Fairness Doctrine and Talk Radio

I hear a lot, on some of the conservative radio talk shows out there, about how disastrous it would be if our government were to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine regarding talk shows in radio broadcasting.

The original intent of the Fairness Doctrine was to ensure that both sides of issues would be discussed in public, without one side having an unfair monopoly on the discussion. As such, the law was justified as being in the public’s interests and for the good of democratic society in general. Right wing hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and Mark Levin may claim that their First Amendment rights of free speech would be jeopardized by a law that granted the right of rebuttal to others. I, for one, don’t have a “right” to have my own radio talk show like they do and rake in money hand over foot. Those personalities are where they are because the marketplace and their corporate sponsors support them, not because they are expressing free speech. As a matter of fact, I’ve believed for quite some time that this form of “speech” is nothing more than an Americanized form of hack speech resembling the old totalitarian “journalism” from last century’s Communist-bloc nations. Only instead of the ideology of Marx and Lenin, these folks are towing the line of large corporate interests.

I remember, during the years when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, listening to shows originating from WOR Radio. Broadcasting with 50,000 watts on 710 kHz from New York, WOR was the premier independent talk station in the northeast, if not the entire country. They had two prominent conservative talk radio stars in Barry Farber and Bob Grant. Of the two, Grant more resembled today’s brand of offensive, shock hosts, while Farber (whom I greatly respect) was much more interactive and intellectual (and gentlemanly) in his show. They had liberal hosts as well, but that didn’t keep these two from thriving.

Since a rising talk show host aspirant currently only sees a future in taking the conservative slant in his/her show, that will probably be the option taken. To me, that is what we are breeding with our current system: a plethora of hacks cynically towing the line that gets them their notoriety and wealth. All while I can’t get the other side of the issues when I fiddle around on my radio dial. Since at least half of the population (judging by the current political composition of congress and the latest presidential race polls) disagrees with the entrenched conservative talk show establishment’s viewpoints, liberal opinion is suffering de facto censorship on the public airwaves.

I’m not against folks making a living expressing their conservative viewpoints on radio. All I want, as a citizen listening to these publicly licensed stations, is to be able to hear the opposing views expressed in shows that wealthy sponsors may not be quite so eager to support. After all, broadcast radio is restricted by the number of stations that can broadcast in any area and by the frequency bands. Unregulated, that gives one ideology the potential to push out competitors and unduly dominate this medium that the citizenry depends on for information to help them decide how to vote in this representative democracy.

The Internet promises to liberate us from the restrictions inherent in broadcast radio. But I can’t yet carry around my Internet in a headset or tune in to it on my car radio. I see things happening in a positive direction there nevertheless. Of course, we all need to be concerned about the State’s vision of what should be allowed on the Internet. If the Fairness Doctrine were to be extended somehow to the Internet, that would be a travesty. Broadcast radio is a restrictive, inherently limited medium. Anyone can get on the Web, and hence using it is a purer expression of the First Amendment.

Put Self In the Other's Place

Sometimes, when I turn left at a traffic light with a lead signal, the right-turnoff lane has a car in it that is just itching to turn, even though it still has a red light (in Florida, right turns on red, after first stopping, are generally legal). When the street that both of us turning on has one lane available, that car simply has to wait. But when there are two lanes, the car turning left is supposed to take the left-most lane and the car turning right can take the right lane. But often, a car turning left in this situation may need to quickly get into the right-hand land. This happens so often that, when I am in the position of the car at the red light wanting to turn right, I habitually wait for all of the cars with the lead to finish turning left. Perhaps in a strict legal sense, the lane I would directly turn on to is available to me. But regardless of the law, in ambiguous situations like this, the best policy is for me to put myself into the place of the other driver and ask myself how I would then like to treated. Simply employing a little courtesy and offering to yield to others can not only defuse frustration and road rage on the part of those other drivers: it can prevent accidents! And it will put myself into a more reasonable, patient mindset as well.

Over the course of a day, we find ourselves in many different types of interactions with others. Each interaction has a type of etiquette that, if not followed, has the potential to offend someone. And since people come from all walks of life and different cultural backgrounds, sometimes it’s not easy to figure out the best course of action in different situations. Once again, when this happens, like in my previous traffic example, the best policy is to just put ourselves in the place of the other and then act according to how we would like to be treated. I believe that simple courtesy is a universally understood and appreciated commodity. Exercising it would go a lot longer toward furthering the interests of world peace than marching up and down a street carrying a protest sign.

And when someone comes up with complaints and accusations against us, we naturally like to react automatically in a defensive and assertive manner. Without giving up that right to defend ourselves, may I suggest throwing into that “automatic reaction” mix the idea of trying to see things through the other guy’s eyes as well?

In Defense of Sarah Palin (Somewhat)

(Although I had earlier expressed a desire to lay off writing about the presidential campaign until it was over, I felt the need to put this article out now, while McCain still has a chance of winning. Otherwise, it might have seemed a bit phony.)

I am clearly not a fan of Sarah Palin. But you need to understand that this is only regarding her political positions and her role as a vice-presidential nominee opposing “my” ticket of Obama/Biden. It has been pretty clear from the start that she had been assigned the role of “the attacker” in the campaign, supposedly giving John McCain the freedom to soar high in the clouds above everyone, proclaiming his oh-so-positive message. Well, things don’t always turn out the way you planned them to!

