasted into the playoffs with a too-easy 37-0 win.
What is the most disturbing about all this is that there were other teams, like Houston, Pittsburgh, and Denver, who were in the thick of the playoff hunt as well. They were cheated out of an opportunity to compete on the same level as New York, which was essentially forfeited the last two games. This badly tarnishes the integrity of the sport.
I was rooting for the Miami Dolphins, which once had a 7-6 record (including two wins over those Jets) but lost their final three games of the season. So my gripe has nothing to do with them being cheated out of anything. They blew their playoff chances on their own, injury excuses notwithstanding (but forthcoming).
As long as the Colts or the Bengals have the coaches that they presently have, I will no longer root for them. Even if New England is the scheduled opponent (that's how bad I feel about them)! As a matter of fact, the Jets are scheduled to once again play against Cincinnati this weekend in the first round of the playoffs. Go Jets!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
18-22-26-18-17-23
So reads the string of forecast low temperatures for this week at the top of the front page of today's Gainesville Sun. We have already been experiencing sub-freezing mornings here for three days or so, and I'm getting used to it. In fact, it is amazing how quickly I adapt to changes in temperature. As long as they stick around for a while, that is. Had the temperatures climbed right back up, I would have had a much more difficult time handling this. In any event, we are talking about record lows for this time of year (the average low is around 42 degrees).
Which brings me to a conjecture about where one should live. If I had a personal attachment to snow, then I would want to live in an area that had a guaranteed snowfall (which lasted) every year. If not, then I would want to stay in a place like here in northern Florida, where it can occasionally get cold, but is usually very dry on those occasions (it hasn't snowed in Gainesville since 1989). The reason is simple, actually. The worst time with cold weather, as I see it, is when the rain is falling and freezing on the road (and car windshields). Any snow that does falls is very temporary, sloshy (is that a word?) and dirty. The kind of idyllic winter wonderland you see on Christmas cards, with horse-drawn sleighs and country scenes, only exists either at a certain altitude level or at a certain latitude.
So, by this reasoning, (and presuming I don't live in the temperate Pacific coastal areas) if I didn't live in northern Florida (or the southernmost parts of the Deep South), I think I would rather live in a place like New England or Michigan than--say--Atlanta, Nashville, or Charlotte. In those cities, it seems to me that I would get all of the worst effects of winter weather with few of the benefits. Then again, I never had to endure a snow blizzard.
But, back to this article's title, I don't recall ever having experienced such a long chain of substantially sub-freezing mornings in Gainesville. Usually, this time of the year it occasionally dips down deep for two or three days, climbs back up for a couple more, and then dips back down as the next cold front passes through. Not this time, though. But it is dry here---oh so dry!
Which brings me to a conjecture about where one should live. If I had a personal attachment to snow, then I would want to live in an area that had a guaranteed snowfall (which lasted) every year. If not, then I would want to stay in a place like here in northern Florida, where it can occasionally get cold, but is usually very dry on those occasions (it hasn't snowed in Gainesville since 1989). The reason is simple, actually. The worst time with cold weather, as I see it, is when the rain is falling and freezing on the road (and car windshields). Any snow that does falls is very temporary, sloshy (is that a word?) and dirty. The kind of idyllic winter wonderland you see on Christmas cards, with horse-drawn sleighs and country scenes, only exists either at a certain altitude level or at a certain latitude.
So, by this reasoning, (and presuming I don't live in the temperate Pacific coastal areas) if I didn't live in northern Florida (or the southernmost parts of the Deep South), I think I would rather live in a place like New England or Michigan than--say--Atlanta, Nashville, or Charlotte. In those cities, it seems to me that I would get all of the worst effects of winter weather with few of the benefits. Then again, I never had to endure a snow blizzard.
But, back to this article's title, I don't recall ever having experienced such a long chain of substantially sub-freezing mornings in Gainesville. Usually, this time of the year it occasionally dips down deep for two or three days, climbs back up for a couple more, and then dips back down as the next cold front passes through. Not this time, though. But it is dry here---oh so dry!
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Day and Night Running
Lately, I have been trying my hand at some night running, with some interesting observations.
For one, although I am near-sighted, I don't wear glasses while running. In the day, I can still easily see distant objects, with the color-sensing cells of my eyes (are they the rods or the cones, I forget) compensating for my difficulty in far vision. I know this must be true, for at night the distant view becomes much more blurry for me. Maybe I just need to start wearing glasses then!
