When I was a little kid, I was an atlas fanatic. I would pore for hours over maps in world atlases, road atlases, and even star atlases. At one time, I even had a hobby of collecting road maps whereby I would walk to all of the gas stations within a couple of miles of my house and take whatever (then) free road maps they had.
In our home, we had one of those great Rand McNally road atlases of the United States. I would trace various federal highway routes through different states and across their borders, imagining that I was actually driving down the real roads and through the towns along the way (especially going east-west along routes like US 2 and US 6). I was deeply disappointed when I discovered that US 441, my "favorite" route (it still is) disappeared somewhere in Tennessee, never making it to Canada or the Great Lakes.
Through the road atlas I also noticed the cites and metropolitan area that were growing the quickest in population. These urban areas were depicted by yellow on the map. I was most impressed by the cities that had the biggest "yellow" (for some time I liked Newark, New Jersey for this one reason alone). Later, I got a revised road atlas and noticed how many more cities had gone from "point" depictions to the "yellow".
But as I grew older as a kid, I would begin to question whether urban growth was such a good idea. After all, my own home area of south Florida was becoming one gigantic, mass urban sprawl. I pictured the land designated by yellow in road atlases as being urban sprawls of buildings, roads, and parking lots. With nature in those areas being essentially wiped out.
Now, living in Gainesville (in north-central Florida), I am in a "yellow" zone but also in an environment with a lot of "nature" in it. And it makes me wonder how really urban those other yellow areas are. I bet even Newark, New Jersey has plenty of "natural" places within its borders. Now that would be an interesting project for someone to do (if they haven't already done so, that is): Go to the most urbanized locations in the U.S. and discover nature and wildlife in their midsts.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
What About Zelaya?
Can someone please put into proper perspective the situation going on in Honduras with exiled president Manuel Zelaya? I'm hearing confusing stories from different sources, and it's hard to put them together into a coherent picture. But let me try to put out what I think I understand, and then if you have something to add (or refute), by all means do so. I'm all ears.
The Central American nation of Honduras has, within its constitution, the provision that its presidents are limited to only one elected term. Zelaya, who was a successful businessman before his election, was nearing his one term's end. But he wanted to continue as president, so he proposed and planned a non-binding national referendum that would determine whether or not the Honduran people wanted to change that country's constitution. This action has been used by the president's critics to accuse him of trying to become eligible to run for another term. The only problem was that both the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court ruled this referendum to be illegal and ordered the Honduran president to stop it. Zelaya refused, and the military promptly stepped in, arrested him, threw him out of the country, and replaced him with another president. These were also actions which seem to have violated that country's constitution. After this transference of power, which I almost universally hear being described as a military coup, Zelaya has tried to get back into Honduras, apparently confident that its people would force the issue with the military and insist on his restoration to power there.
From what I understand, Honduras is a very poor country with its economy and society largely in disarray because of its role as a transit location for the illegal drug trade that supplies customers within the United States. Zelaya, initially not considered to be leftist, became disillusioned with the United States over their inability or even disinterest in helping him with this problem. He consequently turned to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and neighboring Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega for support. So Zelaya transformed his political image to resemble other leftist popularly elected leaders in Latin America. Only one problem: he had become very unpopular in his own country, with an approval rating in the twenties. Had the referendum gone through, Zelaya probably would have lost it anyway. And it still wouldn't have given him the authority to run again for president even had he won it.
Since Zelaya is nearing the end of his term, albeit in exile, shouldn't there be an upcoming election going on in Honduras, with candidates entering it and campaigning? Once the exiled president's term ends, it should be a moot point as to how he ended it: someone else will be succeeding him anyway.
I think the idea of the military stepping in to overthrow a democratically elected political leader is something that all of us want to avoid seeing. But before I judge them too severely, I would like to know what those in Honduras trying to protect that nation's constitution and the rule of law through its courts system could have done otherwise. To truly discern the Honduran military's agenda in all of this, their behavior regarding the prompt restoration of democratic political rule is essential. Whoever does eventually rise to lead that country will still be confronted with the same problems as his-or-her predecessor. The United States is in the best position to be a good friend to Honduras. But if we ignore our neighbor's plight and refuse to accept some responsibility for it, we shouldn't be at all surprised to see its future leaders turn to other countries with whom we have less than optimal relations.
The Central American nation of Honduras has, within its constitution, the provision that its presidents are limited to only one elected term. Zelaya, who was a successful businessman before his election, was nearing his one term's end. But he wanted to continue as president, so he proposed and planned a non-binding national referendum that would determine whether or not the Honduran people wanted to change that country's constitution. This action has been used by the president's critics to accuse him of trying to become eligible to run for another term. The only problem was that both the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court ruled this referendum to be illegal and ordered the Honduran president to stop it. Zelaya refused, and the military promptly stepped in, arrested him, threw him out of the country, and replaced him with another president. These were also actions which seem to have violated that country's constitution. After this transference of power, which I almost universally hear being described as a military coup, Zelaya has tried to get back into Honduras, apparently confident that its people would force the issue with the military and insist on his restoration to power there.
