Friday, September 17, 2021
Quote of the Week...from Robert Benchley
Thursday, September 16, 2021
Constellation of the Month: Capricornus
Wednesday, September 15, 2021
Weekly Short Stories: 1976 Science Fiction, Part 3
Tuesday, September 14, 2021
Game of the Week: KenKen
Monday, September 13, 2021
My Take on the Recent U.S. Open Tennis Tournament
Sunday, September 12, 2021
Enjoying Outdoors Starbucks after Hiatus
Saturday, September 11, 2021
About 9/11 and Our Country, Then and Now
Friday, September 10, 2021
Quote of the Week...from Morris West
Thursday, September 9, 2021
Just Finished Reading The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie
Wednesday, September 8, 2021
Weekly Short Stories: 1976 Science Fiction, Part 2
Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Happy Anniversary, My Dear Melissa
Today I'd like to say HAPPY ANNIVERSARY to most definitely my "better half", my sweet wife of 35 years. Melissa, with each succeeding year I only grow more in love with you...and the health trials I've experienced this summer have only brought us closer together. Baby, you're the greatest!
Monday, September 6, 2021
Just Saying...From a January 1970 Newspaper Report
Sunday, September 5, 2021
Great Old TV Episodes...from The Twilight Zone
Saturday, September 4, 2021
Just Finished Reading A Runner's High by Dean Karnazes
Friday, September 3, 2021
Quote of the Week...from Vincent van Gogh
Thursday, September 2, 2021
Recently Saw the Movie Dances with Wolves
This past weekend Melissa and I decided to watch a movie at home together. Being Netflix subscribers, we browsed through what was available and I noticed the 1990 movie Dances with Wolves. Neither of us had seen it, and I knew it was critically acclaimed and won multiple Oscars, including Best Picture. So in spite of the fact that it was listed as lasting for more than 3 hours, we settled down to watch it. Kevin Costner starred in it, directing, co-producing and portraying the protagonist. Adapted from the same-titled book by Michael Blake, Costner's character was that of Lt. John Dunbar of the United States (Union) Army, whose introductory scene in the Civil War has him lying in a medical tent with his injured foot about to be sawed off. Somehow he manages to painfully put his boots back on and sneak away, but he realizes that he's liable to suffer a slow death from infection and decides impulsively at the start of a battle with entrenched Confederate soldiers to take a horse and ride to his death in front of their lines. But miraculously none of the enemy soldiers' bullets find him, and his action spurs his own side to boldly attack, winning the confrontation and resulting in Dunbar getting the best medical treatment for his foot, a promotion in rank, decorations, and the choice of where his next assignment will be. Finished with the war, he chooses the westernmost outpost, deep in the northern Great Plains. Eventually he is further assigned to a remote post in the middle of nowhere and which has been abandoned. From here he faithfully performs his duties in solitude until he discovers he is not alone...there are Indians nearby, camped by the creek with many horses and tents. And from here the story takes off about how this one soldier first confronts, then befriends...and finally joins the Sioux people, complete with buffalo hunts and a battle against their enemy, the Pawnee. He also finds love among his adoptive people. But Dunbar knows that the whites will be coming in great numbers here, led by his own Army...and the meeting of the two cultures can only go one way. The movie's ending as expected is very climactic and I felt that both Blake the author and Costner the director and actor did a great job spinning a very compelling tale...no wonder it garnered those awards. Still, I have some issues about it to discuss...
I remember, when Dances with Wolves first came out, from its description that it sounded an awful lot like the 1970 Dustin Hoffman film Little Big Man. In fact, while the later story essentially was independent and stood well on its own, I kept noticing elements of the first movie that were incorporated into it...there seems to have been a lot of derivation going on. Even the Pawnee Indians were depicted as thoroughly murderous and depraved in both movies. Which brought me to another problem: the Pawnee were shown to be collectively and individually bad while the Sioux were just wonderful in every way. The white Union soldiers, when they finally arrived on the scene (except for Costner's character, of character), were dominated by cruelty, petty greed, fear, and bigotry. Were these three groups really this distinctly categorizable? I think not...I tend to believe, and you're free to disagree with me, that within different ethnicities of people there are both the good and the bad, and yes, sometimes the net effect of those different groups meeting one another will result in one becoming dominant, sadly at times even to the point of genocide. But if I were a descendant of the Pawnee nation I'd really feel like my ancestors were getting a unfair, bad rap from these movies. Nevertheless, I thought Dances with Wolves was great and Costner deserved all the accolades he received for it. Still, it was a little difficult sitting through three hours of it...we decided halfway through to take a break and walk around the block...
