Sarah Palin, with whom I have a myriad of differences, was caught recently using her hand during a speech to the wacko Tea Party convention. As she was ridiculing President Obama for using a teleprompter during his speeches, Palin herself kept looking down at her left hand, the palm thereof in particular. When cameras zoomed in on what she was looking at, they revealed notes on what to say during the speech. And then the comedy shows had a field day, with Jay Leno, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart headlining the star-studded list of Palin mockers. Even Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs brought out his own left hand in a press meeting to reveal what he thought were humorous (but by then extremely stale) messages on it.
I had my own laugh at ol' Sarah, who is actually relatively young from my viewpoint but whose public "stage" act grew old and withered long, long ago. But now it's time to defend the quitter ex-governor and political opportunist (gosh, this is going to be harder than I thought).
First, I wish Sarah Palin success within the Republican Party, especially regarding her all-too-inevitable campaign for the 2012 nomination. For a Palin nomination would pretty much ensure Obama's reelection (assuming our current president doesn't just say "to hell with this [expletive] job" by then). As for her "hand", I scribble stuff on mine from time to time as well to remind me of things. But I don't then get up on stage somewhere and deride another for more opaquely using speech "aids". Still, Palin has this comedic, naïve, and almost endearing aspect to her personality that I can relate to. It reminds me of Jackie Gleason's Sheriff Buford T. Justice character in the movie Smokey and the Bandit when he confidently struts out of a restroom...trailing a roll of toilet paper behind him.
I know how Sarah Palin can improve her image although I wonder whether she is capable of grasping it. And it's simple: when criticizing someone like Obama, stop casting aspersions on everything he does or says, instead sprinkling as many sincere-sounding compliments as you can in with your focused criticisms. Tempered criticism can cut like a knife if done correctly, although I have witnessed few who are really adept at it. But if ex-governor Palin would just pause a little and observe the current president instead of only deriding him, she just might find someone with this skill to emulate (with a conservative face, of course). A skill which, in my opinion, Barack Obama rode all the way into the White House. Hint, hint, Sarah.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Philip K. Dick's The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch
Published in 1965, Philip K. Dick's acclaimed science fiction novel The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch once again visualizes a world of the near future when Earth has undergone cataclysmic changes (this time it has severely overheated) and humankind has not only ventured out into the solar system, but has even traveled as far as the Alpha/Proxima Centauri star system and back. But this time, the setting is in our future as well: way ahead to 2012!
I've noticed a tendency with some science fiction writers to speculate just a little bit too much about the nature of reality. The result is often a work of fiction whose plot has become so convoluted and unhinged that it is very difficult for the reader to find a solid point of reference from which to try to understand what is going on. This is a glaring symptom of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, particularly with respect to the concepts of time and identity.
In this novel, Dick creates a scenario in which the overheated Earth (surface temperatures in New York around 180 degrees) has caused two different reactions for survival. One is to desperately strike out to colonize other planets in the Solar System, with people being involuntary drafted and shipped out to the new colonies for the rest of their lives. Two, many of the affluent in society have chosen, through injections, to artificially and speedily "evolve" into people who can withstand living under the extreme heat (e.g. developing a very thick, tough hide). Dick was obviously not a scientist, but he didn't let his gaps in understanding prevent him from writing about it, be the topic space travel, climate, or evolution.
The protagonist, Barney Mayerson, is a precognitive employee of a large, powerful company that illegally supplies the colonies with a proscribed hallucinogenic drug that helps the users to escape their dull existence and enter a fantasy world which is based on props that the same company legally sells. But a man named Palmer Eldritch has just returned from Proxima Centauri and seems to be somehow associated with a newer hallucinogenic drug that has been approved for general sale by the governing United Nations. As it turns out, Mayerson has just received his draft notice to go to Mars and he naturally doesn't want to go. Other important characters are introduced (Mayerson's boss Leo Bulero, his assistant Roni Fugate, and his ex-wife Emily). Then, as the various characters in the novel interact, we discover what the new hallucinogen is really all about. And with it, a conjecture on the part of the author about the possible nature of God and identity (remember, I said the story becomes unhinged).
Isaac Asimov once expressed his disapproval of Philip K. Dick regarding the latter's use of drugs, not to mention the idea that they helped him in his writing. Here is an example of Dick inserting drug use within one of his stories, although it doesn't exactly extol the practice. But the author did make a connection, though, between hallucinogen use and spirituality here that reminds me of the exploding use of LSD, often for similar reasons, in the late sixties.
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch does become a mighty bit unglued toward its end, but it is still an impressive piece of fiction. After reading it to its conclusion, I'm still not completely sure what actually happened. But maybe that uncertainty was deliberately planned by the author. Seeing how Dick died in 1982, though, I don't think I'm going to have the opportunity to ask him. Read it for yourself and see what you come up with!
I've noticed a tendency with some science fiction writers to speculate just a little bit too much about the nature of reality. The result is often a work of fiction whose plot has become so convoluted and unhinged that it is very difficult for the reader to find a solid point of reference from which to try to understand what is going on. This is a glaring symptom of The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch, particularly with respect to the concepts of time and identity.
In this novel, Dick creates a scenario in which the overheated Earth (surface temperatures in New York around 180 degrees) has caused two different reactions for survival. One is to desperately strike out to colonize other planets in the Solar System, with people being involuntary drafted and shipped out to the new colonies for the rest of their lives. Two, many of the affluent in society have chosen, through injections, to artificially and speedily "evolve" into people who can withstand living under the extreme heat (e.g. developing a very thick, tough hide). Dick was obviously not a scientist, but he didn't let his gaps in understanding prevent him from writing about it, be the topic space travel, climate, or evolution.
The protagonist, Barney Mayerson, is a precognitive employee of a large, powerful company that illegally supplies the colonies with a proscribed hallucinogenic drug that helps the users to escape their dull existence and enter a fantasy world which is based on props that the same company legally sells. But a man named Palmer Eldritch has just returned from Proxima Centauri and seems to be somehow associated with a newer hallucinogenic drug that has been approved for general sale by the governing United Nations. As it turns out, Mayerson has just received his draft notice to go to Mars and he naturally doesn't want to go. Other important characters are introduced (Mayerson's boss Leo Bulero, his assistant Roni Fugate, and his ex-wife Emily). Then, as the various characters in the novel interact, we discover what the new hallucinogen is really all about. And with it, a conjecture on the part of the author about the possible nature of God and identity (remember, I said the story becomes unhinged).
Isaac Asimov once expressed his disapproval of Philip K. Dick regarding the latter's use of drugs, not to mention the idea that they helped him in his writing. Here is an example of Dick inserting drug use within one of his stories, although it doesn't exactly extol the practice. But the author did make a connection, though, between hallucinogen use and spirituality here that reminds me of the exploding use of LSD, often for similar reasons, in the late sixties.
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch does become a mighty bit unglued toward its end, but it is still an impressive piece of fiction. After reading it to its conclusion, I'm still not completely sure what actually happened. But maybe that uncertainty was deliberately planned by the author. Seeing how Dick died in 1982, though, I don't think I'm going to have the opportunity to ask him. Read it for yourself and see what you come up with!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Senator Bill Nelson's Advice to Obama
On a recent visit to the University of Florida, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson urged President Obama to stand firm on health care reform, reconsider his dead-end decision regarding NASA and manned space missions, push through a jobs bill, and temper his plan to end subsidies for private companies giving out student loans.
The Florida senator believes that the health care reform bill (which I'm still not so hot about) can still be salvaged through the complex reconciliation process, which only requires 51 Senate votes for approval. He wants to first have Nebraska's special Medicaid subsidy taken out of it, though. Nelson, himself having gone into space on the Space Shuttle in 1986, decries that Obama has chosen to leave our national manned space efforts with no discernible goals, a complaint that I have echoed recently. And, no doubt reacting to Treasury Department projections of only a slight decrease in the national employment rate for the next few years, Nelson is completely on board with an ambitious jobs bill currently being worked on for legislative action. As for that opposition to the President wanting to end subsidies to private companies for student loans, the Senator stated that Sallie Mae, one of those companies, employs several hundred people in Panama City, Florida and he wants to protect those jobs.
But the main tenor of Nelson's speech regarding Obama was to urge the President to become more directly involved with the legislators and the legislative process. I remember listening recently on C-Span to archived phone calls between President Lyndon Johnson, his aides, and congressmen concerning the then-proposed Medicare bill. And Johnson was very, very involved with individuals whose votes he needed for passage (or just to move the bill along). Obama has been in the Senate long enough to know a little bit how things have to work in Congress for a president to get his agenda passed there. As was the case with Johnson in the 1960s, archives showing how Obama dealt with Congress probably won't be fully revealed for several years after he leaves office. But my impression of him so far, which seems to be corroborated by Senator Nelson's recent remarks, is that he has been more "hands-off" in the promotion of his agenda in the House and Senate. Sure, the President makes a lot of speeches, holds press conferences, and meets from time to time with senators and representatives. But I perceive, with my albeit limited direct knowledge, that he hasn't come close to the intricately involved approach of Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson, for all of his flaws, was a great model of an effective president who knew exactly how to get his agenda passed through Congress. I like to use the imagery "carrot and stick": Nelson termed it a bit differently when he said the President should "put on a pair of brass knuckles and get out a bull whip". I can only add, "Don't forget to throw in a carrot or two!"