From what I understand, Honduras is a very poor country with its economy and society largely in disarray because of its role as a transit location for the illegal drug trade that supplies customers within the United States. Zelaya, initially not considered to be leftist, became disillusioned with the United States over their inability or even disinterest in helping him with this problem. He consequently turned to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and neighboring Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega for support. So Zelaya transformed his political image to resemble other leftist popularly elected leaders in Latin America. Only one problem: he had become very unpopular in his own country, with an approval rating in the twenties. Had the referendum gone through, Zelaya probably would have lost it anyway. And it still wouldn't have given him the authority to run again for president even had he won it.
Since Zelaya is nearing the end of his term, albeit in exile, shouldn't there be an upcoming election going on in Honduras, with candidates entering it and campaigning? Once the exiled president's term ends, it should be a moot point as to how he ended it: someone else will be succeeding him anyway.
I think the idea of the military stepping in to overthrow a democratically elected political leader is something that all of us want to avoid seeing. But before I judge them too severely, I would like to know what those in Honduras trying to protect that nation's constitution and the rule of law through its courts system could have done otherwise. To truly discern the Honduran military's agenda in all of this, their behavior regarding the prompt restoration of democratic political rule is essential. Whoever does eventually rise to lead that country will still be confronted with the same problems as his-or-her predecessor. The United States is in the best position to be a good friend to Honduras. But if we ignore our neighbor's plight and refuse to accept some responsibility for it, we shouldn't be at all surprised to see its future leaders turn to other countries with whom we have less than optimal relations.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Two Great Musical Acts From...Where?!
During my current period of fascination with the genre of independent/alternative music, I have come across two different European acts from the same country. They are solo artist José Gonzalez and the group I'm From Barcelona. Their obvious country of origin? You guessed it...Sweden, of course!
I've known about José Gonzalez for some time, enjoying his music through LastFM, AOL Radio, and YouTube. But his CDs are difficult to find in stores, so I just may end of buying them through the Internet (although I could probably order them through Borders and get a coupon discount on the purchase). Gonzalez is an accomplished guitarist with a soothing voice and a knack for creating dreamy, romantic (but not overly sentimental) melodies. Like most of the musical artists I've come across lately, he has come into his own just within the past decade.
My experience with I'm From Barcelona is much more recent, having only heard them for the first time this past Wednesday on AOL Radio's "brand new indie" channel. They, like Canada's Broken Social Scene, are very large and variable in number, with as many as 29 members over the recent past. I'm From Barcelona reminds me more of Sufjan Stevens, though, with their diversity of song topics (even one about stamp collecting), melodies, and instrumentation that sometimes sound like the products of his workmanship. They have only put out two albums so far; unlike the case with José Gonzalez, though, it looks as if I will at least be able to check out one of them from my local public library.
There is more to Swedish popular music than Abba and Ace of Base. Try out José Gonzalez or I'm From Barcelona for a different type of sound than what you're used to hearing from this northern European nation. They make me want to investigate what else Sweden has to offer in the area of independent/alternative music!
I've known about José Gonzalez for some time, enjoying his music through LastFM, AOL Radio, and YouTube. But his CDs are difficult to find in stores, so I just may end of buying them through the Internet (although I could probably order them through Borders and get a coupon discount on the purchase). Gonzalez is an accomplished guitarist with a soothing voice and a knack for creating dreamy, romantic (but not overly sentimental) melodies. Like most of the musical artists I've come across lately, he has come into his own just within the past decade.
My experience with I'm From Barcelona is much more recent, having only heard them for the first time this past Wednesday on AOL Radio's "brand new indie" channel. They, like Canada's Broken Social Scene, are very large and variable in number, with as many as 29 members over the recent past. I'm From Barcelona reminds me more of Sufjan Stevens, though, with their diversity of song topics (even one about stamp collecting), melodies, and instrumentation that sometimes sound like the products of his workmanship. They have only put out two albums so far; unlike the case with José Gonzalez, though, it looks as if I will at least be able to check out one of them from my local public library.
There is more to Swedish popular music than Abba and Ace of Base. Try out José Gonzalez or I'm From Barcelona for a different type of sound than what you're used to hearing from this northern European nation. They make me want to investigate what else Sweden has to offer in the area of independent/alternative music!
Friday, August 28, 2009
General Personal Running Info
Starting this Saturday, the Gainesville road race running season unofficially begins with a five-kilometer race that pretty much traces one of my training courses. I don't know that I will run in this one (I probably won't) but I may well enter the Dog Days 5K run the following Saturday. That race, which I ran in last year, also traces the same course but in the opposite direction. Further down the calendar is a four-mile race and then a half-marathon. Dare I run in the half-marathon?
To be perfectly truthful, I haven't run with the same intensity for the past few weeks that I had been doing. One big reason is that I simultaneously suffered an illness and injury that affected the same area of my body, effectively incapacitating me for a week. Also, I've gained a few pounds recently and that extra weight isn't all that much fun to drag around with me while I'm running. Still, I try to get out and run a reasonable distance around my home neighborhood from time to time. The weather hasn't been very cooperative lately, with days being either too hot or too stormy. But I suppose other locations have their own problems with climate, with runners living there learning to "run" around them.