On November 29, I had just driven back into Gainesville from Jacksonville. It was already well into the evening, but I wanted to run. So I ended up going over to the University of Florida and running an improvised course through its campus. My running pace was slower than usual. I attribute that to being more careful about where I placed my feet in the relative darkness. But this past December 29, I ran pretty much the same course in broad daylight and, although I ran it faster, the extreme hilliness of the terrain strongly affected me. But I didn't seem to care much about this the month before, in the dark!
Running at night is a vastly different experience from running in the daytime. Of course, if you're going to run around a well-lit track at night, that is more like daytime running. But I'm talking about road running. In the day, it is more of an assault on my senses, with the lighting and sounds (and somehow even the sloping road) having more of an impact on my mind. In the night, though, sounds are more muffled and the view is dimmer and blurrier. In a way, this frees me to enjoy the experience more. Besides, nights are cooler and more pleasant. Will my speed pick up at night? Eventually, once I am more confident about the courses I run on. In any event, I intend to pursue night running more, with the UF campus being my main focus. Watch out Gators, here I come!
For one, although I am near-sighted, I don't wear glasses while running. In the day, I can still easily see distant objects, with the color-sensing cells of my eyes (are they the rods or the cones, I forget) compensating for my difficulty in far vision. I know this must be true, for at night the distant view becomes much more blurry for me. Maybe I just need to start wearing glasses then!
On November 29, I had just driven back into Gainesville from Jacksonville. It was already well into the evening, but I wanted to run. So I ended up going over to the University of Florida and running an improvised course through its campus. My running pace was slower than usual. I attribute that to being more careful about where I placed my feet in the relative darkness. But this past December 29, I ran pretty much the same course in broad daylight and, although I ran it faster, the extreme hilliness of the terrain strongly affected me. But I didn't seem to care much about this the month before, in the dark!
Running at night is a vastly different experience from running in the daytime. Of course, if you're going to run around a well-lit track at night, that is more like daytime running. But I'm talking about road running. In the day, it is more of an assault on my senses, with the lighting and sounds (and somehow even the sloping road) having more of an impact on my mind. In the night, though, sounds are more muffled and the view is dimmer and blurrier. In a way, this frees me to enjoy the experience more. Besides, nights are cooler and more pleasant. Will my speed pick up at night? Eventually, once I am more confident about the courses I run on. In any event, I intend to pursue night running more, with the UF campus being my main focus. Watch out Gators, here I come!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Philip K. Dick's Puttering About in a Small Land
One of science fiction writing legend Philip K. Dick's relatively obscure realism novels, Puttering About in a Small Land, gave me an idea as to why these realism novels of his were so difficult to get published (many of them didn't until after his death). And the reason is really quite simple: they don't have any "hooks".
These novels, including Puttering, are more than anything a combination of very compelling character portrayals with some brutal social commentary woven in. All, so far, deal with people in the middle-to-lower class struggling to make ends meet while trying to hold on to their individual dreams and carrying on mostly dysfunctional relationships with one another. But there are no attractive backdrops to the stories that would draw the reader's interest to pick up the book, or at least to convince a publisher that it would stand a fighting chance on a store's bookshelf. Dick's sci-fi works, on the other hand, always have these hooks, or gimmicks if you will, that intrigue the reader.
Puttering About in a Small Land is about two California couples going about their mundane existences while trying in various ways to "break through" into more meaningful lives. And each of them has his/her own, distinct vision of what a "meaningful life" is. For Roger Lindahl, the novel's main focus, it is freedom and excitement. For his wife Virginia, it is security and control over all of the facets of her existence. The other couple, the Bonners, also have their own personally-held ideals. How these people put their visions into play, along with the consequences of their actions, determines the plot line of the novel. But truth be told, I wasn't particularly sympathetic to any of the characters, although the author did a masterful job at revealing and exploring them. What happened to them by the end of the story was of little consequence to me, so it made reading it a pretty drawn-out exercise of tedium. I suppose the main "lesson" I picked up from this story (more of an affirmation of what I already feel) is how much people create narratives of their past (usually casting themselves as victims) to justify their present behavior.
Maybe, for the sake of "completism", I will continue reading Philip K. Dick's other realism novels. But I greatly prefer his science fiction. Good news: The next novel I'm reading is his award-winning sci-fi story The Man in the High Castle.
.....And yes, I'm aware of the ambiguity of this article's title!
These novels, including Puttering, are more than anything a combination of very compelling character portrayals with some brutal social commentary woven in. All, so far, deal with people in the middle-to-lower class struggling to make ends meet while trying to hold on to their individual dreams and carrying on mostly dysfunctional relationships with one another. But there are no attractive backdrops to the stories that would draw the reader's interest to pick up the book, or at least to convince a publisher that it would stand a fighting chance on a store's bookshelf. Dick's sci-fi works, on the other hand, always have these hooks, or gimmicks if you will, that intrigue the reader.