At the end of the tightly contested Democratic campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as well as during that party’s convention, it became clear that many women were upset that Hillary didn’t win. Some attributed her loss to sexism, and some even expressed a willingness to possibly vote Republican in protest in the final election. McCain, watching all of this, made one of his trademark knee-jerk decisions and selected Sarah Palin, the recently-elected governor of Alaska and a rising star among the evangelical wing of the Republican Party, to be his running mate. There was no mistaking his motives: McCain thought

With Sarah Palin, I present a woman to you, you disaffected Hillary supporters. Never mind that Palin’s positions on the issues are almost completely at odds with your candidate's. She’s a woman, plain and simple. And so I know you’re going to vote for her (and me) and not that mean Obama guy, who didn't pick Hillary to be his running mate.

And, you know, it worked. For a while.

McCain’s strategy may have worked much longer had he picked a more moderate Republican woman like Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who could have tailored her image and her positions to overlap Hillary’s as much as possible. But Sarah Palin is a right-wing ideologue who, to her credit, wouldn’t abandon her beliefs just to pick up political points. She is who she is. Had McCain actually done any real investigating, he would have easily picked up what she was all about.

Sarah Palin is, in some ways, very admirable. She is a very intelligent, strong woman who is able to raise a family and run a state at the same time. She does know how to work in a pragmatic fashion with the political opposition to get important things done as Alaska’s governor. And she has a personable, media-friendly presentation.

The choice of Sarah Palin still could have been an asset to the McCain campaign had she not been assigned the “attack Obama” role. Sure, she smiled, laughed, and winked (the guys loved that one). But from the moment she opened her mouth to speak, almost everything was negative. I mean NEGATIVE: personally derisive and sarcastic negative. You know, Ann Coulter negative. Although in the first few days after her selection, Democrats were hesitant to attack her for fear of sexism charges (and losing more Hillary supporters), Palin’s negative aggressiveness eventually gave them the opening to go after her. And it wasn’t too long before the false image of her as an unsophisticated, comical rube, a backwoods nothing pretending to be something, gained ascendancy in the media (aided by Tina Fey’s portrayal of Palin on Saturday Night Live).

As someone planning to vote for Obama, I wanted Palin’s credibility to be reduced, since her two assigned roles in the campaign seemed to be to attack Obama and attract Hillary supporters. To me, this could have been accomplished by clearly and repeatedly pointing out her stark ideological differences, not just with Hillary Clinton, but also even with McCain himself. To correctly reveal Palin’s somewhat extremist beliefs on some issues, especially those concerning women’s rights, was a completely legitimate thing to do. But although they did this, Palin’s political foes went much further in their personal attacks on her. The final straw to me was the charge that McCain’s campaign had spent more on her wardrobe and makeup that on other items.

Sarah Palin, as McCain pointed out, does not live extravagantly. She bought some of her clothes on consignment and her makeup was not up to the level of a national campaign. It was appropriate, in my view, for the McCain forces to make her as presentable as possible. Since she did not have the resources herself to accomplish this, the campaign helped out. So what? Attacking her for this is, to me, completely below the belt and uncalled for.

Sarah Palin never ran for president, much less vice-president. Although she knew that her name had been tossed around, she was not (nor was anyone else) expecting that she would be picked by McCain as his running mate. The abruptness of her selection exposed her suddenly to the national media, much of which desperately wanted to dig up anything negative about her that it could. In those circumstances, I wonder how you or I would have reacted. I still believe that she used her children inappropriately as political commodities (which backfired on her). But personally, I think that overall she conducted herself pretty well!

No, I’m not voting for the moose hunting hockey mom. But suppose McCain did win and then something tragic happened to him that made Sarah Palin president of the United States. I, unlike many fellow Democrats, believe that she would be wise enough (as Reagan was) to surround herself with many very competent and experienced people to run the Executive Branch. I just wouldn’t be very happy with (what I perceive would be) her anti-worker, anti-women, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, and pro-war decisions. But then again, I think she would pass Hillary’s “3:00 AM phone call” test as well as anyone else.

Non-Linguist Language Enthusiast

During the early 1980s, I had a job as a cook in a local Chinese restaurant. Working there gave me more exposure to people from other countries and cultures, mostly from East Asian countries like China, Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand. Already being interested in foreign languages, this gave me an opening to practicing some of them with my co-workers. Not that I had anything resembling a knack for learning foreign languages; I was just interested in them and this was an opportunity to pick up a little speaking (and listening) experience at my own pace. Over time, I was able to converse back and forth on a primitive level in Chinese and Vietnamese, and even built up a small active vocabulary in Thai. A lot of my knowledge (especially with Thai) has receded with disuse and time, but I still cherish the memories of me stumbling around trying to converse with others in their native tongues.

Now I work and live in a different setting, although I still live in Gainesville. But I still come across people on a regular basis who are from other parts of the world. I know folks from the Philippines, China, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Puerto Rico (I know it's in the U.S.), Bulgaria, Nigeria, and Korea. In this cosmopolitan university town (especially in Starbucks), I am continually encountering others who are speaking in foreign languages. I never used to hear Russian being spoken, but nowadays it seems to be everywhere. And the women currently sitting behind me are conversing with each other in Chinese!