I'm pretty confident about being able to finish a 5K race, even though my finishing time may not be as well as it was last year. I probably wouldn't have any trouble with the four-miler either, as long as my pace myself properly. But that half-marathon (13.1 miles)? I don't know yet.
To be perfectly truthful, I haven't run with the same intensity for the past few weeks that I had been doing. One big reason is that I simultaneously suffered an illness and injury that affected the same area of my body, effectively incapacitating me for a week. Also, I've gained a few pounds recently and that extra weight isn't all that much fun to drag around with me while I'm running. Still, I try to get out and run a reasonable distance around my home neighborhood from time to time. The weather hasn't been very cooperative lately, with days being either too hot or too stormy. But I suppose other locations have their own problems with climate, with runners living there learning to "run" around them.
I'm pretty confident about being able to finish a 5K race, even though my finishing time may not be as well as it was last year. I probably wouldn't have any trouble with the four-miler either, as long as my pace myself properly. But that half-marathon (13.1 miles)? I don't know yet.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Impending Swine Flu Pandemic in U.S.
I was reading an article in today's Gainesville Sun by Martin Schram, in which the author revealed some alarming predictions. According to the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, half of the U.S. population may come down with swine flu during the next few months. 1.8 million may need hospitalization, with 300,000 in intensive care. Worst of all, as many as 90,000 may end up dying from the swine flu. This is on top of the regular flu season totals. Racing against this is the push to produce as many swine flu vaccines as possible, as quickly as possible. And then distributing and administering them throughout the population as quickly as possible.
There is no way that there won't be a widespread outbreak of the swine flu. Before vaccines are available, the only effective preventative measures (besides putting oneself in complete isolation) are to wash hands often, keep hands away from one's face, and sneeze and cough into one's own sleeve or elbow (not into the hand or the open air). Also, anyone who feels that they are sick with the flu needs to stay home from work or school until well after the fever subsides (or if it is their child, keep them out of school). For this to really work, though, employers and schools need to recognize the pandemic nature of this flu and relax their attendance and documentation policies. As for employers who demand doctor's notes from employees returning to work after being absent due to sickness, their continued insistence on this policy will only overtax our health care system, which will already be stretched to its limits with this dangerous flu outbreak. Employees who are parents of sick children also need to be accorded latitude if they need to tend to them at home.
Wisely, the armed forces will get a high priority for swine flu vaccination, with all soldiers receiving shots. Why? Just look back to 1918 and the closing months of World War I. Then, it was a different type of flu, the Spanish Flu, that quickly spread due to infected returning soldiers.
With disaster preparedness, it is human nature to remember the failures while forgetting the successes. Katrina is a household name almost synonymous with disaster and government ineptitude. But who remembers Floyd? In 1999, gigantic hurricane Floyd seriously threatened Florida before veering northward at the last possible moment. Then-Governor Jeb Bush, thinking ahead, wasted no time in immediately ordering an unprecedented mass evacuation from the easternmost parts of the state. Hopefully, with the impending swine flu pandemic, we will have the good fortune, at some future time, to be able to look back on it as a "forgettable" success and not as a memorable failure.
There is no way that there won't be a widespread outbreak of the swine flu. Before vaccines are available, the only effective preventative measures (besides putting oneself in complete isolation) are to wash hands often, keep hands away from one's face, and sneeze and cough into one's own sleeve or elbow (not into the hand or the open air). Also, anyone who feels that they are sick with the flu needs to stay home from work or school until well after the fever subsides (or if it is their child, keep them out of school). For this to really work, though, employers and schools need to recognize the pandemic nature of this flu and relax their attendance and documentation policies. As for employers who demand doctor's notes from employees returning to work after being absent due to sickness, their continued insistence on this policy will only overtax our health care system, which will already be stretched to its limits with this dangerous flu outbreak. Employees who are parents of sick children also need to be accorded latitude if they need to tend to them at home.
Wisely, the armed forces will get a high priority for swine flu vaccination, with all soldiers receiving shots. Why? Just look back to 1918 and the closing months of World War I. Then, it was a different type of flu, the Spanish Flu, that quickly spread due to infected returning soldiers.
With disaster preparedness, it is human nature to remember the failures while forgetting the successes. Katrina is a household name almost synonymous with disaster and government ineptitude. But who remembers Floyd? In 1999, gigantic hurricane Floyd seriously threatened Florida before veering northward at the last possible moment. Then-Governor Jeb Bush, thinking ahead, wasted no time in immediately ordering an unprecedented mass evacuation from the easternmost parts of the state. Hopefully, with the impending swine flu pandemic, we will have the good fortune, at some future time, to be able to look back on it as a "forgettable" success and not as a memorable failure.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Edward Kennedy, 1932-2009
Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy died late last night of brain cancer. His presence on the U.S. Senate floor has already been sorely missed during the last few months, especially since health care, one of Kennedy's strongest causes, has taken center stage in the national debate with legislation pending in the fall session.