The Florida senator believes that the health care reform bill (which I'm still not so hot about) can still be salvaged through the complex reconciliation process, which only requires 51 Senate votes for approval. He wants to first have Nebraska's special Medicaid subsidy taken out of it, though. Nelson, himself having gone into space on the Space Shuttle in 1986, decries that Obama has chosen to leave our national manned space efforts with no discernible goals, a complaint that I have echoed recently. And, no doubt reacting to Treasury Department projections of only a slight decrease in the national employment rate for the next few years, Nelson is completely on board with an ambitious jobs bill currently being worked on for legislative action. As for that opposition to the President wanting to end subsidies to private companies for student loans, the Senator stated that Sallie Mae, one of those companies, employs several hundred people in Panama City, Florida and he wants to protect those jobs.
But the main tenor of Nelson's speech regarding Obama was to urge the President to become more directly involved with the legislators and the legislative process. I remember listening recently on C-Span to archived phone calls between President Lyndon Johnson, his aides, and congressmen concerning the then-proposed Medicare bill. And Johnson was very, very involved with individuals whose votes he needed for passage (or just to move the bill along). Obama has been in the Senate long enough to know a little bit how things have to work in Congress for a president to get his agenda passed there. As was the case with Johnson in the 1960s, archives showing how Obama dealt with Congress probably won't be fully revealed for several years after he leaves office. But my impression of him so far, which seems to be corroborated by Senator Nelson's recent remarks, is that he has been more "hands-off" in the promotion of his agenda in the House and Senate. Sure, the President makes a lot of speeches, holds press conferences, and meets from time to time with senators and representatives. But I perceive, with my albeit limited direct knowledge, that he hasn't come close to the intricately involved approach of Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson, for all of his flaws, was a great model of an effective president who knew exactly how to get his agenda passed through Congress. I like to use the imagery "carrot and stick": Nelson termed it a bit differently when he said the President should "put on a pair of brass knuckles and get out a bull whip". I can only add, "Don't forget to throw in a carrot or two!"
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tebow Ads Aftermath
I never did see either of the two short ads of Tim Tebow and his mother, sponsored by Focus on the Family and aired during the Super Bowl broadcast Sunday. But the accounts I have read of them show the spots to be so vague that the controversial messages regarding how women with complications in the late stages of their pregnancies may just want to ignore their physicians' potentially life-saving advice were largely left out. So what exactly was the point of this multi-million dollar expenditure on the part of anti-abortion Focus on the Family? To show that Tim Tebow loves his mother and that his mother loves him? Gee, who would have guessed!
I can only speculate that CBS, the network that aired these ads, and which insisted on co-writing their scripts with Focus on the Family, must have succeeded in watering down their message to the point where viewers were scratching their heads wondering what it was all about. And this places me in a quandary of sorts.
On one hand, I thought that the original intended message of the ads was objectionable and potentially dangerous, especially if women were to heed its implications and begin to ignore their doctors. On the other hand, CBS should not have interfered with the message originally intended by the ads after they had already given the O.K. for airing, especially as it stood to make the amount of money it did from them. Also, if there is something objectionable about a stance on a particular issue, I would rather that stance be brought out into the open, not only for honest debate, but also to clearly expose any hidden agendas behind the message, along with those promoting them. As well as an opportunity given by the network for rebuttal by the message's dissenters.
In sum, I will say it again: I can object to a message I hear or see in the media while objecting to attempts by others to censor that message. CBS apparently tried and succeeded in softening the Tebow ads' message not because it cared about their unintended possible effects; no, this network simply did not want to be pressured to run other controversial ads put out by other parties that might have provoked negative responses from different viewers. Ads from organizations, for example, that may promote pro-choice or gay rights agendas. I say broadcast them all and keep honest, open debate alive.
I can only speculate that CBS, the network that aired these ads, and which insisted on co-writing their scripts with Focus on the Family, must have succeeded in watering down their message to the point where viewers were scratching their heads wondering what it was all about. And this places me in a quandary of sorts.
On one hand, I thought that the original intended message of the ads was objectionable and potentially dangerous, especially if women were to heed its implications and begin to ignore their doctors. On the other hand, CBS should not have interfered with the message originally intended by the ads after they had already given the O.K. for airing, especially as it stood to make the amount of money it did from them. Also, if there is something objectionable about a stance on a particular issue, I would rather that stance be brought out into the open, not only for honest debate, but also to clearly expose any hidden agendas behind the message, along with those promoting them. As well as an opportunity given by the network for rebuttal by the message's dissenters.
In sum, I will say it again: I can object to a message I hear or see in the media while objecting to attempts by others to censor that message. CBS apparently tried and succeeded in softening the Tebow ads' message not because it cared about their unintended possible effects; no, this network simply did not want to be pressured to run other controversial ads put out by other parties that might have provoked negative responses from different viewers. Ads from organizations, for example, that may promote pro-choice or gay rights agendas. I say broadcast them all and keep honest, open debate alive.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Told Ya So
As I was saying yesterday, I didn't know why most of the big shot sports media "experts" were making the Indianapolis Colts such a big favorite over the New Orleans Saints in this year's Super Bowl. And now I know why: When push comes to shove, these "professionals" don't really have a better grip on their field than the ordinary Joe Sports Fan out there (not to be confused with McCain's poster boy Joe the Plumber, who struck me as being a nothing more than a rather dull and shameless opportunist). After all, with all of the access we have to televised games and instant statistics and game recaps off the Internet, anyone with a real interest in football can do just as good of a job analyzing the game and determining which are the better teams. Having followed the Miami Dolphins this year and observed their disappointing losses to both Indianapolis and New Orleans, I came away with the feeling that the Colts overall weren't all that impressive while the Saints were more of a complete team with a terrifying offensive explosiveness that could come from several of their players. I also knew that N.O. quarterback Drew Brees was a great passer and reader of defenses. And this was borne out in today's game, won by the Saints 31-17.
New Orleans' defense impressed me greatly as well, consistently keeping Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and his receivers from turning modest gains into long ones. They tackled very well and swarmed around ball carriers. And made a crucial interception for a game-clinching touchdown late in the fourth quarter.
It was hard for me to generate that much enthusiasm for this year's Super Bowl, though, as I am not really a follower of either team. And the parity in the NFL is such that New Orleans may not even win their division next year, who knows. But I do so respect a team that doesn't commit turnovers, tackles well, and makes wise use of the clock. So hats off to the Saints, this year's NFL champs!
New Orleans' defense impressed me greatly as well, consistently keeping Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and his receivers from turning modest gains into long ones. They tackled very well and swarmed around ball carriers. And made a crucial interception for a game-clinching touchdown late in the fourth quarter.
It was hard for me to generate that much enthusiasm for this year's Super Bowl, though, as I am not really a follower of either team. And the parity in the NFL is such that New Orleans may not even win their division next year, who knows. But I do so respect a team that doesn't commit turnovers, tackles well, and makes wise use of the clock. So hats off to the Saints, this year's NFL champs!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Super Bowl Tomorrow
The Super Bowl is tomorrow, with the favored Indianapolis Colts matched up against the New Orleans Saints down in "Miami" (actually, the stadium is near the Dade/Broward county line just a couple of miles from where I grew up in Hollywood). Why the Colts are listed as a five and a half point favorite is beyond me; the teams look very evenly matched.
I am still rooting for the Saints, and for that one main reason I have alluded to before: The Indianapolis Colts let their potentially perfect season go by the wayside when, in their 15th game, they benched their star players for "rest" and allowed the NY Jets to beat them. This also allowed the Jets to get a free pass into the playoffs over other teams like Houston or Pittsburgh that may have been more qualified. So go New Orleans!
I don't know that I will watch the whole game, though, as exciting as it may be. The hype and controversy about all of those overly-frequent, tedious, and expensive commercials is one major drawback. Another is the excessive analysis from the announcers. Yuck!
One more gripe, although it's not all that important. It is the way that the Super Bowls are named from year to year. Designating them by Roman numerals is simply pure bull hype. This year's game is Super Bowl XLIV. Does anyone actually care about that or recall past games by their Roman numerals? Also, if you're like me and want to use ordinary Arabic numerals for denoting years and then try to recall games of the past, they screw things up there as well. For example, this year's game is called the 2010 Super Bowl. But it is the proper culmination of the 2009 season, although it is technically held in 2010; it actually is the 2009 championship game. This can get to be quite confusing, especially if one goes back a few years and...say, speaks of the 2000 champion. Are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2000 between the St. Louis Rams and the Tennessee Titans at the close of the 1999 season, or are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2001 for the 2000 season that matched the Baltimore Ravens up against the New York Giants? This confusion all helps to ensure that, assuming it isn't your pet team playing in this game, this year's Super Bowl will be largely forgotten in five or six years.
So here's my prediction for tomorrow's game, for what it's worth (not a whole lot, I imagine):
New Orleans 34, Indianapolis 31
I am still rooting for the Saints, and for that one main reason I have alluded to before: The Indianapolis Colts let their potentially perfect season go by the wayside when, in their 15th game, they benched their star players for "rest" and allowed the NY Jets to beat them. This also allowed the Jets to get a free pass into the playoffs over other teams like Houston or Pittsburgh that may have been more qualified. So go New Orleans!
I don't know that I will watch the whole game, though, as exciting as it may be. The hype and controversy about all of those overly-frequent, tedious, and expensive commercials is one major drawback. Another is the excessive analysis from the announcers. Yuck!