I’m beginning to get the inclination again to start little conversations with others in their original languages. Sometimes it’s those little sayings people get used to exchanging with each other that can make friendships seems more special and significant. I have all of the resources I need to do this, so why not?

Monday Newsbreak: 10/27

--The upcoming election on November 4 dominated the news, be it local, statewide, or national. Earlier this past week, Michelle Obama visited Gainesville and drew 11,000 for her afternoon speech, delivered downtown in front of the Hippodrome Theatre. She strongly encouraged those listening to vote early, an option available in Florida. Obama’s campaign needs for new voters, the young, and minorities, all groups which traditionally have had relatively low voter turnouts in the past, to show up in large numbers at the polls this time around.

--The financial markets continued their generally downward rollercoaster ride with what appeared to be the makings of a worldwide panic this Friday. Each day I open my newspaper to see the latest snapshot of a stockbroker’s facial expression, usually either dismayed or elated. That’s getting a little old for me!

--The population-at-large is about to deeply feel the real pain of the ailing economy as predictions are coming out of massive layoffs for next year that American corporations will be making across the board. The unemployment rate reportedly may reach or exceed 8.5% by 2009’s end. In spite of how dire this may sound, this all still fits within the description of a cyclical recession that may last a couple of years at worst.

--According to the Orlando Sentinel, scientists at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research in Orlando have successfully duplicated a cancer-fighting compound produced by a sponge living in cold, deep waters off the Florida coast. It holds promise for fighting pancreatic and colon cancers. The sponge’s name is Aphrocallistes Beatrix. This, to me, is just one more example of how imperative it is for us to protect the various world eco-systems from human encroachment, since many species are specific to particular locales. And some of them, which could be wiped out into extinction, hold the promise of medical “miracles” such as that of this sponge.

--The public health departments across the country are once again urging people to get their flu shots. The prices I see for them range from $20 to $30. I have a problem with ANY MONEY being charged for them for this reason. Whether or not I catch the flu isn’t just my own personal, individual matter that I need to make an independent economic decision about (spending money for the shot). If I should decide to save some money and forego the shot, and later came down with the flu, I could then spread that flu to many, many others. And thereby causing much suffering and even death. No, the impending flu season should be treated as a general emergency that is handled on a collective level, with shots given as a public service without any up-front payments required.

Grief For Co-Worker

A tragedy happened on Interstate-75 in Gainesville Thursday night. A little after 11 p.m. his way to work on the midnight shift, Ross, one of my co-workers, died in an automobile accident not of his making. It was a very rainy night on the road and there had just occurred an accident up ahead. He properly slowed his SUV down, stopped, and waited. But a large semi trailer truck, whose driver was apparently inattentive, crashed into his car (and into others), causing his death. By all accounts, Ross had done everything right, even wearing his safety belt.

Ross had a gentle, generous spirit that was infectious. He realized that we were not just processing commodities and services for sale at our job; we were also cultivating professional relationships between each other that were based on mutual respect and friendliness. Ross was always one of those people who would make you feel special when he would come up and greet you by name, without waiting for you to speak first. He was genuinely friendly, without pretense or any hidden agenda.

I have to get over my grief for my friend, but I know that he has left much of himself behind in the hearts of those whose lives he has touched.

During the last couple of years or so, tragedy has struck my workplace too often. Another of my co-workers died when he lost control of the new motorcycle he had just bought. And in two other separate accidents, the sons of two other colleagues lost their lives when they lost control of their cars and had accidents in the late night/early morning hours.

It is pretty trying to walk up to the clock that scans my time-card at the beginning of a work shift and see a sheet of paper hanging from it with somebody’s photograph on it and an accompanying message announcing his death. Ultimately, of course, the survival rate for anyone alive is zero, and each of us will bow out of this world at some time or another. But with these past four deaths, the end happened much too early, when so much more life was there ahead of them to experience.

There are some lessons that I would like to convey that, if they had been followed, would have undoubtedly saved lives:

1--When riding a motorcycle, wear a helmet and only ride it according to your ability to control it (no racing).

2--In cars, ALWAYS wear safety belts, and insist that your passengers do so as well.

3--Avoid driving when you know that you are sleepy, impaired, or distracted in any way.

4--On rainy nights, try to avoid super-highways that tend to carry heavy truck traffic.

Sometimes we can’t avoid an accident even when we do everything right. But at least we can dramatically increase our odds for survival (and those of our passengers).

Slow Down, Enjoy the Experience

A few years ago, my wife and I heard of an event being held in a park on the outskirts of Gainesville called Kanapaha Botanical Gardens. The event was the Moonlight Walk, and was designed to give visitors an interesting and romantic impression of the gardens as they slowly walked through it, appreciating the plant life and the park ambiance. And the walk was very well designed, Melissa and I enjoying the experience. The only drawback to it was that most of the visitors seemed to be on a fast track, walking (and sometimes even running) quickly around us. Sometimes we had to even step aside to let through groups of rushing visitors. So instead of a relaxed exploration of this park at night, we instead were continually badgered from behind by people in an inexplicably big hurry to get through the walk as quickly as possible. It made me wonder why all these people even bothered to take the time to go there in the first place.