To his detractors, Ted Kennedy was a silver-spoon Kennedy baby who pretty much had his political career handed to him on a silver platter. And he squandered it all one night in July 1969 when he drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts and abandoned the scene, leaving his female passenger in the car to die. That one incident by itself was enough to keep the Massachusetts senator from ever being able to be elected as president. And many (myself included) blame Kennedy for a vicious presidential primary fight in 1980 against besieged Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, who then desperately needed support from his own party instead of division while he tackled weighty issues like the Iran hostage situation, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and the tanking economy.
But as a senator, Edward Kennedy received high marks, even from his ideological opponents. He demonstrated a great ability to reach across the aisle and work with his Republican counterparts to draft and push through legislation over the years. And yet, on certain issues, Kennedy was unwavering. Chief among them was his view that America needed a national health care policy that did not victimize the very people it was supposed to be helping.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of the tributes and specials that will be aired during the next few days about this important figure in American history. Hopefully, Kennedy's successor in the Senate will be appointed soon in order that this body may have the number of senators needed to pass meaningful health care reform (and resist efforts to water it down).
To his detractors, Ted Kennedy was a silver-spoon Kennedy baby who pretty much had his political career handed to him on a silver platter. And he squandered it all one night in July 1969 when he drove off a bridge in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts and abandoned the scene, leaving his female passenger in the car to die. That one incident by itself was enough to keep the Massachusetts senator from ever being able to be elected as president. And many (myself included) blame Kennedy for a vicious presidential primary fight in 1980 against besieged Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, who then desperately needed support from his own party instead of division while he tackled weighty issues like the Iran hostage situation, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, and the tanking economy.
But as a senator, Edward Kennedy received high marks, even from his ideological opponents. He demonstrated a great ability to reach across the aisle and work with his Republican counterparts to draft and push through legislation over the years. And yet, on certain issues, Kennedy was unwavering. Chief among them was his view that America needed a national health care policy that did not victimize the very people it was supposed to be helping.
I'm looking forward to seeing some of the tributes and specials that will be aired during the next few days about this important figure in American history. Hopefully, Kennedy's successor in the Senate will be appointed soon in order that this body may have the number of senators needed to pass meaningful health care reform (and resist efforts to water it down).
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Four Movies on TV, Part 3
[A series about four movies I saw one particularly lazy night a few days back]
The 1967 Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick movie 2001: A Space Odyssey has, for many years, been the yardstick with which I have been measuring our own space program's progress. Made before the first human touchdown on the moon in 1969, 2001: A Space Odyssey envisioned a future that had sophisticated moon bases by 1999, as well as an enormous double-ringed space station (neither of which we have come anywhere close to accomplishing). The movie's creators assumed, I guess, that the U.S. government would continue to fund manned spaced exploration on the same level as that in the 1960s under Kennedy and Johnson. But that funding dropped with the Nixon administration, and many (albeit worthwhile) non-manned NASA projects (satellites and probes) have syphoned off many of the funds that could have gone into establishing a permanent moon colony. However, the movie also foretold a more primitive future than we currently have in one important respect.
In 2001's second half, Hal, the computer running the Jupiter-bound ship Discovery One, had a memory that took up much space there. Its logic center alone took up a room. In a "real" 2001: A Space Odyssey reflective of today's level of miniaturization, a small console might do the same trick. Of course, if you saw the movie you would easily recognize the dramatic value of having Hal gradually losing "his" mind with astronaut David Bowman painstakingly manually disconnecting large logic circuits, one by one.
Alas, 2010, 2001's later and relatively disappointing sequel, predicted the U.S. and U.S.S.R. being on the brink of nuclear war because of troubles in Central America. Contrast that with the situation today in 2009: no more U.S.S.R., the communists now in opposition in Russia, almost all of the former Warsaw Pact satellite nations now in NATO, three former Soviet republics now in NATO with two more slated for future membership, East and West Germany reunited with the Berlin Wall torn down, and (incredibly) Russia now allowing American military flights over its territory to help prosecute its war in Afghanistan, of all places. Yes, I think we're doing a lot better than the gloomy picture painted by 2010.
My favorite scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey was when Dr. Heywood Floyd and his colleagues, on the moon, walked down the slope leading to the mysterious monolith that had been partially unearthed (oops, I mean un"mooned") near the crater Clavius. It was suspenseful and creepy (so I naturally liked it). There was also a scene when Dr. Floyd spoke with his very young daughter on the phone from the space station. Remember that this is happening in 1999. Floyd asks his daughter what she wants for her birthday, to which she replies "a bush baby". In the real universe, "bush baby" George W. Bush was effectively appointed as president the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Next and last of the "four movies": the James Bond flick The Spy Who Loved Me.
The 1967 Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick movie 2001: A Space Odyssey has, for many years, been the yardstick with which I have been measuring our own space program's progress. Made before the first human touchdown on the moon in 1969, 2001: A Space Odyssey envisioned a future that had sophisticated moon bases by 1999, as well as an enormous double-ringed space station (neither of which we have come anywhere close to accomplishing). The movie's creators assumed, I guess, that the U.S. government would continue to fund manned spaced exploration on the same level as that in the 1960s under Kennedy and Johnson. But that funding dropped with the Nixon administration, and many (albeit worthwhile) non-manned NASA projects (satellites and probes) have syphoned off many of the funds that could have gone into establishing a permanent moon colony. However, the movie also foretold a more primitive future than we currently have in one important respect.