One more gripe, although it's not all that important. It is the way that the Super Bowls are named from year to year. Designating them by Roman numerals is simply pure bull hype. This year's game is Super Bowl XLIV. Does anyone actually care about that or recall past games by their Roman numerals? Also, if you're like me and want to use ordinary Arabic numerals for denoting years and then try to recall games of the past, they screw things up there as well. For example, this year's game is called the 2010 Super Bowl. But it is the proper culmination of the 2009 season, although it is technically held in 2010; it actually is the 2009 championship game. This can get to be quite confusing, especially if one goes back a few years and...say, speaks of the 2000 champion. Are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2000 between the St. Louis Rams and the Tennessee Titans at the close of the 1999 season, or are we talking about the winner of the game held in 2001 for the 2000 season that matched the Baltimore Ravens up against the New York Giants? This confusion all helps to ensure that, assuming it isn't your pet team playing in this game, this year's Super Bowl will be largely forgotten in five or six years.
So here's my prediction for tomorrow's game, for what it's worth (not a whole lot, I imagine):
New Orleans 34, Indianapolis 31
Friday, February 5, 2010
GOP Strategy Errors
There are two major problems I have with Republican senators, and neither actually has to do with their conservative opinions on the issues. The first is that they seem to be beholden not to the states they represent and not even the body of voters that they believe put them into office. Rather they are almost exclusively concerned with how a handful of extremist radio and television hosts will portray them on their shows if they vote or speak IN ANY WAY that these ideologues object to. And I am naturally referring to folks like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin.
My second concern about GOP senators is the two-faced approach to the legislative process that they have consistently demonstrated during the past year. Typically, a bill or nomination will first be considered in committee, where it is often easily passed with much Republican support, sometimes unanimously. Then, once the bill or nomination has made it to the Senate floor for debate, cloture, and an up-down vote, the minority party will use whatever procedural tactic it can to delay the process. Including bills and nominees that the GOP has no special objection to. With many of their senators who voted "ay" in the committee voting "no" to end filibusters. And then, in those circumstances when a final floor vote is finally obtained, turning back around and voting "ay"!
This is obstructionism, pure and simple. And the President is correct to call out the Republicans for this. I don't care whether any of them are "offended" by that (pompous, self-important Arizona senator Jon Kyl comes to mind with his offense taken at Obama's State of the Union remarks, terming them "snide").
Truth be told, relatively few Americans listen to talk radio, or for that matter radio in general anymore. I don't listen very much myself (what an audio wasteland it is). And even cable television news outlets like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC don't command the bulk of the voting population's attention, either.
Here is my recommendation for the Republicans in Congress, especially those in the Senate: Worry! Especially when that final lagging indicator of recession, the high unemployment rate, begins to nosedive sometime this year and the economy begins to be portrayed by the news media in a rosier light (except on Fox News, of course). And expect the Democrats to lambaste you mercilessly during the 2010 campaign season for your "just say no" philosophy while you should be actively representing your constituents in Congress. The way to mitigate this is simple: on uncontroversial legislative matters, loosen party discipline and let the votes go through without delaying tactics. But stand firm on those issues and nominees that raise major alarms to your (conservative) values. After all, that is how your opponents the Democrats have behaved over the previous few years when they were in the minority. In other words, choose your battles wisely!
Oh, one other thing, before it's too late. You need to dissociate yourselves from the wingnut fringe group that call themselves "Tea Partiers". I have heard some of their conspiratorial rants and they sound a lot like some of the drivel I have heard and read before from other sources over the years. What some in the Grand Old Party may be unaware of, though, is that underlying some of this conspiracy talk is a strong, virulent current of anti-Semitism. Just as the fact the KKK would call themselves conservative doesn't mean that they are your friends, neither should other elements automatically be accepted without some scrutiny. Careful now!
My second concern about GOP senators is the two-faced approach to the legislative process that they have consistently demonstrated during the past year. Typically, a bill or nomination will first be considered in committee, where it is often easily passed with much Republican support, sometimes unanimously. Then, once the bill or nomination has made it to the Senate floor for debate, cloture, and an up-down vote, the minority party will use whatever procedural tactic it can to delay the process. Including bills and nominees that the GOP has no special objection to. With many of their senators who voted "ay" in the committee voting "no" to end filibusters. And then, in those circumstances when a final floor vote is finally obtained, turning back around and voting "ay"!
This is obstructionism, pure and simple. And the President is correct to call out the Republicans for this. I don't care whether any of them are "offended" by that (pompous, self-important Arizona senator Jon Kyl comes to mind with his offense taken at Obama's State of the Union remarks, terming them "snide").
Truth be told, relatively few Americans listen to talk radio, or for that matter radio in general anymore. I don't listen very much myself (what an audio wasteland it is). And even cable television news outlets like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC don't command the bulk of the voting population's attention, either.
Here is my recommendation for the Republicans in Congress, especially those in the Senate: Worry! Especially when that final lagging indicator of recession, the high unemployment rate, begins to nosedive sometime this year and the economy begins to be portrayed by the news media in a rosier light (except on Fox News, of course). And expect the Democrats to lambaste you mercilessly during the 2010 campaign season for your "just say no" philosophy while you should be actively representing your constituents in Congress. The way to mitigate this is simple: on uncontroversial legislative matters, loosen party discipline and let the votes go through without delaying tactics. But stand firm on those issues and nominees that raise major alarms to your (conservative) values. After all, that is how your opponents the Democrats have behaved over the previous few years when they were in the minority. In other words, choose your battles wisely!
Oh, one other thing, before it's too late. You need to dissociate yourselves from the wingnut fringe group that call themselves "Tea Partiers". I have heard some of their conspiratorial rants and they sound a lot like some of the drivel I have heard and read before from other sources over the years. What some in the Grand Old Party may be unaware of, though, is that underlying some of this conspiracy talk is a strong, virulent current of anti-Semitism. Just as the fact the KKK would call themselves conservative doesn't mean that they are your friends, neither should other elements automatically be accepted without some scrutiny. Careful now!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Marathon Prospects
Having signed up to run in the LifeSouth Half-Marathon here in Gainesville on February 14, I considered whether to run in a full marathon (26.2 miles) a few weeks later, if my training went well. I looked over websites listing marathons to be held in Florida during March and found...nothing! But in January and February are listed several marathons, some closely bunched together. For example, Ocala, just 35-40 miles south of Gainesville, just finished hosting a marathon. And Jacksonville is holding one only a week after Gainesville's (our marathon and half-marathon are run simultaneously). That doesn't give runners very much time to space apart their races, does it? And lord knows they need that spacing to recuperate from the grueling long distance of this type of race.
But I understand why, at least in Florida, marathons tend to end after February. We live in a pretty humid, warm state. But still, I would have thought that the month of March would have been conducive to marathons. After all, it isn't like the summertime here, when the temperatures and humidity both regularly go over the "90" mark.
If I do have plans to run in a marathon race later this spring, it's going to have to be in another state. And that seems like too much of a hassle to a homebody like me. Albany, Georgia is holding a marathon sponsored by Snickers, of all businesses. But I don't see myself driving there and back, especially the "back" part following the race. Oh well.
But all is not lost. After all, ultra-marathon legend Dean Karnazes ran his first marathon on his own while in high school, simply running 105 laps around his high school track. I can work up to something similar, substituting my own designed courses and covering the 26.2 miles that way. After all, that is what I already did with the two half-marathons I ran during the last two weeks!
But if I am going to try to cover a marathon in a single run, I had better accomplish it this year within the next two or three months. For by June, the weather will have settled into the hot and humid summer pattern dominating this area.
But I understand why, at least in Florida, marathons tend to end after February. We live in a pretty humid, warm state. But still, I would have thought that the month of March would have been conducive to marathons. After all, it isn't like the summertime here, when the temperatures and humidity both regularly go over the "90" mark.
If I do have plans to run in a marathon race later this spring, it's going to have to be in another state. And that seems like too much of a hassle to a homebody like me. Albany, Georgia is holding a marathon sponsored by Snickers, of all businesses. But I don't see myself driving there and back, especially the "back" part following the race. Oh well.
But all is not lost. After all, ultra-marathon legend Dean Karnazes ran his first marathon on his own while in high school, simply running 105 laps around his high school track. I can work up to something similar, substituting my own designed courses and covering the 26.2 miles that way. After all, that is what I already did with the two half-marathons I ran during the last two weeks!
But if I am going to try to cover a marathon in a single run, I had better accomplish it this year within the next two or three months. For by June, the weather will have settled into the hot and humid summer pattern dominating this area.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
No More City Park Articles For Now
If you have been following this log over the past few months, you may have noticed that (1) I had been writing articles (with photos) describing various Gainesville city parks and (2) I stopped doing so. Why?
Well, if you look at the pics, it should be apparent that most of these parks simply have a playground/picnic area and a looping walking trail through a wooded area, with a small running creek running through it. Some parks have better play areas than others while some excel at the trails. But the experiences, at least to me, are pretty similar. So why keep visiting new parks that are minor variations of each other? But there were a couple of other factors that curtailed my interest in this "explore local parks" project of mine.
The various Gainesville city parks were listed and described on their own website. There were two "parks" so described that were relatively close to my neighborhood, so I went out to explore them. And found that they didn't really exist, at least not yet. But the website had them already open, with walking trails and play areas! So phooey on them for that!
And then there was the time that I took my wife to walk with through the pretty little Cofrin Nature Park off NW 8th Avenue. It was almost twilight as we got out of our car, entered the park, and walked through the woods on the trail. A pretty pleasant experience, I might say. But as we left the wooded trail area and approached the park's exit, we noticed two police cars parked right there. We asked a policeman if there was a problem, and he replied that someone reported a suspicious-looking man in the park. They obviously didn't regard US as suspicious because we were a COUPLE. But later I wondered to myself, what if it had been just me going by myself through the park? The police would have automatically regarded me as a suspicious type, possibly the one who had been reported, and who knows how events would have progressed after that. So my initially positive experience walking through a park with my wife ended with a sense of paranoia about the police. I recognize that part of this is coming from me, but part of it is also, I am convinced, from the tendency of the police to discriminate in their treatment of people based on their demographic classification (gender, race), dress, and grouping (solitary, coupled, or in a larger group). And often finding myself being a "solitary" person in public, I find that to be just a little bit threatening.