Lots of things in life are like that park experience. For example, I’ll sometimes find myself rushing through a novel, quickly skimming through descriptive sections to get to the “plot-flow” parts. But I’m missing out on an awful lot of the reading experience when I do that. Or take blogging, as another example. How many people do blog searches to just to gather information about a specific topic? They may run across several blogs in pursuit of their desired item, never pausing to explore any of them in detail to see what they are about. To be perfectly frank, I’m not too keen on my blog being used in this manner. I allow searches on Google as a means to introduce readers to this blog, but it is not really an informational blog per se. It is rather designed to be a simple journal of my various opinions and experiences, and as such is rather personal in nature. So I would prefer that people read it as a day-to-day narrative. I recognize the enormous well of information sources already out there on the Internet, and so should others. The only really new information that you’re going to get here are (my) opinions and (my) personal stories. So slow down, sit back, relax, and read! (And comments are welcome.)

Apocalypse

When I’m checking out my groceries at my local Publix grocery store, one of the check-out lines has on display a book titled The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Apocalypse. I’ll try to refrain from the obvious joke embedded within this title to make another point.

Within certain elements of the Christian community, there are those who seem to be obsessed with something called the “End Times” as expressed in prophetic Biblical books such as Revelation and Daniel. The interpretation these people like to make is that these books, written on the order of two thousand or more years ago, are intimately concerned about what’s going on RIGHT NOW in the early twenty-first century. There is supposed to be a world-wide period of tribulation when someone called “the Anti-Christ”, accompanied by another called “the False Prophet”, rules the world and subjects it (and especially Christians) to some really bad persecutions. And God will then release some really nasty judgments back on Earth in retaliation. Finally, after about seven years, Jesus is supposed to come back and make things all right. So what’s with this story?

I have a major, major problem with this apocalyptic worldview. Christianity is based on the idea that the believer, by expressing and demonstrating faith in Jesus Christ the Savior, will repent from his/her sinful ways, be “reborn” into the family of God, and have an eternal relationship with the heavenly Father through his son Jesus. All of this doctrine is very personal, according to each individual’s life. It deals with what happens when people die, and has nothing to do with any particular historical epochs. So an Irish farmer living in the fourteenth century who faces a plague in his area is living, at least theologically, under the same conditions as a trench soldier in France during World War I or a diabetic ninety-five year old nursing home resident in the early twenty-first century. In fact, the specter of impending death is a fact of all of our lives, regardless of how “dangerous” or “safe” the times may seem and how healthy or ill we are. The whole point of Christianity is based on the notion that as humans, we may live our lives in community with each other, but we leave it alone, ultimately according to God’s timetable and not our own. And are then judged as individuals as well.

So instead of getting all hung up about the “markers” out there of a coming apocalypse, Christians need to make their faith personal. For each person faces their own personal “apocalypse” with their own eventual death. The idea of meeting Jesus after death because of one’s faith in him makes the whole idea of a worldly apocalypse seem a bit redundant and unnecessary.

Supposedly, if you were to take Revelation literally, Jesus is going to come back to Earth at the end of the tribulation period, overthrow the villainous Anti-Christ, and rule for a thousand years. But why should that make any difference for a believer? After you die, you’re going to be with your Lord. Beyond that, what’s the point of all this extra stuff? I’ve always been told that Jesus defeated the enemy (Satan) by his crucifixion and resurrection nearly two thousand years ago. And by this doctrine, he is then able to “save” believers after their deaths by interceding on their behalf with God, who otherwise would have judged them guilty as sinners and consigned them to hell. Since Jesus already won the big victory, what’s with the apocalyptic sequel??!! Sounds like a pretty lame sequel, if you ask me.

Constant Improvement Or Disaster

Much of the recent excitement going on in the scientific community about the possibilities of nanotechnology was severely deflated when one of the leading research scientists in this promising field, Hendrick Schon, turned out to be a fraud. Schon's experiments that supposedly demonstrated how logic circuits could be designed and sustained on a carbon-based molecular level could not be duplicated in the laboratory and his supposed observations mysteriously “vanished” off of his computer hard drive. I learned of this sad story by watching the program Hendrick Schon’s Dark Secret on the Science Channel recently.

One of the reasons that there was great relief at the prospect of a developing nanotechnology was that the ability of engineers to squeeze information into smaller units had reached its capacity with the silicon chip. A different system needed to be devised if something called Moore’s Law were to remain viable. Moore’s Law, in a nutshell, proclaimed the trend that the progressing state of technology was enabling memory on a chip to double every two years. Many believed that this pace needed to continue in order to sustain the developing world economy. So a new method of storing information was needed that was not silicon-based. Hence the great disappointment at Schon’s deception.

But this problem with computers and nano-processing is just a symptom of a much greater problem with humankind. We tend to set processes in motion with our innovations that need further innovation in order to avert disaster. Look at the development of antibiotics during the last century, and the resulting increasing resistance of different strains of pathogens to them. Human-caused global warming, which in turn is causing the melting of our large freshwater polar ice, is not only endangering sea life by cooling the ocean; the change in currents caused by this could drastically change the world’s climate in just a few years’ time. Plus, fresh water is a precious commodity desperately needed by people across the planet. And our natural supply of it is simply going to waste. The development of nuclear power created the need to rid us of the danger caused by ever-increasing quantities of radioactive waste. The increasing population’s demand for food is resulting in large quantities of grain that is relatively homogeneous genetically, predisposing the food supply to the danger of blights. So genetic research is needed to diversify the food supply more. And so on.