In 2001's second half, Hal, the computer running the Jupiter-bound ship Discovery One, had a memory that took up much space there. Its logic center alone took up a room. In a "real" 2001: A Space Odyssey reflective of today's level of miniaturization, a small console might do the same trick. Of course, if you saw the movie you would easily recognize the dramatic value of having Hal gradually losing "his" mind with astronaut David Bowman painstakingly manually disconnecting large logic circuits, one by one.
Alas, 2010, 2001's later and relatively disappointing sequel, predicted the U.S. and U.S.S.R. being on the brink of nuclear war because of troubles in Central America. Contrast that with the situation today in 2009: no more U.S.S.R., the communists now in opposition in Russia, almost all of the former Warsaw Pact satellite nations now in NATO, three former Soviet republics now in NATO with two more slated for future membership, East and West Germany reunited with the Berlin Wall torn down, and (incredibly) Russia now allowing American military flights over its territory to help prosecute its war in Afghanistan, of all places. Yes, I think we're doing a lot better than the gloomy picture painted by 2010.
My favorite scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey was when Dr. Heywood Floyd and his colleagues, on the moon, walked down the slope leading to the mysterious monolith that had been partially unearthed (oops, I mean un"mooned") near the crater Clavius. It was suspenseful and creepy (so I naturally liked it). There was also a scene when Dr. Floyd spoke with his very young daughter on the phone from the space station. Remember that this is happening in 1999. Floyd asks his daughter what she wants for her birthday, to which she replies "a bush baby". In the real universe, "bush baby" George W. Bush was effectively appointed as president the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Next and last of the "four movies": the James Bond flick The Spy Who Loved Me.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Glenn Beck: "Ist-ist"
The other day, I was searching the Internet for a list of former sponsors who refuse to sponsor Glenn Beck's show on Fox anymore after he accused President Obama of being racist and hating white people. I used the Google engine and did get a result, though an unexpected one. It appears that, two years ago, Mr. Beck was under attack by some parties for a statement he had apparently made about supporters of Republican representative and then-presidential candidate Ron Paul. It seems that ol' Glenn had branded these good folks with the epithet "terrorists"! Some of those objecting to his comment called for --you guessed it--sponsors to withdraw their support from his show.
Back in 2007, Ron Paul was a political headache for conservative Republicans, as the Texas representative was opposed to the Iraqi war as well as being a libertarian on social issues and opposed to many of the big-government policies going on in the Republican Bush administration. But he was supported by many who harbored deep-seated anxiety about big government. Nowadays, of course, it is this anxiety that Beck is trying to draw upon in his verbal attacks against a Democratic president and congress. But back then, people expressing these views were supposedly "terrorists".
The fact that conservative Wal*Mart, of all companies, has withdrawn its sponsorship of Beck's program, should give a lie to accusations that the political left got to him through his sponsors. After all, since when has Wal*Mart ever cared about what the political left was saying about it?
It appears to me that Glenn Beck puts his finger up in the air to determine wherever the political wind happens to be blowing from and then derives from that his whole notion of who the good guys and who the bad guys are. And the bad guys he deals with through "ist" epithets like "racist" and "terrorist". So I've coined a new word to counter-accuse Beck: He's an "istist"!
Too bad; I think Glenn Beck missed his true calling in life. He should have been an art critic. I can hear him now: This painter is a (shudder) cubist; that one is (wince) an impressionist! And, hey folks, that loser artist over there is (hiss) an expressionist!
Ist, ist, ist.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Back in 2007, Ron Paul was a political headache for conservative Republicans, as the Texas representative was opposed to the Iraqi war as well as being a libertarian on social issues and opposed to many of the big-government policies going on in the Republican Bush administration. But he was supported by many who harbored deep-seated anxiety about big government. Nowadays, of course, it is this anxiety that Beck is trying to draw upon in his verbal attacks against a Democratic president and congress. But back then, people expressing these views were supposedly "terrorists".
The fact that conservative Wal*Mart, of all companies, has withdrawn its sponsorship of Beck's program, should give a lie to accusations that the political left got to him through his sponsors. After all, since when has Wal*Mart ever cared about what the political left was saying about it?
It appears to me that Glenn Beck puts his finger up in the air to determine wherever the political wind happens to be blowing from and then derives from that his whole notion of who the good guys and who the bad guys are. And the bad guys he deals with through "ist" epithets like "racist" and "terrorist". So I've coined a new word to counter-accuse Beck: He's an "istist"!
Too bad; I think Glenn Beck missed his true calling in life. He should have been an art critic. I can hear him now: This painter is a (shudder) cubist; that one is (wince) an impressionist! And, hey folks, that loser artist over there is (hiss) an expressionist!