Well, if you look at the pics, it should be apparent that most of these parks simply have a playground/picnic area and a looping walking trail through a wooded area, with a small running creek running through it. Some parks have better play areas than others while some excel at the trails. But the experiences, at least to me, are pretty similar. So why keep visiting new parks that are minor variations of each other? But there were a couple of other factors that curtailed my interest in this "explore local parks" project of mine.
The various Gainesville city parks were listed and described on their own website. There were two "parks" so described that were relatively close to my neighborhood, so I went out to explore them. And found that they didn't really exist, at least not yet. But the website had them already open, with walking trails and play areas! So phooey on them for that!
And then there was the time that I took my wife to walk with through the pretty little Cofrin Nature Park off NW 8th Avenue. It was almost twilight as we got out of our car, entered the park, and walked through the woods on the trail. A pretty pleasant experience, I might say. But as we left the wooded trail area and approached the park's exit, we noticed two police cars parked right there. We asked a policeman if there was a problem, and he replied that someone reported a suspicious-looking man in the park. They obviously didn't regard US as suspicious because we were a COUPLE. But later I wondered to myself, what if it had been just me going by myself through the park? The police would have automatically regarded me as a suspicious type, possibly the one who had been reported, and who knows how events would have progressed after that. So my initially positive experience walking through a park with my wife ended with a sense of paranoia about the police. I recognize that part of this is coming from me, but part of it is also, I am convinced, from the tendency of the police to discriminate in their treatment of people based on their demographic classification (gender, race), dress, and grouping (solitary, coupled, or in a larger group). And often finding myself being a "solitary" person in public, I find that to be just a little bit threatening.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Grammy Show Belies Musical Diversity
Every awards show I happen to inadvertently tune in to (I never deliberately set out to watch them) demonstrates the juggernaut that big corporate interests have on our entertainment industry. Even with the Internet and its exposure of so many genres of so many talented musical acts, these awards continue to feature the same predictable artists, with a sprinkle of "great newcomers" worked in. The Grammy Awards show last Sunday evening was no exception. Not that I don't think that acts like Pink, Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce, and Taylor Swift are talented; it's just that the genres presented are much too narrow. The Grammies, which back in the 1960s attempted to span the range of music, have now reduced themselves to the lowest common denominator in defining the art, at least as far as their televised awards show is concerned. Besides cursory nods to country music, the only act that I saw on it that interested me was the alternative rock band Kings of Leon. Where were Spoon, Beck, Sufjan Stevens, Broken Social Scene, Metric, Iron and Wine, Bon Iver, Andrew Bird, Beirut, Arcade Fire, Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand, Anathallo, Jose Gonzalez, I'm From Barcelona, Leslie Feist, Band of Horses, Deathcab for Cutie, Depeche Mode, the Hives, the Vines, Kasabian, Tegan and Sara, Muse, the New Pornographers, Radiohead, Rogue Wave, the Shins, Snow Patrol, the Strokes, or Vampire Weekend, to name just a few?
Like Obama with our space program (see previous day's article), corporate America and its stooge awards programs are completely OUT OF TOUCH with good music. I'll be damned if I ever waste another minute of my precious time watching any of them!
P.S. Robert Downey, Jr. looked like a complete dufus/dork up there with his crooked glasses. Did he intentionally mean to look that way? Well, at least I got one good laugh out of the show...
Like Obama with our space program (see previous day's article), corporate America and its stooge awards programs are completely OUT OF TOUCH with good music. I'll be damned if I ever waste another minute of my precious time watching any of them!
P.S. Robert Downey, Jr. looked like a complete dufus/dork up there with his crooked glasses. Did he intentionally mean to look that way? Well, at least I got one good laugh out of the show...
Monday, February 1, 2010
Obama Out of Touch on Ares
Usually a supporter of Barack Obama, I am beside myself wondering exactly what the President is thinking regarding the future of the American manned space program. He has decided to cancel the Ares program, which is the crucial next stage in our plans to return to the moon and explore Mars (and eventually beyond). Nine billion dollars have already been spent on this project, which Obama wants to simply abandon.
It is one thing to say that there is waste and inefficiency within an organization and that it needs to straighten itself out. It is another thing to unilaterally shut down the country's manned space program because of this!
To be sure, the President wants to replace Ares with private contracting. NASA would buy rides from private companies that would ferry their astronauts and payloads back and forth to the Space Station. But the versatility that the Space Shuttle provided would be gone.
President Bush decided to end the Space Shuttle program with the idea that it would be replaced by the more ambitious Ares program to return to the moon and eventually explore Mars. Now we are left with nothing.
Obama likes to tout himself as a supporter of science and technology. He continually urges a revamping of our educational system and standards, especially in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. Why? So that our graduates can then go get jobs overseas working for Europe, China or other nations that have a sense of vision about the future concerning human space exploration? Or so that scientists and engineers developing new technologies domestically in our universities and corporations can have that technology taken and applied by other countries for their own benefit, possibly running in conflict with our own national interests?
If Barack Obama does decide to leave us in low-Earth-orbit and dependent on private companies by canceling Ares, I will need to begin to reconsider how sincere this president's words really are. In the face of massive bank and corporate bailouts, along with the massive payout to insurance companies incorporated within the so-called health care "reform" bill, ending Ares would tell me that Barack Obama is completely out of touch with America, just as his political opponents have been clamoring all along. Not that some of those drastic economic measures weren't justified, but it seems as if Obama is giving away the store with one hand (bailouts, corporate giveaways) and practicing extreme scrutiny with the other (NASA).
To those who believe that manned exploration of space is just a big public relations/propaganda boondoggle and that NASA should focus only on the many scientific projects they already have underway, I would reply that our space program needs an image that appeals to the public, stirs its imagination, and gives a sense of opportunity for exploration to its young people, many of whom will opt for careers in science and engineering. Just having a president going around making pretty speeches will not accomplish this.
The way I see it, our exploration of space hinges on the development of five technologies (all dependent on growing computer technology): materials, propulsion, life support, robotics, and virtual reality. I believe that to go in the directions necessary to develop these technologies there will have to be manned missions to other worlds. But not all worlds are hospitable to human "hands-on" exploration. In fact, the overwhelming majority are closed because of their severe conditions. It is with these that robotics and virtual reality will serve as the agents of exploration. But we can forget about any of this coming about if we continue to resign ourselves to only going around in low-orbit circles!
It is one thing to say that there is waste and inefficiency within an organization and that it needs to straighten itself out. It is another thing to unilaterally shut down the country's manned space program because of this!
To be sure, the President wants to replace Ares with private contracting. NASA would buy rides from private companies that would ferry their astronauts and payloads back and forth to the Space Station. But the versatility that the Space Shuttle provided would be gone.
President Bush decided to end the Space Shuttle program with the idea that it would be replaced by the more ambitious Ares program to return to the moon and eventually explore Mars. Now we are left with nothing.
Obama likes to tout himself as a supporter of science and technology. He continually urges a revamping of our educational system and standards, especially in the areas of science, mathematics, and engineering. Why? So that our graduates can then go get jobs overseas working for Europe, China or other nations that have a sense of vision about the future concerning human space exploration? Or so that scientists and engineers developing new technologies domestically in our universities and corporations can have that technology taken and applied by other countries for their own benefit, possibly running in conflict with our own national interests?
If Barack Obama does decide to leave us in low-Earth-orbit and dependent on private companies by canceling Ares, I will need to begin to reconsider how sincere this president's words really are. In the face of massive bank and corporate bailouts, along with the massive payout to insurance companies incorporated within the so-called health care "reform" bill, ending Ares would tell me that Barack Obama is completely out of touch with America, just as his political opponents have been clamoring all along. Not that some of those drastic economic measures weren't justified, but it seems as if Obama is giving away the store with one hand (bailouts, corporate giveaways) and practicing extreme scrutiny with the other (NASA).
To those who believe that manned exploration of space is just a big public relations/propaganda boondoggle and that NASA should focus only on the many scientific projects they already have underway, I would reply that our space program needs an image that appeals to the public, stirs its imagination, and gives a sense of opportunity for exploration to its young people, many of whom will opt for careers in science and engineering. Just having a president going around making pretty speeches will not accomplish this.
The way I see it, our exploration of space hinges on the development of five technologies (all dependent on growing computer technology): materials, propulsion, life support, robotics, and virtual reality. I believe that to go in the directions necessary to develop these technologies there will have to be manned missions to other worlds. But not all worlds are hospitable to human "hands-on" exploration. In fact, the overwhelming majority are closed because of their severe conditions. It is with these that robotics and virtual reality will serve as the agents of exploration. But we can forget about any of this coming about if we continue to resign ourselves to only going around in low-orbit circles!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Ran Half-Marathon Again
Yesterday morning, my wife pointed out to me an Associated Press story appearing in Thursday's Gainesville Sun. Harvard University's Daniel Lieberman, with apparently the very appropriate qualifications of being both a biologist and runner, has put forth the proposition that it is better for runners to run shoeless. His reasoning is simple enough: when people run barefoot, they tend to land on the middle or front of the foot. This minimizes the force of the body weight that the feet must absorb every time they hit the ground. Although the effect is to run faster, there is less weight to carry. Lieberman then referred to those great distance runners from East Africa who grow up running barefoot and now simply run the same way with shoes on during races. So I said to myself, "Self, let's try this out!"