It seems to be a symptom of the human condition that somebody will come up with an promising innovation in some area. That innovation will then be modified, mass produced, and mass-consumed, causing unintended side effects that require more innovation to “fix” the problems generated by the original innovation.

Suppose we do, at some time in the near future, keep Moore’s Law going by coming up with a way to develop nanotechnology. The program Hendrick Schon’s Dark Secret revealed nightmare scenarios of “nanobots” based on carbon reproducing and going off on their own in swarms, consuming all life on earth in their drive to sustain themselves. But, innovate first, fix problems second! If you’re still around, that is!

Insider Presidents Vs. Mavericks

During the current campaign, I keep hearing, from both sides, how the candidates for president (although both are senators in Washington) are outsiders, riding into town to give our federal government a good cleaning and a fresh new face that reflects the will of “real” Americans. Because they are “mavericks”, that is supposed to make us feel that they are a new trend, bent on changing the old ways of doing things. But is that really so?

My first act of voting ever was to vote for “maverick” Washington outsider Jimmy Carter for president in 1976. In 1980 Carter, by then considered an “insider” (especially when he hid “inside” the White House during the Iran hostage crisis to avoid campaigning against challenger Ted Kennedy), was thrown out by the new “maverick” Washington outsider, Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, did turn out to be a true insider. But after only one term in office, another “maverick” Washington outsider, Bill Clinton, defeated him. In 2000, “maverick” Washington outsider George W. Bush defeated insider Al Gore for the presidency. In reelection bids for the “mavericks”, they (with the exception of “Daddy” Bush in 1992, who was an insider anyway) defeated insiders in their reelection bids (over Mondale in 1984, Dole in 1996, and Kerry in 2004).

And now we come to 2008. And we’re supposed to be excited by a couple of “maverick” Washington outsiders. Oh, please! In the first place, neither candidate is a true outsider. In McCain’s case, that claim is totally preposterous, with his twenty-plus years of Washington residence as a U.S. senator. Now McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin would fit that description. But so would just about any run-of-the-mill American picked out of the crowd at random. Which probably would have been a better choice for McCain. Isn't it about time we realize that voting for candidates because we perceive them as "outsiders" is just worn out, stale reasoning? After all, it just might be worth noting that, for 28 of the past 32 years, America has been governed by them!

The Shock Of the Lightning

Here, for your listening and viewing pleasure, is my current favorite song that is on today's charts and airwaves: The Shock of the Lightning by Oasis, a British band that has done well over the years to promulgate the great musical tradition of older bands like the Beatles, the Zombies, and the Who. This video was officially released on YouTube and authorized for embedding. And I totally dig this type of weird video!

Last Twenty Minutes Of Twister

Back in 1996, the movie Twister was the talk of the town, for a few weeks. It was the movie you couldn’t afford to miss going to see. Only thing was, I was already quite used to missing the “indispensable” movies. When I finally did get around to renting it from a video store a couple of years later, I was generally disappointed.

Twister stars Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton portray an estranged couple whose passion for chasing down super-tornadoes for scientific study reunites them for a last-ditch effort to collect important data, in competition with another research team (with very slippery ethics). The movie, although showing some interesting special effects to be sure, mostly gets mired down in the subplots of the relationship between Hunt & Paxton and the trials and tribulations of their research team. I had pretty much pegged this film as a loser as I struggled to endure watching it. That is, until the very end, when all hell broke lose.

The other night, I was watching television on one of the Encore channels, and lo and behold, there was Twister. The tail end of Twister. The last twenty minutes. And it was this closing segment that not only made Twister worth watching, but it may very well be the greatest twenty minutes in action/adventure movies to date. It starts off with a “Eureka!” moment within the research team when Hunt gets an inspiration for how to collect data within a tornado. And while she and her team are chasing down a massive twister while quickly putting together the new experiment, the competing team is already ahead of them, and…. No, I am not going to give away the ending. All I will say is that it has the be one of the most concentrated and passionate twenty minutes of any movie I have ever seen. It brings to mind a much greater overall movie from 1957 titled The Bridge on the River Kwai. Unlike Twister, that film was terrific throughout. But its ending was so incredible that the rest of the movie has become a little hazy in my memory. Well, that’s the way it was with Twister. Only most of this movie was easily forgettable in the first place (in my humble opinion)!

My suggestion is, instead of watching Twister from beginning to end, instead just loop through the movie’s final twenty minutes five or six times straight!

Monday Newsbreak: 10/20

--I couldn’t write this feature without mentioning the presidential campaign, which still seems to be solidly tilting in favor of Barack Obama. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed him, which may be a problem for John McCain, since the Republicans are trying to make Obama seem to be a dangerous pick because of his relative inexperience in foreign policy (which McCain claims as one of his own strong points). I’ve always felt that it was Powell who was chiefly responsible for keeping the U.S. from getting stuck in Iraq back in 1991, when he counseled then-President George H.W. Bush against launching an all-out invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The current President Bush appointed Powell to his cabinet post and then ignored him, putting him in the position of having to express support for policies (especially the invasion of Iraq in 2003) that he personally had misgivings about. If this endorsement wins votes for Obama, then great! But since Colin Powell is only human, I wouldn’t be surprised if his support of the Democratic nominee is a form of payback for the offenses he may have suffered serving in a Republican administration that only seemed to be interested in using him as a public relations device.