Ist, ist, ist.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Directional Moves
The other day I was reading The Love You Make, the excellent biography of the Beatles by Peter Brown and Steven Gaines. I came to Chapter 21, which described John Lennon's final years before his assassination in December 1980. During Lennon's retirement from professional music during the late 1970s in order to raise his son Sean, his wife Yoko Ono dabbled quite a bit in astrology and numerology. One of the results was something called "directional moves", whereby Yoko would, through her "craft", determine the necessity of John traveling "x" number of miles in a specific direction (finding the nearest city to this point) and staying there for a predetermined period of time. And then returning to "home" in New York City. Usually Yoko accompanied John on these abrupt "directional moves", but once she sent him off alone. The assigned destination was Hong Kong, and John nervously complied. He checked into a nice hotel there and, while taking a bath, came to the revelation that for quite possibly the first time in his adult life, he was doing something by himself and making decisions without others making them for him! So John came back full of praise for this experience, and presumably for Yoko's "hocus pocus flim flammery" (my words) that sent him to Hong Kong in the first place.
While Yoko may have believed in her astrology and numerology, it is far more plausible that, as John's wife, she could tell that he was becoming burned out and needed some solitude and a change of venue to help him out of his rut. But for the sake of the article, let me discount the compelling element of love and go to the astrology/numerology angle.
The purpose of "directional moves" was to balance oneself in relation to the rest of the universe, as quirky as that may sound. But it could also be possible, with nothing more than a deck of cards, to produce similar results simply by assigning miles, directions, and time to cards randomly turned up at specific times. The "program" designer would play a hand whereby only a relatively small number of cards would indicate a "directional move". Subsequent random drawings would reveal the details of the trip and stay.
The bottom line is that it's important for people to occasionally get away from their routine. Sometimes, though, people pick routine places to go to in order to accomplish this (defeating to some extent the point of getting away). A "directional move", whether dictated by the dubious practice of astrology/numerology or by just dealing a well-shuffled pack of cards, eliminates this personal bias in selecting getaways and can add a sense of excitement and mystery to the experience. Of course, it helps a bit to be exorbitantly wealthy, too!
While Yoko may have believed in her astrology and numerology, it is far more plausible that, as John's wife, she could tell that he was becoming burned out and needed some solitude and a change of venue to help him out of his rut. But for the sake of the article, let me discount the compelling element of love and go to the astrology/numerology angle.
The purpose of "directional moves" was to balance oneself in relation to the rest of the universe, as quirky as that may sound. But it could also be possible, with nothing more than a deck of cards, to produce similar results simply by assigning miles, directions, and time to cards randomly turned up at specific times. The "program" designer would play a hand whereby only a relatively small number of cards would indicate a "directional move". Subsequent random drawings would reveal the details of the trip and stay.
The bottom line is that it's important for people to occasionally get away from their routine. Sometimes, though, people pick routine places to go to in order to accomplish this (defeating to some extent the point of getting away). A "directional move", whether dictated by the dubious practice of astrology/numerology or by just dealing a well-shuffled pack of cards, eliminates this personal bias in selecting getaways and can add a sense of excitement and mystery to the experience. Of course, it helps a bit to be exorbitantly wealthy, too!
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Sandman's in Gainesville
[I'm sitting in the middle of the front seat of a police car, with an officer on my left]
What happened to my car? You say it's all right, you have it, good... Yes officer, I was going on a pleasant bicycle ride when I stopped at this very same fast-food restaurant we're outside of now, by the road in front of Wal-Mart.
[I reach up and tap the wooden outer wall of the restaurant with my hand]
I just wanted to read my book that I had carried with me and have a drink and a small meal. But the power went out and the woman behind the counter refused to take my order. I angrily walked out of the place, got back on my bicycle, and pedaled north. It was a good ride, and I knew that there were some good places further north (including that wonderful Mister Donut by Publix at the far north side of town on this road).
[At this statement the police officer seems interested and begins to write something down]
Well, after a short while, I made it to Wal-Mart and chained my bike. It was then that I noticed that my book was gone! It must have fallen off my bicycle while I was riding it. Now I had to backtrack and see if I could find it. I weighed in my mind the importance of the book: it was for school, but it could be replaced. Still, I thought I might be able to retrieve it if I saw it along the road. So I unchained my bicycle and got back on it, heading back south. As a drove down the road, I realized that I wouldn't be able to see something as small as a book from my side of the street. So I stepped out of my grey Dodge Spirit and walked across the street to a place where I had just a few minutes earlier ridden my bicycle. Then I suddenly thought Oh, no, what about my car! I looked up and thought I saw it slowly drifting driverless back into the road. I did a double take and it had completely disappeared. And then I collapsed and everything went black. The next thing I remember, I'm sitting here next to you relaying this story.
[At this point it hits me: I was already at Wal-Mart, and then rode my bicycle a short ways to...the same Wal-Mart. And...wait, how could I have had a car when I was riding a bicycle, and...]
-----------------------------------------------------
And now I come to the point when I describe events from the viewpoint of a person awakening from a dream. The incongruities and contradictions revealed themselves one-by-one, and at the end, when I was finally completely awake, I arrived at an interesting insight.