Puttering About in a Small Land is about two California couples going about their mundane existences while trying in various ways to "break through" into more meaningful lives. And each of them has his/her own, distinct vision of what a "meaningful life" is. For Roger Lindahl, the novel's main focus, it is freedom and excitement. For his wife Virginia, it is security and control over all of the facets of her existence. The other couple, the Bonners, also have their own personally-held ideals. How these people put their visions into play, along with the consequences of their actions, determines the plot line of the novel. But truth be told, I wasn't particularly sympathetic to any of the characters, although the author did a masterful job at revealing and exploring them. What happened to them by the end of the story was of little consequence to me, so it made reading it a pretty drawn-out exercise of tedium. I suppose the main "lesson" I picked up from this story (more of an affirmation of what I already feel) is how much people create narratives of their past (usually casting themselves as victims) to justify their present behavior.
Maybe, for the sake of "completism", I will continue reading Philip K. Dick's other realism novels. But I greatly prefer his science fiction. Good news: The next novel I'm reading is his award-winning sci-fi story The Man in the High Castle.
.....And yes, I'm aware of the ambiguity of this article's title!
Friday, January 1, 2010
New Year Greetings
I'd like to wish everyone a happy New Year. May you enjoy health, prosperity and an interesting (but not too interesting) life. I have my own little set of personal goals I'm working on for the year ahead. Most of them deal with me changing bad habits into good ones. Good luck to me!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
2010 Forecast: Heavy Smug and Smirks
So now we have reached not only the end of another year, but also the end of another decade. Forget the technical argument of the century changing at 2001, not 2000; I'm referring to the traditional way of classifying decades, starting with 2000 and ending with 2009. In a recent column, Paul Krugman referred to the passing ten years as the "naughties". However one refers to it, the last decade merits review and analysis. Which I will naturally do in future posts.
What I would instead like to do on this last day of the year is look ahead to 2010 and what might happen. After 2001, though, I must proclaim that I am released from science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's timetable of future events. Unlike his movie (and novel) 2010, the United States and the Soviet Union will not, I repeat will not be on the verge of nuclear war due to proxy skirmishes in Central America (the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists helps to convince me of this). Jupiter will not explode into a second star, causing everyone back home to embrace each other and forgo war. And the Chicago Cubs won't win the World Series (wait, Clarke didn't predict them winning; he wasn't that unrealistic). Instead, life will continue pretty much as it has been this past year. Some more politicians and celebrities will flush their reputations down the toilet with disreputable behavior. The media will exploit this and make a lot of money doing so. There will be more terrorism attempts at home and successful ones abroad. Congress will tackle new projects, in particular immigration reform, that the GOP and the media will say are political "Waterloos" (or something similar) and will bring on the downfall of the Democrats and Obama. Again. They'll say that again. And then the 2010 midterm elections will arrive and the voters will cast their ballots according to how they see the economy moving. Which by all accounts should be in full-blown recovery by then. The Democrats will win some and lose some, coming out of the process still firmly in the majority, albeit not necessarily with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate.
Smugly smirking Fox News Channel hosts will continue to have as guests smug smirkers knocking the Obama administration, while MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow will continue to offer up their own opinions smugly, accompanied by their own lineups of smugly smirking head-nodders. Ho-hum, why don't I just turn off the TV and do something else the whole year?
What I would instead like to do on this last day of the year is look ahead to 2010 and what might happen. After 2001, though, I must proclaim that I am released from science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke's timetable of future events. Unlike his movie (and novel) 2010, the United States and the Soviet Union will not, I repeat will not be on the verge of nuclear war due to proxy skirmishes in Central America (the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists helps to convince me of this). Jupiter will not explode into a second star, causing everyone back home to embrace each other and forgo war. And the Chicago Cubs won't win the World Series (wait, Clarke didn't predict them winning; he wasn't that unrealistic). Instead, life will continue pretty much as it has been this past year. Some more politicians and celebrities will flush their reputations down the toilet with disreputable behavior. The media will exploit this and make a lot of money doing so. There will be more terrorism attempts at home and successful ones abroad. Congress will tackle new projects, in particular immigration reform, that the GOP and the media will say are political "Waterloos" (or something similar) and will bring on the downfall of the Democrats and Obama. Again. They'll say that again. And then the 2010 midterm elections will arrive and the voters will cast their ballots according to how they see the economy moving. Which by all accounts should be in full-blown recovery by then. The Democrats will win some and lose some, coming out of the process still firmly in the majority, albeit not necessarily with a 60 vote supermajority in the Senate.