--The financial crisis, according to the talking heads on television, appears to be stabilizing, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Is this the kind of “stabilizing” that a critical patient demonstrates in the intensive care unit? If so, we’ve got a long, long way to go before our economy gets “wheeled out” to the “general floor”, much less “discharged” from the hospital.

--This week is Homecoming Week in Gainesville for the University of Florida. Friday and Saturday will carry the main events. The parade, “Gator Gallop” (a running race down University Avenue), and Gator Growl (a huge pep rally/show with fireworks) happen on Friday, while the Homecoming football game against Kentucky is scheduled for Saturday. Although I am a long-time resident of Gainesville as well as being a University of Florida alumnus, I tend to avoid UF’s campus and its activities. I know that it’s going to be a monumental pain getting home from work Friday night due to the even-more-monumental traffic jam caused by festivities. In the slightly altered words of Charlie Daniels:

“I think I'm gonna reroute my trip
I wonder if anybody'd think I'd flipped
If I went [home] via Omaha”

--The Tampa Bay Rays gave a great demonstration to the New York Yankees of how NOT to choke during a playoff series to the Boston Red Sox by winning their close seventh game 3-1 to take the series 4-3. In the fifth game, the Rays had a 7-0 lead over Boston after six innings, with only nine outs left to win their series four games to one. Instead, the Red Sox came back and won the game 8-7. But, unlike the Yankees of 2004 (which was the only team ever in baseball to blow a 3-0 series game lead and lose), Tampa Bay showed its gutsiness and played with determination and poise. So now the World Series is set: Tampa Bay Rays vs. the Philadelphia Phillies. It probably won’t get very high television ratings, but so what!

--In the “Its Only a Game” department, I heard a sports talk radio host bemoaning the fact that Barack Obama bought some television prime time space, pushing the beginning of one of the upcoming World Series games back a little in the evening. To this announcer, you would have thought that sports is supreme and that anything else is of secondary importance at best. And yes, there is this phenomenon of making popular sports into a kind of “bubble” that people can get inside and insulate themselves from all of the stresses and anxiety caused by both the news going on in the outside world as well as from personal problems. This insulation from reality gets really weird when you include Fantasy Football, whose participants carry out their own imaginary leagues and games!

Running Race Number Seven

Yesterday morning, I ran my seventh publicly held race (and the second since 1976). It was the Hope Heels 5K run, which benefited the Florida Center for Brain Tumor Research and the Preston A. Wells, Jr., Center for Brain Tumor Therapy at the University of Florida. The course for this run, which was very hilly (for Gainesville), started and finished at Westside Park. I cut off more than a minute from my previous run, finishing at 24:07. But what surprised me was that I finished second in my age group (50 and over), winning a medal award. This is the first tangible recognition of my running ability in my entire life! So I’m naturally quite proud of it.

In spite of my happy finish, I was disappointed to be boxed in at the race’s start. For the first half-mile or so, I was stuck, surrounded by slower runners. This prevented me from establishing the earlier fast pace that I had wanted to run. So, like the last run, after the first half-mile or so, no one passed me while I passed several throughout the race.

My next race will either be the Dog Days 5K on November 1 or the Tom Walker Memorial Half-Marathon on November 8. Both races are put on by the Florida Track Club, and will doubtless have a higher level of running competition. I’m looking forward to competing (in one of them)!

Personal Drift and Direction

As I go through my daily life, I find that I tend into slip into periods of drift, when I just fall into patterns of activity that don’t serve my own interests. Call it inertia or laziness, this drift keeps me from engaging in more purposeful, directed activities. So, instead of reading, practicing piano, writing fiction, or studying foreign languages, I’ll channel-surf my television, browse the Web, or do sudoku, kakuro, or hidato puzzles. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with any of these things. Both television and the Internet are great sources or information and entertainment. And doing puzzles (especially the logic types) are wonderful mental exercises.

But television, the Internet, and puzzles need to be placed in their proper contexts, with limits imposed and adhered to. It’s all right to watch TV, but I’d be better off setting a time limit and just “cutting it off” when I’ve watched enough. The same holds for web surfing and puzzles.

One problem with drifting is the rationalizing I do that (1) I need this for “rest” and (2) this is constructive activity. But other than actual sleep, rest should really be a short break in my purposeful endeavors, not an endeavor in itself. Sure, I know that we all need some time for undirected recreation, but I don’t think that I’ll ever have a problem with allowing myself too little of it. As for the “constructive activity” argument, I can fully engage in those activities and reap their benefits without dwelling on them for too long.

The idea is to always see the bigger picture of what I am trying to do, without slipping into compulsive behavior that, on the surface, looks substantial but isn’t. Look, if I’m tired, then I need to take a little nap. Not turn into a TV/Web/puzzle zombie!

At least I have one thing to be thankful for: I’m not into video games, something that I’ve seen others become totally addicted to. On the other hand, I’ve been known to do those generic solitaire and minesweeper puzzles on the computer repeatedly when I was actually “beyond tired” and just needed a break from consciousness!