I have a "dream memory" whereby, only while dreaming, I access memories from previous dreams and incorporate them into my ongoing experience. I had walked/run northward down the same stretch of road that I rode my bike on after first leaving that restaurant. But in other dreams, that stretch was several blocks south of Wal-Mart. So I naturally ended that ride at--Wal-Mart again! The doughnut shop by Publix? Completely nonexistent, except in previous dreams (I even worked there once in one). Although, come to think of it, just recently a new Dunkin Donuts was opened near a Publix in the same general area (but on the other side of the street). The quantum jump from bicycle to car is a typical feature of a dream, but while dreaming, my ability to think critically is severely diminished and I didn't notice this at the time. Also, the act of reaching up and tapping the outer wall of a building while sitting in the middle of a police squad car should have given this away as a dream. And--wait--if I had collapsed like that, why was I there like that in a police car instead of the hospital?
Maybe this dream narrative stuff sounds a little offbeat and irrelevant. But it was something to me; I guess you just would have had to have been there (inside my brain).
What happened to my car? You say it's all right, you have it, good... Yes officer, I was going on a pleasant bicycle ride when I stopped at this very same fast-food restaurant we're outside of now, by the road in front of Wal-Mart.
[I reach up and tap the wooden outer wall of the restaurant with my hand]
I just wanted to read my book that I had carried with me and have a drink and a small meal. But the power went out and the woman behind the counter refused to take my order. I angrily walked out of the place, got back on my bicycle, and pedaled north. It was a good ride, and I knew that there were some good places further north (including that wonderful Mister Donut by Publix at the far north side of town on this road).
[At this statement the police officer seems interested and begins to write something down]
Well, after a short while, I made it to Wal-Mart and chained my bike. It was then that I noticed that my book was gone! It must have fallen off my bicycle while I was riding it. Now I had to backtrack and see if I could find it. I weighed in my mind the importance of the book: it was for school, but it could be replaced. Still, I thought I might be able to retrieve it if I saw it along the road. So I unchained my bicycle and got back on it, heading back south. As a drove down the road, I realized that I wouldn't be able to see something as small as a book from my side of the street. So I stepped out of my grey Dodge Spirit and walked across the street to a place where I had just a few minutes earlier ridden my bicycle. Then I suddenly thought Oh, no, what about my car! I looked up and thought I saw it slowly drifting driverless back into the road. I did a double take and it had completely disappeared. And then I collapsed and everything went black. The next thing I remember, I'm sitting here next to you relaying this story.
[At this point it hits me: I was already at Wal-Mart, and then rode my bicycle a short ways to...the same Wal-Mart. And...wait, how could I have had a car when I was riding a bicycle, and...]
-----------------------------------------------------
And now I come to the point when I describe events from the viewpoint of a person awakening from a dream. The incongruities and contradictions revealed themselves one-by-one, and at the end, when I was finally completely awake, I arrived at an interesting insight.
I have a "dream memory" whereby, only while dreaming, I access memories from previous dreams and incorporate them into my ongoing experience. I had walked/run northward down the same stretch of road that I rode my bike on after first leaving that restaurant. But in other dreams, that stretch was several blocks south of Wal-Mart. So I naturally ended that ride at--Wal-Mart again! The doughnut shop by Publix? Completely nonexistent, except in previous dreams (I even worked there once in one). Although, come to think of it, just recently a new Dunkin Donuts was opened near a Publix in the same general area (but on the other side of the street). The quantum jump from bicycle to car is a typical feature of a dream, but while dreaming, my ability to think critically is severely diminished and I didn't notice this at the time. Also, the act of reaching up and tapping the outer wall of a building while sitting in the middle of a police squad car should have given this away as a dream. And--wait--if I had collapsed like that, why was I there like that in a police car instead of the hospital?
Maybe this dream narrative stuff sounds a little offbeat and irrelevant. But it was something to me; I guess you just would have had to have been there (inside my brain).
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Following-the-Scoreboard Blues
When a sports regular season I'm following is gearing up toward its final few weeks of action, I almost always fall into the trap of trying to keep up with how "my" team's rivals are doing in their games. So while I am watching my team play, I am also paying attention to the scores of other games being flashed on the TV screen. The problem with this is that sometimes I can't figure out which of my team's rivals to root against!
Case in point: in major league baseball, I am rooting for the Tampa Bay Rays to make the playoffs as a wild-card team (they have almost no shot at catching the division-leading New York Yankees). But to be a wild-card team, the Rays only have to have the best second-place record in the American League. And right now, there are only two second-place teams with records better than Tampa Bay: the Boston Red Sox and the Texas Rangers, who at this writing sport almost identical records. And they played a series recently against each other. So who should I have rooted for: Boston or Texas? Or should I really root for either of them when I could concentrate my attention on my favorite teams instead? After all, if Tampa keeps consistently playing well and winning for the rest of the season, it will most likely be a moot point regarding how other teams do in other games.
Besides, my main focus on baseball this year has been twofold: one, to more closely follow "my" teams to the point that I am familiar with their players and their performances and two, following and appreciating the actual game as it is played, with its many interesting nuances. I have found that, regardless of how well my team is doing, win or lose, I am enjoying baseball more by focusing this way. Chasing the scoreboard seems to be going in the opposite direction, but it is, alas, a habit that is ingrained within me.