The Wednesday before last, I ran my half-marathon around the neighborhood. I did it largely running almost flatfooted, I believed, to save myself from getting too tired and sore. But the effect, although keeping me from ever becoming winded, was to leave me with a lot of aches in my feet and shins. And severe leg cramps as well. Yesterday I ran a second half-marathon, taking my new information about barefoot running into account. No, I still used shoes; I simply took care to land my feet in the middle-to-toes areas. The effect automatically made me run faster, without me attempting to do so. I had intended originally to run a 5.58 mile course and see how I felt, but I decided during the run to just go as far as I could. And I ended up covering 13.1 miles in 1:56:03. This was at a pace of more than a minute less per mile than my previous half-marathon. My feet and calves did not ache as before, and the only cramping I experienced was some in my feet for a short period after the run. I did work out my lungs and heart more, though.
This experience made me wonder whether there wasn't a "minimum effective running speed" for each person, below which the body, especially the lower parts of the leg and feet, would be severely taxed by the body's full weight on landings. It certainly appeared so on yesterday's run, and I intend to continue running as I did then.
Breaking two hours for a half-marathon had been a personal milestone goal of mine that I had distant hopes of achieving in the upcoming half-marathon race in Gainesville on February 14. I ended up fulfilling it just by loping around the neighborhood without making any special effort!
The Wednesday before last, I ran my half-marathon around the neighborhood. I did it largely running almost flatfooted, I believed, to save myself from getting too tired and sore. But the effect, although keeping me from ever becoming winded, was to leave me with a lot of aches in my feet and shins. And severe leg cramps as well. Yesterday I ran a second half-marathon, taking my new information about barefoot running into account. No, I still used shoes; I simply took care to land my feet in the middle-to-toes areas. The effect automatically made me run faster, without me attempting to do so. I had intended originally to run a 5.58 mile course and see how I felt, but I decided during the run to just go as far as I could. And I ended up covering 13.1 miles in 1:56:03. This was at a pace of more than a minute less per mile than my previous half-marathon. My feet and calves did not ache as before, and the only cramping I experienced was some in my feet for a short period after the run. I did work out my lungs and heart more, though.
This experience made me wonder whether there wasn't a "minimum effective running speed" for each person, below which the body, especially the lower parts of the leg and feet, would be severely taxed by the body's full weight on landings. It certainly appeared so on yesterday's run, and I intend to continue running as I did then.
Breaking two hours for a half-marathon had been a personal milestone goal of mine that I had distant hopes of achieving in the upcoming half-marathon race in Gainesville on February 14. I ended up fulfilling it just by loping around the neighborhood without making any special effort!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tim Tebow's Anti-Abortion Ad
Tim Tebow is scheduled to appear on a televised ad during the Super Bowl that is sponsored by the ultraconservative, very politically active group Focus on the Family. In it, Tebow will relate how his mother, in the late stages of her pregnancy with Tim, had been advised by her physician in the Philippines that her life was in peril if she tried to bring her pregnancy to term, with an abortion as the recommended option. She chose instead to risk giving birth, and here we are now with Tim Tebow, apparently wanting to advise other women in the same dire circumstances to make the same choice against their doctor's recommendations. I wonder whether the University of Florida star quarterback realizes exactly what he is doing with his ad.
After all, we are not even discussing here the issue that has made the "choice" vs. "life" debate such a divisive controversy in America: the use of abortion as a means of birth control by women who don't want to have a baby or be pregnant, for whatever personal reasons they may have. We are instead talking here about women who want to have children, who want to give birth, who have already formed an emotional bond with that child forming within them, and who, at the time of a physician's painful advice, are torn apart by what may seem to be an impossible no-win choice. Tim Tebow's mother made her choice, and it was properly hers to make. We're all happy that mother and baby both survived in this case. But does Tebow think that his example automatically carries over to other women in similar straits, morally obligating them to make the same choice his mother made and providing them with the same rosy outcome if the "right" choice is made? And speaking of "choice", doesn't Tebow realize that his message's sponsor, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, wants to take away that choice and put it in the hands of the State?
All that having been said, I don't have a problem with CBS airing serious ads that discuss issues during the Super Bowl. I for one am sick of the ridiculous and quite unentertaining commercials that saturate that event. I could stand a few issue-based spots, thank you. And since CBS is catering to James Dobson, how about allowing other advocacy messages as well (such as that United Church's very modest ad they rejected a few years ago that welcomed the LGBT community into its doors)?
But back to Tim Tebow, who seems like a nice enough guy to me. Will it be worth it all to him if women with dangerous complications in the last stages of their pregnancies take his advice, with some them dying for it? Will he feel that he had done "good" overall and, oh well, you can't win 'em all? Will he cry for the women who die like he cried on the sidelines when his football team lost to Alabama? I doubt that "Doctor" Dobson would feel any remorse or regret over the unintended consequences of this message. Is Tim Tebow really that kind of a "Christian"? Say it ain't so, Tim!
After all, we are not even discussing here the issue that has made the "choice" vs. "life" debate such a divisive controversy in America: the use of abortion as a means of birth control by women who don't want to have a baby or be pregnant, for whatever personal reasons they may have. We are instead talking here about women who want to have children, who want to give birth, who have already formed an emotional bond with that child forming within them, and who, at the time of a physician's painful advice, are torn apart by what may seem to be an impossible no-win choice. Tim Tebow's mother made her choice, and it was properly hers to make. We're all happy that mother and baby both survived in this case. But does Tebow think that his example automatically carries over to other women in similar straits, morally obligating them to make the same choice his mother made and providing them with the same rosy outcome if the "right" choice is made? And speaking of "choice", doesn't Tebow realize that his message's sponsor, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, wants to take away that choice and put it in the hands of the State?
All that having been said, I don't have a problem with CBS airing serious ads that discuss issues during the Super Bowl. I for one am sick of the ridiculous and quite unentertaining commercials that saturate that event. I could stand a few issue-based spots, thank you. And since CBS is catering to James Dobson, how about allowing other advocacy messages as well (such as that United Church's very modest ad they rejected a few years ago that welcomed the LGBT community into its doors)?
But back to Tim Tebow, who seems like a nice enough guy to me. Will it be worth it all to him if women with dangerous complications in the last stages of their pregnancies take his advice, with some them dying for it? Will he feel that he had done "good" overall and, oh well, you can't win 'em all? Will he cry for the women who die like he cried on the sidelines when his football team lost to Alabama? I doubt that "Doctor" Dobson would feel any remorse or regret over the unintended consequences of this message. Is Tim Tebow really that kind of a "Christian"? Say it ain't so, Tim!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Minnesota's Blown Game Vs. New Orleans
I'm watching the NFC championship football game on TV, see, and I'm pulling for the Minnesota Vikings all the way. Not that I have anything against their opponents, the New Orleans Saints. But I predicted before the season that the Vikings would make it to the Super Bowl and, besides, they have as star wide receiver University of Florida standout Percy Harvin. And, of course, there's veteran quarterback Brett Favre, against whom I rooted last year, only because he played then for my Miami Dolphins' divisional rival New York Jets. So, anyway...
It's late in the fourth quarter and the game is tied 28-28. Minnesota has the ball and is showing every appearance of going down the field and scoring. And why not? Just going by yards gained during the game, the Vikings have been dominating the Saints. The only factor that has kept New Orleans in the game to this point is the fact that Minnesota has committed four very costly turnovers SO far. But back to the late fourth quarter. Favre, to no one's surprise, has led his team to N.O.'s 33 yard line and a first down with 49 seconds to go in regulation time and two timeouts left for them. Then his coach Brad Childress takes over and calls two consecutive running plays that gain nothing, but cause them to waste time. On third down, the Vikings are called for a foolish penalty: having twelve players in the huddle. This essentially takes them close to being completely out of field goal range. Favre is now in a position where he has to throw, and the Saints defense knows this and covers the Vikings receivers well. And as the play develops, Favre throws an interception. Regulation ends, the Saints win the coin toss, receive the ball first in OT, march down the field, and kick a field goal to win it. With Favre coming out of it all as a scapegoat for Minnesota.
But although Brett Favre could have made better choices with that last play of his (including finally running a little and trying to go out of bounds), it was the foolish play-calling from the sidelines and ridiculous penalty that set it up. Favre should have been free to do what he had been doing all evening: throwing quick passes down the middle for 10-15 yards. Minnesota would have easily been in position to kick a relatively short field goal with their experienced and accurate kicker.
Why do coaches suddenly abandon what has worked for them the entire game at its conclusion and allow the other team to come back on them? I've seen this happen year after year with Don Shula and the Miami Dolphins. They'd be stopping their opponent the entire game and then during the last two minutes, they would change to a "prevent defense" and allow their foes to march down the file in short "bites" to get a winning score. Or how about the time in 2002 when Miami, trying to hold on to a playoff spot (and a small lead) against New England had the ball late in the game, deep in its own territory. And coach Dave Wannstedt, ignoring the facts that (1) he was supposed to be running out the clock and (2) he had a proven instrument for doing so in star running back Ricky Williams, instead had his quarterback throw three straight passes. All fell incomplete, Miami punted with too much time left on the clock, New England scored and won, and Miami missed the playoffs. Such stupidity!
So New Orleans is in the Super Bowl against the Indianapolis Colts. I'll be rooting for the Saints, but it's a shame that Brett Favre couldn't have had this one other shot at the championship.