Religious & Political Bias In Popular History & Archaeology

The academic fields of archaeology and history have become tainted with religious and political ideologies. I see indications of this quite often on the History Channel, where programs often air that are based on places and events of the Bible. Topics such as Noah’s flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the Ark of the Covenant, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the apocalyptic books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation have all been topics from the Bible treated as if they had some real-world meaning instead of being religious-based stories. Where is the independent academic research that refuses to make assumptions? Even the idea that one would choose a Biblical topic for research is, to me, an act of academic bias. For example, why do people seem to assume that all of the nationalities residing in what is present day Israel/Palestine were secondary to the Israelite/Jewish nations that were central to the Biblical narrative?

I’m not trying to pick on Judeo-Christianity. The same could be said for parts of the world where other religions sprang from. By focusing on these faiths and the concentration of people and events centered around just them, not only are questionable assertions within the religions being accepted without scrutiny; everything that was contemporary to those religions’ “histories” but outside of their direct influence gets essentially trivialized at best and either ignored or even unduly criticized at worst.

I have long held the view, right or wrong, that humanity has traditionally structured its societies in small villages, around extended families/clans. Even when there has been a kingdom or empire supposedly running things from afar, the real predominant human condition has usually been (until the recent technological revolution) people living in small communities in extended family units, working together to try to survive (see the movie Apocalypto). Those at least popularizing history seem to fall into the trap that small communities of the past were only legitimate subjects of study insofar as how they reflected the presence of the macro-governing structure (such as empire, kingdom, republic, theocracy). What I maintain is that communities, when confronted with a change in the outer political/religious structure, will tend to simply convert their expressed allegiances to the new imposed authority structure without substantially changing the way things run within the community. So a sixteenth-century European community that was Catholic suddenly comes under the rule of a prince who decides that he is a Lutheran. In that situation, such a community would often switch over in a wholesale manner to Protestantism (and back to Catholicism if a ruler loyal to Rome came into power). While going about their business pretty much the same as before.

It is easier (and lazier) for a scholar to take religious scriptures and old historic documents and create a history of an area from those without regard to what was really going on beneath the surface veneer of “official history” within the much more complicated, diverse, and spread-out societies underlying it. But people in general want things simplified, and objective academic investigation usually goes in the opposite direction. So instead of getting a picture about how things really were in the past, we’ll probably continue to get storybook narratives based on political ideologies and religious doctrines.

There's Got To Be A Morning After

It being Thursday, I calculate that it’s now only 20 days until the day we’ve been waiting for with hope---yes, the day AFTER the presidential election!

One sign that I am getting older is that when I look ahead to special dates marking holidays, events, or deadlines, I am looking forward more and more to the day AFTER that special date as a time when I can finally relax from the tumult and stress that the buildup to it has caused. Being a postal worker, this is especially true with the whole December Christmas/Hanukkah season, marked by a flood of parcels to be processed at work. The great goal then is to make it to December 26 in one piece! New Year’s Day on January 1 is a major milestone on the calendar, but the routines associated with truly serious New Year’s resolutions don’t get started (at least for me) until the 2nd (yes, I’m one of those New Year’s resolution people).

I have mixed feelings about holidays, birthdays, and anniversaries. With birthdays and anniversaries, the stress caused by preparing for them is more than offset by the positive feelings of love and appreciation for the people and relationships being honored. Holidays, on the other hand, can be pretty tedious to deal with. And for those three-day weekend holidays officially observed on Mondays (like the recently-observed Columbus Day), it’s not the day after (Tuesday) that I look forward to: that’s when the piled-up mail (from non-delivery and pickup on Monday) can make for a pretty overwhelming work day (which just happened a couple of days ago). No, in those instances, I look forward to the day after the day after!

But, bringing it back to the special event of the 2008 presidential election, my relief at it finally being over is, of course, predicated on the condition that, on Wednesday, November 5, it really will be over and we won’t have a repeat of the disastrous 2000 election debacle.

And I do appreciate Maureen McGovern’s contribution to this article (through its title). Her 1973 hit song for the summer blockbuster disaster flick The Poseidon Adventure is one of the best “get-through-the-ordeal” anthems ever produced.

Low-Power Radio in Gainesville

Gainesville, Florida has a low-power FM radio station on 94.7. Different organizations use this frequency at different times. Sometimes I hear evangelistic Christian programming on it. Other times, I hear symphonic music. Still other times, I hear “alternative” political radio programming put on by Gainesville’s left-and-green-leaning Civic Media Center. I’m never quite sure what I’ll get when I tune in, and that doesn’t make much sense to me. I’ve heard different call letters used for this station, depending on whose programming is running. I am particular to the Civic Media Center’s “WGOT” programming which, besides the political and left-social talk shows broadcasts alternative music programs as well.

Earlier, I wrote an article about HD radio, which also promises to diversify the radio bands. One of the problems expressed with HD radio is that the signals involved in this new technology would crowd out weaker signals from other stations on nearby frequencies. And I can see how this could possibly conflict with low power radio signals.

I wonder whether either HD radio or low power radio has much of a future, as far as radio is concerned. Rather I tend to be of the opinion that, in the future, radios will be based not on atmospheric broadcasting, but rather on the Internet in some form.

I even saw once, while surfing around, that I could set up my own personal radio station on the Net. Of course, if I played music I liked on it, I would have to make sure that music copyright laws were respected. And deal with the cost of broadcasting streaming audio. But I can see this type of undertaking as a form of “stepping out”, even if I just record some monologues à la Jean Shepherd, (take your pick) Keith Olbermann, or Glenn Beck. Or a perverse mixture of the styles of these three.