Smugly smirking Fox News Channel hosts will continue to have as guests smug smirkers knocking the Obama administration, while MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and Rachel Maddow will continue to offer up their own opinions smugly, accompanied by their own lineups of smugly smirking head-nodders. Ho-hum, why don't I just turn off the TV and do something else the whole year?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Big Business, the Government, & the Two Parties
I have noticed an interesting trend when following floor speeches in the US Senate and House of Representatives. The conservatives, mainly on the Republican side, rail against the threat of expanding big government and its concomitant abuses, with the hopes for our future depending on benevolent big business. While the liberals, mainly on the Democratic side, rail against the threat and abuses of big corporations, and how the government stands in the way of them completely overrunning the people. But where do small businesses stand in this?
Both sides claim to be the advocate of small business. I think there is a kind of mentality that small business operators have (not just those under 5') whereby they tend to identify themselves as smaller, aspiring versions of the big corporations, and hence a tendency to affiliate themselves with the conservatives and the GOP. But although every once and a while a small business will expand and grow into a large one, the overwhelming number of them will remain small and very, very different in design and scope from the "big boys". In fact it could be argued that the greatest threat to small businesses comes not from overburdening government regulation, but rather from inequitable competition with these major corporations. When a "super" Target or Wal-Mart sets up shop in town, especially a small town, you can almost hear a collective shudder running through the surrounding small business community.
From the standpoint of an individual such as myself, both major corporations and government are gargantuan powers which have to be checked in some way in order to prevent them from completely engulfing my life and freedoms. So it's slightly comforting to see the two main political parties tee off against one another, in effect checking the power of one institution with the other. The only problem with this is when big government teams up with big business to the detriment of the people. To me, this may be happening with the health care reform bill recently approved by the Senate and sent to conference. And was sadly the case in Iraq where the government awarded no-bid contracts with various corporations, most notably Dick Cheney's Halliburton.
Of course, there are times when conservatives like to evoke and exalt the power of the state. In social issues like abortion or gay rights, conservatives have no qualms at all with using big government to impose their social mores on everyone else. And also, they are very gung ho with taxpayers' money regarding the military and the prosecution of wars. Unfortunately, this adulation of the military often fades away when addressing the concerns of veterans.
Back to small business, if the Democrats with this health care bill can ease the enormous burdens that they are incurring with rising costs and preexisting condition exclusions, then we might just see a political realignment occurring in a few years. I for one never thought that employers should ever have been saddled with the obligation to provide health insurance for their employees anyway, the whole process having evolved from businesses using it as a benefit inventive to prospective hires.
Both sides claim to be the advocate of small business. I think there is a kind of mentality that small business operators have (not just those under 5') whereby they tend to identify themselves as smaller, aspiring versions of the big corporations, and hence a tendency to affiliate themselves with the conservatives and the GOP. But although every once and a while a small business will expand and grow into a large one, the overwhelming number of them will remain small and very, very different in design and scope from the "big boys". In fact it could be argued that the greatest threat to small businesses comes not from overburdening government regulation, but rather from inequitable competition with these major corporations. When a "super" Target or Wal-Mart sets up shop in town, especially a small town, you can almost hear a collective shudder running through the surrounding small business community.
From the standpoint of an individual such as myself, both major corporations and government are gargantuan powers which have to be checked in some way in order to prevent them from completely engulfing my life and freedoms. So it's slightly comforting to see the two main political parties tee off against one another, in effect checking the power of one institution with the other. The only problem with this is when big government teams up with big business to the detriment of the people. To me, this may be happening with the health care reform bill recently approved by the Senate and sent to conference. And was sadly the case in Iraq where the government awarded no-bid contracts with various corporations, most notably Dick Cheney's Halliburton.
Of course, there are times when conservatives like to evoke and exalt the power of the state. In social issues like abortion or gay rights, conservatives have no qualms at all with using big government to impose their social mores on everyone else. And also, they are very gung ho with taxpayers' money regarding the military and the prosecution of wars. Unfortunately, this adulation of the military often fades away when addressing the concerns of veterans.
Back to small business, if the Democrats with this health care bill can ease the enormous burdens that they are incurring with rising costs and preexisting condition exclusions, then we might just see a political realignment occurring in a few years. I for one never thought that employers should ever have been saddled with the obligation to provide health insurance for their employees anyway, the whole process having evolved from businesses using it as a benefit inventive to prospective hires.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Football Commentary
As the year's end draws near, we have reached a crucial point in the football season. Two main news stories come to mind. One is the resignation and subsequent reversal thereof regarding University of Florida head coach Urban Meyer. The other is the late-season collapse of the Miami Dolphins.