It's late in the fourth quarter and the game is tied 28-28. Minnesota has the ball and is showing every appearance of going down the field and scoring. And why not? Just going by yards gained during the game, the Vikings have been dominating the Saints. The only factor that has kept New Orleans in the game to this point is the fact that Minnesota has committed four very costly turnovers SO far. But back to the late fourth quarter. Favre, to no one's surprise, has led his team to N.O.'s 33 yard line and a first down with 49 seconds to go in regulation time and two timeouts left for them. Then his coach Brad Childress takes over and calls two consecutive running plays that gain nothing, but cause them to waste time. On third down, the Vikings are called for a foolish penalty: having twelve players in the huddle. This essentially takes them close to being completely out of field goal range. Favre is now in a position where he has to throw, and the Saints defense knows this and covers the Vikings receivers well. And as the play develops, Favre throws an interception. Regulation ends, the Saints win the coin toss, receive the ball first in OT, march down the field, and kick a field goal to win it. With Favre coming out of it all as a scapegoat for Minnesota.
But although Brett Favre could have made better choices with that last play of his (including finally running a little and trying to go out of bounds), it was the foolish play-calling from the sidelines and ridiculous penalty that set it up. Favre should have been free to do what he had been doing all evening: throwing quick passes down the middle for 10-15 yards. Minnesota would have easily been in position to kick a relatively short field goal with their experienced and accurate kicker.
Why do coaches suddenly abandon what has worked for them the entire game at its conclusion and allow the other team to come back on them? I've seen this happen year after year with Don Shula and the Miami Dolphins. They'd be stopping their opponent the entire game and then during the last two minutes, they would change to a "prevent defense" and allow their foes to march down the file in short "bites" to get a winning score. Or how about the time in 2002 when Miami, trying to hold on to a playoff spot (and a small lead) against New England had the ball late in the game, deep in its own territory. And coach Dave Wannstedt, ignoring the facts that (1) he was supposed to be running out the clock and (2) he had a proven instrument for doing so in star running back Ricky Williams, instead had his quarterback throw three straight passes. All fell incomplete, Miami punted with too much time left on the clock, New England scored and won, and Miami missed the playoffs. Such stupidity!
So New Orleans is in the Super Bowl against the Indianapolis Colts. I'll be rooting for the Saints, but it's a shame that Brett Favre couldn't have had this one other shot at the championship.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Conrad Amendment Debate and Vote
I witnessed an interesting U.S. Senate session on C-Span2 Tuesday, with amendments being debated and voted on concerning the bill raising the debt limit. Senators Conrad (D, ND) and Gregg (R, NH) put out an amendment establishing an "independent" commission that would study the congressional budget and make recommendations regarding where appropriate cuts could be made to reduce the national debt. The Senate and House would then be obligated to vote up-or-down on the committee's report, with no amendments of their own possible if the report were passed. And if passed, all of the commission's recommendations would become law, pending the President's signature. This amendment's sponsors pointed out in debate that Congress, with its extreme partisanship and susceptibility to special interests, has repeatedly reneged on its fiscal responsibility in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Deficit spending has run up the national debt to the point where we will soon be considered more of a risk to foreign lenders and the interest on their loans to us will dramatically rise. And that will mark our nation's steep and possibly irreversible decline, both in terms of domestic standard of living and world standing.
Standing firmly in opposition to the Conrad Amendment was Senator Baucus (D, MT), who charged that its implementation would co-opt the proper role of Congress in setting the federal government's financial policy. He pointed out that Congress was able to substantially reduce its deficit spending in 1990, 1993, and 1997 merely through its own conventional processes, needing no outside commission "help" to accomplish this. He also expressed fears which many on his side of the aisle had that Social Security would be one of the programs targeted for cuts by a new commission. Baucus thus put out his own amendment to assure that the commission could not arbitrarily include social security cuts in its report. To this amendment was added a provision from Senator Grassley (R, IA) that inserted a similar protection against raising taxes to reduce the deficit. The Baucus Amendment then went to a floor vote and passed 97-0.
Baucus wasn't opposed to an independent commission per se. He said that he would be offering his own amendment to create one whose findings would be amendable by Congress. Conrad and Gregg opposed this idea, though, saying that this would defeat the whole point of having the commission in the first place.
So opponents to the Conrad Amendment, depending on their political orientation, either feared higher taxes or cuts to entitlement programs. To me, that sounds pretty good, actually, and shows that this is not a partisan amendment hatched by one party to suit its own ideological purposes. I think it is more important to assure that we remain a viable nation with a large financial "pie" to divide up, rather than a weak one with only a small "pie" and an even smaller one in the future. I consider this to be a matter of national security that is on the same level as protection from terrorist attacks. As for the argument that Congress was able to get it "right" in 1990, 1993, and 1997, I can only respond: What about 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (just looking at the past twenty years)? And this proposed commission would consist of representatives of both parties of both houses (appointed by the respective party leaders in each body), along with two appointed by the President. So we aren't talking about an unelected bureaucracy here, but rather a body beholden to the electorate.
Alas, the Conrad Amendment, though supported by a majority of senators (53-46), failed to muster the necessary 60 votes to gain passage under Senate rules. President Obama had expressed his strong support of this defeated amendment and may establish his own study commission for dealing with the runaway national debt. But its findings won't have any teeth, as Senator Gregg has pointed out.
Standing firmly in opposition to the Conrad Amendment was Senator Baucus (D, MT), who charged that its implementation would co-opt the proper role of Congress in setting the federal government's financial policy. He pointed out that Congress was able to substantially reduce its deficit spending in 1990, 1993, and 1997 merely through its own conventional processes, needing no outside commission "help" to accomplish this. He also expressed fears which many on his side of the aisle had that Social Security would be one of the programs targeted for cuts by a new commission. Baucus thus put out his own amendment to assure that the commission could not arbitrarily include social security cuts in its report. To this amendment was added a provision from Senator Grassley (R, IA) that inserted a similar protection against raising taxes to reduce the deficit. The Baucus Amendment then went to a floor vote and passed 97-0.
Baucus wasn't opposed to an independent commission per se. He said that he would be offering his own amendment to create one whose findings would be amendable by Congress. Conrad and Gregg opposed this idea, though, saying that this would defeat the whole point of having the commission in the first place.
So opponents to the Conrad Amendment, depending on their political orientation, either feared higher taxes or cuts to entitlement programs. To me, that sounds pretty good, actually, and shows that this is not a partisan amendment hatched by one party to suit its own ideological purposes. I think it is more important to assure that we remain a viable nation with a large financial "pie" to divide up, rather than a weak one with only a small "pie" and an even smaller one in the future. I consider this to be a matter of national security that is on the same level as protection from terrorist attacks. As for the argument that Congress was able to get it "right" in 1990, 1993, and 1997, I can only respond: What about 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (just looking at the past twenty years)? And this proposed commission would consist of representatives of both parties of both houses (appointed by the respective party leaders in each body), along with two appointed by the President. So we aren't talking about an unelected bureaucracy here, but rather a body beholden to the electorate.
Alas, the Conrad Amendment, though supported by a majority of senators (53-46), failed to muster the necessary 60 votes to gain passage under Senate rules. President Obama had expressed his strong support of this defeated amendment and may establish his own study commission for dealing with the runaway national debt. But its findings won't have any teeth, as Senator Gregg has pointed out.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Some Bands Don't Decline
Most famous popular/rock music acts, be they solo or groups, start out with a big breakthrough album/single, consolidate themselves in the profession with a few decent followups, put out a "classic" album or two, and then begin a long decline of successively inferior works. I have no doubt that, if the Beatles had remained together, that would have been the case (just look at their later solo works). But we all know that they broke up with much animosity in 1970. As did Pink Floyd in 1983, but not before the release of their "declining" album The Final Cut. And when they reformed sans creative force Roger Waters, the group was but a pale shadow of its former glory. Led Zeppelin, which many thought broke up prematurely in 1980 due to the tragic death of drummer John Bonham, had already begun to show signs of decline with its last two studio albums Presence (a rush job) and In Through the Out Door. The Who HAD to decline after their torrid succession of masterpiece albums of the early seventies. In the grunge sphere, different bands took different roads. After only three studio albums and their best work apparently ahead of them, Nirvana imploded with the death of singer/songwriter Kurt Cobain. Soundgarden peaked with Superunknown and then immediately broke up just as it became apparent that their follow-up, Down on the Upside, was a step in decline. Alice in Chains "died" with the death of singer Layne Staley and only recently was "resurrected" when they came up with a dude whose voice was a "dead" ringer for Layne. But Pearl Jam has quite a different story. And they remind me a bit of a band I have followed since the early 1960s: the Rolling Stones.
Both Pearl Jam in the 90s and the Rolling Stones in the 60s made big names for themselves with their early albums and singles. They have always been great on stage and seem to thrive around their fans. Both groups have seen periods of decline and resurrection. And, in my opinion, both seem to be producing some of their best material now, at this late date. I remember back in the mid nineties, when people joked that the Stones were about to embark on their "one foot in the grave" tour to promote their then-new album Voodoo Lounge. What would you call a tour of theirs now? The "exhumation" tour?!
In order for a band to last very long and maintain a high quality of product requires a rare, sophisticated mixture of ego and submission among the members. And the ability to shrug off differences for the greater good of the group. It helps to have a good sense of humor, something I have long sensed in both Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones. I look forward to hearing even better stuff from them in the future.
Both Pearl Jam in the 90s and the Rolling Stones in the 60s made big names for themselves with their early albums and singles. They have always been great on stage and seem to thrive around their fans. Both groups have seen periods of decline and resurrection. And, in my opinion, both seem to be producing some of their best material now, at this late date. I remember back in the mid nineties, when people joked that the Stones were about to embark on their "one foot in the grave" tour to promote their then-new album Voodoo Lounge. What would you call a tour of theirs now? The "exhumation" tour?!