Wednesday, September 1, 2021
Weekly Short Stories: 1976 Science Fiction, Part 1
Tuesday, August 31, 2021
Game of the Week: Tennis
I'm currently watching the first round of the U.S. Open tennis tournament on ESPN. Tennis has always seemed much easier on television than it really is to play. I learned to play tennis in my late teens in the early-to-mid 1970s and never played or practiced enough to achieve a reasonable level of competency in it. I remember running mile after mile in after-school track practice in high school and then later going out to a nearby tennis court with my sister and, after practicing our serves a little, just volleying the ball back and forth to get better with our forehand and backhand swings...no matter how tiring the running had been just an hour or so earlier. And simply hitting the ball back and forth over the net...no one keeping score...has always been how I've enjoyed "playing tennis". Yet I remember taking an introductory tennis course at college in the summer of 1975 to fulfill some of my physical education requirements (back when colleges had physical education requirements). I remember my teacher, who seemed like he thought he was a real cool badass dude, sneering at me with disgust as I "aced" my serving exam by meekly placing each one squarely in the correct place...with absolutely no force or spin on the ball. Yet I knew how to get an "A" and got it...not that I was any better in it afterwards. No, after a humiliating game in 1979 I played with a college friend from Brazil in which he thoroughly demolished me and thought no one could play that badly, I put away my racket and would subsequently use tennis balls to play fetch and keep-away with my dogs. Yet I do enjoy watching tennis on television...with one exception. For some inexplicable reason (maybe they think they're intimidating their opponent), certain professional women players from Eastern Europe (like Maria Sharapova, Victoria Azarenka, and Simona Halep) have this extremely annoying habit of giving loud voice to their exhalations each time they hit the ball, resulting in a horrible sounding sequence of grunts and chirps with each volley. It's gotten so that not only to I automatically root against these players, but I also mute the sound to avoid hearing that crap. Oh well, maybe some people think what they do is cool...you never know what makes someone think something's cool. And in the late 1970s when I was making the transition from adolescence to adulthood, there were two activities that people overwhelmingly (but not me) thought were cool: disco dancing and tennis. They've both declined over the years as participatory activities, but I've always enjoyed watching a good tennis match...and I think I'd better leave my opinion on disco unsaid...
Monday, August 30, 2021
Jeopardy!'s Process for Selecting Permanent Host Foolish and Demeaning
Ever since I was a kid in the 1960s when Art Fleming hosted the popular quiz show Jeopardy!, I have enjoyed pitting my own prowess at getting the right "questions" to the different posed "answers" in diverse categories of knowledge against the three on-screen players. I thought that Fleming did his job well guiding each episode and interacting with the contestants, but the idea of slavishly following him as some kind of superstar idol never occurred to me. Not did it ever when Alex Trebek helped to resurrect the series' mass popularity from the 1980s until his tragic death from cancer last November. In my book, it doesn't take much to host this show. You need to possess some degree of literacy, as well as quickly learning how to pronounce some of the more challenging material presented in the answers, but I always assumed that both Fleming and Trebek would go over them with the writers before each taping anyway. You need to display tactful humor and goodwill toward each contestant, as well as a healthy respect for the wide world of learning. Jeopardy! hosts should not be shock jocks who titillate the viewing audience with sexual innuendo and vulgar attempts at humor as does the host of Family Feud (among sadly too many other game shows) but rather communicate a sense of decorum and attentive enthusiasm for the episode at hand. You want to host Jeopardy!, do you? I really don't care what your political views are or whether you foolishly said offensive things on a podcast years earlier or posted a controversial tweet in a moment of foolishness. I think the producers of Jeopardy!, following Trebek's sad departure, made a really dumb mistake by having a procession of guest hosts each week and making the new permanent replacement a farce with popularity surveys on the Internet listing who's hot and who's not. As for me, with every episode I've seen of late...and that spans quite a number of different guest hosts...there hasn't been a single one in which the host didn't do a commendable job of carrying the show properly in the areas I've mentioned above. I think it's kind of humiliating to lead on the different candidates like this, something I doubt that neither Art Fleming nor Alex Trebek would have stood for themselves. And once a particular candidate seems to be favored, then there is a mad rush to delve back in their pasts to uncover dirty laundry about them...disgusting, as if anybody is so perfect as to judge others like this. Just draw the name of the "winning" permanent host at random out of a hat from those candidates who've hosted it already and be done with it all, for crying out loud...