Meanwhile, I do like having access to a station like WGOT on 94.7. Their music and talk programming is a refreshing departure from the generally homogenized and boring choices I usually get on the broadcast bands. And I like their orchestral music when I’m driving home from work late at night (the local classical music station plays jazz at that time).

I don’t see the point, though, in shelling out a monthly fee to a Web-based company to broadcast a streaming signal, especially when only a tiny number of listeners could access it at any given time. Better to create my own audio file that a visitor to my site can just click on. Now if I had planned to play copyrighted music, I would have needed to go with a streaming signal since the laws in place would steer me in that direction. But MY radio would (or will) be about me trying to convey a coherent message a sustained period of time (a few minutes). Listeners beware!

Cats and Dogs

As I run down the residential streets in my neighborhood, I notice the outdoor pets, which naturally are divided between cats and dogs. The dogs, which are (hopefully) safely behind restraining fences, take a keen interest in my passing. They ferociously bark and snarl at me. Some jump at the fences that they are behind in a gesture meant to convince me that they would otherwise come after me and tear me from limb to limb. Even the dinky little pseudo-dogs with their high-pitched “yips” are “brave” in this way. Cats, on the other hand, see me running by with a completely different attitude. Their sense of territory is reserved just for other cats. I have never experienced a cat viciously meowing at me as I passed or chasing me down the street. Cats are cool that way: they have a clear idea of what it means to mind your own business!

As a young child, my family had cats for pets. Ever since I was about nine, though, all of my pets have been dogs. Cats and dogs, as individuals, have their own distinctive personalities, and most are pretty interactive with their owners. But dogs, with their emotional bonding, can sometimes take things to extremes. With a dog, I sometimes feel that I am with someone whose entire sense of happiness is based on my second-to-second interaction with them. There is this continual eye contact thing going on between dogs and their owners. Cats do that, too. But nowhere near to the degree that dogs cling to people.

Cats and dogs, to me, seem like human children in different stages of development. Dogs are like toddlers who have a deep emotional dependency on their parents. Cats, on the other hand, are like teenagers who, although still with that emotional connection (albeit in reduced intensity), are relatively assertive with their sense of autonomy.

I like both cats and dogs. Dogs, due to their territorial nature and their propensity to chase and bite people (and run away from home), need to be confined and looked after more than their feline counterparts. But on the positive side, I usually get a strong feeling of mutual empathy with a dog, even if it’s a dog that I’ve just happened to come across for the first time. Back on the negative side, though, I do appreciate an animal that knows when it needs to just shut up and mind its own business (like when I’m out running)! As a matter of fact, once when I was recently running past the assorted cats and dogs in my neighborhood, I suddenly had a strong urge to shout out a line I heard in an great old Walt Disney movie titled Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey (featuring two talking dogs and a chatty cat): “Cats rule and dogs drool!” Guess which character said that!

Monday Newsbreak: 10/13

--The two big ongoing news stories, of course, are the impending presidential election and the financial crisis. I’ve pretty much stated my viewpoints in both areas in earlier articles. In a nutshell, I feel that the politics of desperation are tainting any reasonable discussion of the issues as we approach election day. It doesn’t matter to me whom you vote for in the presidential race: reasonable arguments can be made for either Obama or McCain. I’ll fill in the bubble next to Obama’s name, but whoever ends up being elected will be MY president regardless of whether I voted for him or not. As for the financial crisis, at the present moment I’m down to just crossing my fingers and hoping for an upturn. But I very skeptical of our government’s casual attitude about incurring debt into the trillions of dollars.

--After his conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping, former NFL star O.J. Simpson stands to be sentenced for a very long time in prison, possibly for life. My take is that, regardless of whether you think he had actually murdered his ex-wife Nicole and her friend that night in 1994, the fact remains that he was acquitted of those charges in the ensuing criminal trial. I have enough of a problem with Simpson, after this acquittal, being subjected to a civil suit in which a civil jury held him responsible for the same deaths that he was earlier acquitted of causing. And now there is spoken evidence that many, if not most of the jurors who convicted Simpson in this recent trial felt that he WAS the murderer and that their decision would help tilt justice back in what they perceive to be a better direction. O.K., Simpson may be guilty of the recent charges leveled at him, but I thought that there was such a thing as double jeopardy that prohibited people from repeatedly being tried for the same crime, once acquitted. Like him or not, I feel that Simpson’s case is an example of lynch mob justice done in a tidy, “civilized” manner. His lawyers are correct in challenging his convictions, in my opinion.

--The United States finally dropped North Korea from its “enemies” list of nations accused of sponsoring terrorism. As if nations in general didn’t have intelligence agencies and “black-ops” sections that went to other countries to carry out underhanded provocations for their own governments’ benefit. When a country’s secret shenanigans are working against our own country’s interests, then it’s called “promoting terrorism”. I don’t like what North Korea has been doing over the years with its funneling of arms to different hot spots across the world. But it by no means is the only country to do this. C’mon, let’s take a good, hard look at ourselves and what we’re doing in this area before coming down on others!

--Football season, both on the college and professional level, is rising to a fever pitch. The Florida Gators routed LSU 51-21 at home. I thought that some of the LSU players looked very foolish as they continued to yell out taunts to Florida players (especially to quarterback Tim Tebow), even though Florida was thoroughly clobbering them on the field.