In order for a band to last very long and maintain a high quality of product requires a rare, sophisticated mixture of ego and submission among the members. And the ability to shrug off differences for the greater good of the group. It helps to have a good sense of humor, something I have long sensed in both Pearl Jam and the Rolling Stones. I look forward to hearing even better stuff from them in the future.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Don't Panic Yet, Democrats
It looks as if the Democrats are in a desperate stage of their run as a national ruling party. In the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Massachusetts, a conservative Republican defeated their nominee to take over the late Edward Kennedy's Senate seat, currently held by temporary appointee Paul Kirk. The Democrats have also recently lost governor races in New Jersey and Virginia, both states that they formerly controlled (with the incumbent governor of NJ losing his race for reelection). President Obama's approval ratings continue to slide as the country seems to be coming on board with the opposition's continual portrayal of him as being some kind of foreign socialist who is wrecking the economy into spiraling debt, taking over private industry, "killing Grandma" with health care reform, and letting all the terrorists in with open arms. As negatively as I've seen the previous president, George W. Bush, portrayed, it has come nothing close to how Obama has been treated. And I very keenly remember that, in spite of claims (which I disagree with) on the part of many that Bush stole the 2000 election, he was treated for the most part in his first two years by the opposition Democrats with the utmost civility and respect. But with Obama we get "You lie!" coming from the GOP side of Congress as he addresses it in formal session.
Will this year be a replay of 1994, when in Bill Clinton's only second year as a sitting president the country radically shifted the balance of power by placing the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress? Some say "yes" and point to the fact that in both instances the drive to reform the health care system has been a major factor in the Democrats' polling misfortunes. But consider the following:
The 1994 campaign and election took everyone by surprise because it wasn't until later in the campaign that it became apparent that the Republicans were going to make substantial gains. And then few would have guessed that those gains would put them in the majority as it did. Two years later, though, Clinton easily won reelection! These two facts point to my conclusion: if the Democrats can sense trouble early enough, they can dig themselves out of it by adopting different postures and creating new images of themselves. This certainly has worked in the past.
The health care reform quagmire still continues, but one way or another it will end in the not-to-distant future. In the meantime, Obama is learning from the elections and polls, changing his emphasis to jobs and the economy. He is adopting a more populist manner that is reminiscent of his presidential campaign. Smart guy. Obama also needs to continue with his strong foreign policy and push an image of himself being tough on terrorism. I think he is already strong on both counts, but many apparently think he is soft, for some reason.
So no, I don't think the Democrats are doomed in 2010 after all. There is a good chance that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid and that seats in places like North Dakota and even Illinois may turn Republican. In the House, the Democrats will probably lose some seats as well. But I don't think that this will be enough to overturn their majorities in either house, not only still allowing them to set the agenda on the floor, but also to control committees (including the crucial Senate Judiciary Committee).
So if you're a Democrat, now is not the time to panic. Besides, Obama (or "Not-McCain" if you will) is going to be in there for quite a while longer!
One big concern, though: If the Democrats in Congress pursue immigration reform this year and try to ram through a bill with little or no support across the aisle, start worrying, Democrats. And prepare for celebrations in November, Republicans!
Will this year be a replay of 1994, when in Bill Clinton's only second year as a sitting president the country radically shifted the balance of power by placing the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress? Some say "yes" and point to the fact that in both instances the drive to reform the health care system has been a major factor in the Democrats' polling misfortunes. But consider the following:
The 1994 campaign and election took everyone by surprise because it wasn't until later in the campaign that it became apparent that the Republicans were going to make substantial gains. And then few would have guessed that those gains would put them in the majority as it did. Two years later, though, Clinton easily won reelection! These two facts point to my conclusion: if the Democrats can sense trouble early enough, they can dig themselves out of it by adopting different postures and creating new images of themselves. This certainly has worked in the past.
The health care reform quagmire still continues, but one way or another it will end in the not-to-distant future. In the meantime, Obama is learning from the elections and polls, changing his emphasis to jobs and the economy. He is adopting a more populist manner that is reminiscent of his presidential campaign. Smart guy. Obama also needs to continue with his strong foreign policy and push an image of himself being tough on terrorism. I think he is already strong on both counts, but many apparently think he is soft, for some reason.
So no, I don't think the Democrats are doomed in 2010 after all. There is a good chance that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid and that seats in places like North Dakota and even Illinois may turn Republican. In the House, the Democrats will probably lose some seats as well. But I don't think that this will be enough to overturn their majorities in either house, not only still allowing them to set the agenda on the floor, but also to control committees (including the crucial Senate Judiciary Committee).
So if you're a Democrat, now is not the time to panic. Besides, Obama (or "Not-McCain" if you will) is going to be in there for quite a while longer!
One big concern, though: If the Democrats in Congress pursue immigration reform this year and try to ram through a bill with little or no support across the aisle, start worrying, Democrats. And prepare for celebrations in November, Republicans!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
My Favorite Songs of 2009
The year 2009 was very fun for me musically, as I discovered a plethora of heretofore unknown artists whose works made a strong impression on me. Most of them started out with their recording careers during either the 1990s or the early 2000s. And they all belong to the genre of music commonly referred to as "independent (indie)/alternative".
I have, from time to time last year, referred to some of these artists and their songs. With a few exceptions, my favorite songs of 2009 are actually from earlier albums. Here is my list of favorites (artist and actual year of release in brackets):
1. Casimir Pulaski Day [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
2. Calculation (Theme) [Metric, 2003]
3. Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
4. Jacksonville [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
5. Fiery Crash [Andrew Bird, 2007]
6. Empty [Metric, 2005]
7. Chicago [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
8. Pittsfield [Sufjan Stevens, 2006]
9. Merchants of Soul [Spoon, 2005]
10. A Sunday Smile [Beirut, 2006]
11. Flint [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
12. Come On Feel the Illinoise [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
13. Niagara Falls [Sufjan Stevens, 2002]
14. 15 Step [Radiohead, 2009]
15. Cause=Time [Broken Social Scene, 2002]
16. The Lightning Strike [Snow Patrol, 2008]
17. Cellphone's Dead [Beck, 2005]
18. The Fear [Lily Allen, 2009]
19. Bodysnatchers [Radiohead, 2009]
20. A-Punk [Vampire Weekend, 2008]
And there are many, many more great songs as well. From the above list, it would be a safe bet to presume that my "artist of the year" was Sufjan Stevens. Which then confuses me a bit.
When I go to Best Buy or Borders or Barnes & Nobles and look at their music CDs, Sufjan Stevens is there with most of his works well-stocked for sale. He is a big enough artist that they have special dividers with his name on them. He has critically highly-acclaimed albums and instantly sells out his concerts whenever they are announced. He has been interviewed on MTV and performed on Austin City Limits. In other words, he sells! So why then haven't I ever heard anything of his on broadcast radio? Especially in a college town like Gainesville, Florida, where you just might suppose that his music would be better received? Instead, I hear stale crap being repetitively played on stations like 103.7/WRUF and 100.5/WHHZ.
Well, no matter. I have been weaned from radio and have fully embraced the Internet as THE source for my favorite music. And it keeps coming and coming!
I have, from time to time last year, referred to some of these artists and their songs. With a few exceptions, my favorite songs of 2009 are actually from earlier albums. Here is my list of favorites (artist and actual year of release in brackets):
1. Casimir Pulaski Day [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
2. Calculation (Theme) [Metric, 2003]
3. Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
4. Jacksonville [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
5. Fiery Crash [Andrew Bird, 2007]
6. Empty [Metric, 2005]
7. Chicago [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
8. Pittsfield [Sufjan Stevens, 2006]
9. Merchants of Soul [Spoon, 2005]
10. A Sunday Smile [Beirut, 2006]
11. Flint [Sufjan Stevens, 2003]
12. Come On Feel the Illinoise [Sufjan Stevens, 2005]
13. Niagara Falls [Sufjan Stevens, 2002]
14. 15 Step [Radiohead, 2009]
15. Cause=Time [Broken Social Scene, 2002]
16. The Lightning Strike [Snow Patrol, 2008]
17. Cellphone's Dead [Beck, 2005]
18. The Fear [Lily Allen, 2009]
19. Bodysnatchers [Radiohead, 2009]
20. A-Punk [Vampire Weekend, 2008]
And there are many, many more great songs as well. From the above list, it would be a safe bet to presume that my "artist of the year" was Sufjan Stevens. Which then confuses me a bit.
When I go to Best Buy or Borders or Barnes & Nobles and look at their music CDs, Sufjan Stevens is there with most of his works well-stocked for sale. He is a big enough artist that they have special dividers with his name on them. He has critically highly-acclaimed albums and instantly sells out his concerts whenever they are announced. He has been interviewed on MTV and performed on Austin City Limits. In other words, he sells! So why then haven't I ever heard anything of his on broadcast radio? Especially in a college town like Gainesville, Florida, where you just might suppose that his music would be better received? Instead, I hear stale crap being repetitively played on stations like 103.7/WRUF and 100.5/WHHZ.
Well, no matter. I have been weaned from radio and have fully embraced the Internet as THE source for my favorite music. And it keeps coming and coming!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Karno
Lately, I have been getting my materials from my local Alachua County Library system via the Internet, doing searches and placing items on hold. Then, when notified that they are available, I drive down to my nearest branch library to check them out. The other day, though, I departed from my usual routine and randomly browsed around the library. And I found an interesting book about long-distance running.