Urban Meyer has, for the past five years, coached UF with a single-minded ferocity that, at times, bothered me quite a bit. The man seemed devoid of humor and carried on with his job as if it were some sort of divine mission, with critics somehow standing on the wrong side of an absolute moral standard. The fact that his star player Tim Tebow would consistently "stick up" for him in the face of any criticism only made the situation worse, in my opinion. Now that Meyer has revealed that he has health problems, possibly concerning his heart, it may be advisable to tone down that supposed "mission" into a fun, fulfilling job and pick up an ability to kid around somewhere along the way. He has taken a leave of absence, beginning after the Sugar Bowl game on January 1, and will resuming coaching the Gators sometime before next year's season begins. I wish him the best, both in terms of physical health and job enjoyment.
At season's end, the NFL Miami Dolphins are pretty much in the standings where I had predicted them to be at the season's start. But things have changed on the team. Original starting QB Chad Pennington suffered an early season-ending injury, clearing the way for Chad Henne to take over the helm. And he has shown much promise, despite his many mistakes. Henne reminds me of a young John Elway, who also had a strong passing arm but made a lot of bad throws early on in his career. Henne could well lead the Dolphins to "playoff glory" in the future. RB Ronnie Brown, who was crucial to the team's effective wildcat formation, also was injured and taken out for the season, leaving the running game one-dimensional. Ricky Williams has had a great season, but Brown's absence has made his job more difficult as well. But the Dolphins have simply been too inconsistent with their play, from game to game, to be able to make a realistic run to qualify for the playoffs. Also, their schedule has been very tough. Still, I admire how they fought through their games, win or lose.
Before this season, I expressed an interest in following the Pacific Ten Conference in college football. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow many of the games on television as I had hoped. Also, the calibre of play was not as high as I had expected, with Pac-10 teams generally faring poorly in games with non-conference opponents. To top it off, nobody emerged as the premier team in the conference. Sure, the Oregon Ducks ended up winning the conference title and will face Iowa in the Rose Bowl. Well, maybe they will do well then and give me something to look forward to next year.
Urban Meyer has, for the past five years, coached UF with a single-minded ferocity that, at times, bothered me quite a bit. The man seemed devoid of humor and carried on with his job as if it were some sort of divine mission, with critics somehow standing on the wrong side of an absolute moral standard. The fact that his star player Tim Tebow would consistently "stick up" for him in the face of any criticism only made the situation worse, in my opinion. Now that Meyer has revealed that he has health problems, possibly concerning his heart, it may be advisable to tone down that supposed "mission" into a fun, fulfilling job and pick up an ability to kid around somewhere along the way. He has taken a leave of absence, beginning after the Sugar Bowl game on January 1, and will resuming coaching the Gators sometime before next year's season begins. I wish him the best, both in terms of physical health and job enjoyment.
At season's end, the NFL Miami Dolphins are pretty much in the standings where I had predicted them to be at the season's start. But things have changed on the team. Original starting QB Chad Pennington suffered an early season-ending injury, clearing the way for Chad Henne to take over the helm. And he has shown much promise, despite his many mistakes. Henne reminds me of a young John Elway, who also had a strong passing arm but made a lot of bad throws early on in his career. Henne could well lead the Dolphins to "playoff glory" in the future. RB Ronnie Brown, who was crucial to the team's effective wildcat formation, also was injured and taken out for the season, leaving the running game one-dimensional. Ricky Williams has had a great season, but Brown's absence has made his job more difficult as well. But the Dolphins have simply been too inconsistent with their play, from game to game, to be able to make a realistic run to qualify for the playoffs. Also, their schedule has been very tough. Still, I admire how they fought through their games, win or lose.
Before this season, I expressed an interest in following the Pacific Ten Conference in college football. Unfortunately, I was unable to follow many of the games on television as I had hoped. Also, the calibre of play was not as high as I had expected, with Pac-10 teams generally faring poorly in games with non-conference opponents. To top it off, nobody emerged as the premier team in the conference. Sure, the Oregon Ducks ended up winning the conference title and will face Iowa in the Rose Bowl. Well, maybe they will do well then and give me something to look forward to next year.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Blog Still Truckin' On
I haven't given up on this blog; I have lately been in a period of "distraction" when other things going on in my life (mostly great) have taken up my time. But I do love to go out (perhaps to a Starbucks) and just sit, think, and type out whatever comes to mind. Eventually, things will settle down again and I'll be writing more. So bear with me, blog resumption is coming! More ridiculous articles ahead to amuse yourselves with, loyal readers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