Did I say "long-distance"? I meant "ultra-long distance", for the book I checked out (and ultimately read) is titled Ultra Marathon Man: Confessions of an All Night Runner, by Dean Karnazes. Affectionately called "Karno" by his friends, Karnazes is a study in extremes, as the book's title would suggest. A pretty avid runner throughout his childhood, Karnazes gave it up at age fifteen and didn't resume running until he was thirty. Then abruptedly, after a full, eventful day at the office and a subsequent night out with his friends (and much alcoholic imbibing), Kanazes went home, impulsively stripped down his clothing to his briefs and tee shirt, slipped on some ratty old sneakers in his garage, and began running down the street. He kept running and running until he ended up covering thirty miles!
This was the turning point for Dean Karnazes, for afterward he became an extreme fanatic for running extremely long running races. Since then he has run a 100 mile race up and down California mountains, a 130 mile race that wound through Death Valley and up Mount Whitney, a 26.2 mile marathon to the South Pole, and more recently, a 199 mile relay through west-central California, with him running ALL of the relay positions solo. Among other feats.
Karno is no doubt what I would call a "true believer": someone who has found his calling in life and has thrown himself fully into it. Yet he realizes that with his running, he is an extreme example and that others need to choose and pursue their own paths. In fact, he has used his running success as a springboard for motivational speaking, as well as landing him a position as a fitness columnist in Men's Health magazine.
I don't believe that everyone's bodies are the same, so I would never try to literally emulate what Dean Karnazes has done. But he has taught me some things in his book:
--On long-distance runs, I need to continually rehydrate myself and replenish my salts. On the very long runs, eating fast-burning carbohydrates is also a must. In the past, I have always played the stoic and not refueled until the run was over. No more!
--Although Karnazes would eat fast-burning food while running, away from the road he adhered to a diet of lean meats, vegetables, nuts, fruits, and low-glycemic carbohydrates. I need to follow his example. Karno claimed to have only 4.8% body fat. I could lose forty pounds and still not be anywhere near that level (not that I necessarily want that anyway).
--At any given moment, it is easy to find all sorts of excuses to avoid exercise, especially that strenuous exercise that can make a truly positive difference in my life. But the body is marvelous in its capacity to repair and strengthen itself, and I should trust it to do just that.
--Karno did his running in the context of a positive social environment, with his family and friends behind him. That to me doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to be my cheerleader, but it is important to make sure that others aren't suffering on account of me overdoing it with my running.
--Physical pain is not always a bad thing to be numbed away; it can develop character and self-understanding if overcome and is often a symptom of positive change.
--Karnazes ran whenever he could find the opportunity to run. Likewise, I should not limit myself by placing needless restrictions on my endeavors.
--Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dean Karnazes revealed his own personally-arrived at conclusion that life is much more than just being able to survive. Sometimes you have to push things to the edge to achieve that quality of experience that gives a life greater meaning.
No way am I going to literally follow Karno's example and run ultramarathons. But I have stepped up my running of late and, who knows, I may be running in some longer distance races in the not-too-distant future.
Did I say "long-distance"? I meant "ultra-long distance", for the book I checked out (and ultimately read) is titled Ultra Marathon Man: Confessions of an All Night Runner, by Dean Karnazes. Affectionately called "Karno" by his friends, Karnazes is a study in extremes, as the book's title would suggest. A pretty avid runner throughout his childhood, Karnazes gave it up at age fifteen and didn't resume running until he was thirty. Then abruptedly, after a full, eventful day at the office and a subsequent night out with his friends (and much alcoholic imbibing), Kanazes went home, impulsively stripped down his clothing to his briefs and tee shirt, slipped on some ratty old sneakers in his garage, and began running down the street. He kept running and running until he ended up covering thirty miles!
This was the turning point for Dean Karnazes, for afterward he became an extreme fanatic for running extremely long running races. Since then he has run a 100 mile race up and down California mountains, a 130 mile race that wound through Death Valley and up Mount Whitney, a 26.2 mile marathon to the South Pole, and more recently, a 199 mile relay through west-central California, with him running ALL of the relay positions solo. Among other feats.
Karno is no doubt what I would call a "true believer": someone who has found his calling in life and has thrown himself fully into it. Yet he realizes that with his running, he is an extreme example and that others need to choose and pursue their own paths. In fact, he has used his running success as a springboard for motivational speaking, as well as landing him a position as a fitness columnist in Men's Health magazine.
I don't believe that everyone's bodies are the same, so I would never try to literally emulate what Dean Karnazes has done. But he has taught me some things in his book:
--On long-distance runs, I need to continually rehydrate myself and replenish my salts. On the very long runs, eating fast-burning carbohydrates is also a must. In the past, I have always played the stoic and not refueled until the run was over. No more!
--Although Karnazes would eat fast-burning food while running, away from the road he adhered to a diet of lean meats, vegetables, nuts, fruits, and low-glycemic carbohydrates. I need to follow his example. Karno claimed to have only 4.8% body fat. I could lose forty pounds and still not be anywhere near that level (not that I necessarily want that anyway).
--At any given moment, it is easy to find all sorts of excuses to avoid exercise, especially that strenuous exercise that can make a truly positive difference in my life. But the body is marvelous in its capacity to repair and strengthen itself, and I should trust it to do just that.
--Karno did his running in the context of a positive social environment, with his family and friends behind him. That to me doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to be my cheerleader, but it is important to make sure that others aren't suffering on account of me overdoing it with my running.
--Physical pain is not always a bad thing to be numbed away; it can develop character and self-understanding if overcome and is often a symptom of positive change.
--Karnazes ran whenever he could find the opportunity to run. Likewise, I should not limit myself by placing needless restrictions on my endeavors.
--Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Dean Karnazes revealed his own personally-arrived at conclusion that life is much more than just being able to survive. Sometimes you have to push things to the edge to achieve that quality of experience that gives a life greater meaning.
No way am I going to literally follow Karno's example and run ultramarathons. But I have stepped up my running of late and, who knows, I may be running in some longer distance races in the not-too-distant future.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Slow Down Televised Sports
As I sat there watching an NFL playoff game on TV the other day, a curious idea occurred to me. Why not just watch the whole game (at least the active plays) in slow motion? After all, the action happens so quickly that often even the paid officials get fooled by events and make incorrect calls, only to be shown wrong by slo-mo replays.
Say a game begins at 2 pm. The folks at the TV network could schedule the slow-motion version at 3, giving them time to get a head start editing out time-outs and "dead" time between plays. There could still be the same amount of commercials, but the game probably wouldn't last much longer than the real-time version.
There is so much going on within a single football play, and much of it is away from the ball. I would like to be able to watch how all of the players on the field play, but the camera usually has many of them out of the picture. So, in accompaniment with the slow-motion play-by-play, I would like a wider view of the field that shows more of the action.
Slowed down broadcasting also applies to fast-moving sports like basketball and hockey, especially the latter. Hockey moves so quickly that I usually don't even know where the puck is at any given moment (which is the main reason that I don't like to watch hockey). Slowing things down would give me time to assimilate both the offensive and defensive strategies and how they are implemented. It would also, I believe, highlight the players' skills better.
I have been in public places while various games are on TV. And I have noticed that people are almost instinctively drawn to pay attention to slow-motion replays, even if they hadn't been following the game!
Of course, I could record a game myself and replay it a notch slower, speeding it up between plays and during commercials. But that sounds like too much delay and work. Besides, from the viewpoint of the network and sponsors, a slow-motion option would have to come from them in order for them to still be able to profit from the advertising.
There is already much slow-motion replaying going on anyway, at least in football where there is all this dead time between plays. So basketball and hockey, with their generally continuous play, would probably benefit the most from a totally slow-motion format.
Now to baseball and slow-motion broadcasts. It is very difficult to follow pitches when the slower ones are whizzing by at 70 mph and the fastest can exceed 100 mph. But at a slower pace, everything is revealed! Just cut out the extremely tedious dead time between pitches and overall you'd probably end up with a shorter game, even with the actual action slowed down! And the broadcasters could still insert their oh-so-sacred commercials anywhere they wanted!
Say a game begins at 2 pm. The folks at the TV network could schedule the slow-motion version at 3, giving them time to get a head start editing out time-outs and "dead" time between plays. There could still be the same amount of commercials, but the game probably wouldn't last much longer than the real-time version.
There is so much going on within a single football play, and much of it is away from the ball. I would like to be able to watch how all of the players on the field play, but the camera usually has many of them out of the picture. So, in accompaniment with the slow-motion play-by-play, I would like a wider view of the field that shows more of the action.
Slowed down broadcasting also applies to fast-moving sports like basketball and hockey, especially the latter. Hockey moves so quickly that I usually don't even know where the puck is at any given moment (which is the main reason that I don't like to watch hockey). Slowing things down would give me time to assimilate both the offensive and defensive strategies and how they are implemented. It would also, I believe, highlight the players' skills better.
I have been in public places while various games are on TV. And I have noticed that people are almost instinctively drawn to pay attention to slow-motion replays, even if they hadn't been following the game!
Of course, I could record a game myself and replay it a notch slower, speeding it up between plays and during commercials. But that sounds like too much delay and work. Besides, from the viewpoint of the network and sponsors, a slow-motion option would have to come from them in order for them to still be able to profit from the advertising.
There is already much slow-motion replaying going on anyway, at least in football where there is all this dead time between plays. So basketball and hockey, with their generally continuous play, would probably benefit the most from a totally slow-motion format.
Now to baseball and slow-motion broadcasts. It is very difficult to follow pitches when the slower ones are whizzing by at 70 mph and the fastest can exceed 100 mph. But at a slower pace, everything is revealed! Just cut out the extremely tedious dead time between pitches and overall you'd probably end up with a shorter game, even with the actual action slowed down! And the broadcasters could still insert their oh-so-sacred commercials anywhere they wanted!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