Case in point: in major league baseball, I am rooting for the Tampa Bay Rays to make the playoffs as a wild-card team (they have almost no shot at catching the division-leading New York Yankees). But to be a wild-card team, the Rays only have to have the best second-place record in the American League. And right now, there are only two second-place teams with records better than Tampa Bay: the Boston Red Sox and the Texas Rangers, who at this writing sport almost identical records. And they played a series recently against each other. So who should I have rooted for: Boston or Texas? Or should I really root for either of them when I could concentrate my attention on my favorite teams instead? After all, if Tampa keeps consistently playing well and winning for the rest of the season, it will most likely be a moot point regarding how other teams do in other games.
Besides, my main focus on baseball this year has been twofold: one, to more closely follow "my" teams to the point that I am familiar with their players and their performances and two, following and appreciating the actual game as it is played, with its many interesting nuances. I have found that, regardless of how well my team is doing, win or lose, I am enjoying baseball more by focusing this way. Chasing the scoreboard seems to be going in the opposite direction, but it is, alas, a habit that is ingrained within me.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Hurricane Season Finally Here (Kind Of)
In 2004 and 2005, we were told, the effects of global warming were being brutally demonstrated by increasingly severe hurricane seasons. Not only were there more storms, but they were stronger as well. In 2004, Florida was hit by four strong hurricanes, while in 2005 Katrina devastated New Orleans and southern Mississippi, Rita slammed into the far-eastern Texas coast, and Wilma inflicted much damage on south Florida. And then the onslaught tapered. This year, the El Nino effect, caused somehow by warm waters in certain places in the Pacific Ocean and which somehow stunts tropical storm growth in the Atlantic, has been going on strong. And the Atlantic tropical storm output has reflected this, with the first named storm (Ana) not occurring until relatively late in the season, just a few days ago. As Ana trudged westward across the Atlantic toward the Lesser Antilles, it began to weaken. Meanwhile, Bill, the next of our storms, began to develop in the eastern Atlantic, roughly following Ana's path. And then, presto!, seemingly out of nowhere, Tropical Storm Claudette, with maximum sustained winds of 50 mph and rainstorms almost entirely on its eastern side, materialized in the Gulf of Mexico and soon thereafter hit the Florida panhandle. Now we're left with the original two: Ana, a mere tropical depression now, going through the Greater Antilles (where even more weakening is expected); and Bill, strengthening into a full-fledged hurricane but whose path is forecast to take it eventually into the northern Atlantic, away from land.
Being a Floridian for almost my entire life (much of it in south Florida), I have gone through periods of intense personal interest in hurricanes and their paths. It is a bit exciting when one appears to be heading my way, even though the odds tend to work against a direct hit. I do think, though, that the media tends to go a bit overboard when covering mere tropical storms (maximum sustained winds between 39 and 73 mph), especially the weaker ones (like Claudette). It is as if the act of sticking a name to a storm gives it more news "pizazz"!
Being a Floridian for almost my entire life (much of it in south Florida), I have gone through periods of intense personal interest in hurricanes and their paths. It is a bit exciting when one appears to be heading my way, even though the odds tend to work against a direct hit. I do think, though, that the media tends to go a bit overboard when covering mere tropical storms (maximum sustained winds between 39 and 73 mph), especially the weaker ones (like Claudette). It is as if the act of sticking a name to a storm gives it more news "pizazz"!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Gainesville's Cofrin Nature Park
In the midst of an area of heavy traffic congestion on the way to the overcrowded Oaks Mall area lies an unassuming little park, Cofrin Nature Park. Named after recently deceased area philanthropist David Cofrin, this pleasant getaway is a fresh respite from the stress of urban living. At the entrance are a tennis court, a children's playground area, and a picnic area. A few steps past this is the start of a looping nature trail, complete with a view of a tiny creek that runs through the park.
I found walking the Cofrin Nature Park's trail to be refreshing, shorter then either Loblolly Woods or Ring Park and much less confusing than the latter. Again, no admission is charged there, although parking spots may be hard to come by if the park is crowded (when I went, I was the only one there). I recommend this park to anyone who wants to briefly escape their urban existence and experience a little nature for a while before returning. For those who like to walk or jog for exercise, the trail is very suitable.
Cofrin Nature Park is located at 4810 NW 8 Avenue. Here are some photos I took of the place.
I found walking the Cofrin Nature Park's trail to be refreshing, shorter then either Loblolly Woods or Ring Park and much less confusing than the latter. Again, no admission is charged there, although parking spots may be hard to come by if the park is crowded (when I went, I was the only one there). I recommend this park to anyone who wants to briefly escape their urban existence and experience a little nature for a while before returning. For those who like to walk or jog for exercise, the trail is very suitable.
Cofrin Nature Park is located at 4810 NW 8 Avenue. Here are some photos I took of the place.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Beliefs and Belonging
It can be quite maddening to observe the health care debate going on in this country. Twisted, false notions seem to have lives of their own, resisting clearly expressed debunking. You're going to lose your insurance, the government will tell you what doctor to go to, you will have to wait for months to see a doctor, this is socialized medicine, and (worst) the government is going to kill grandma (using death panels) in order to save money. I'd like to focus on the last-mentioned falsehood.
Over and over again, people in the media (not just liberals, but mainstream journalists as well) have laid to rest this rumor (or so I would have thought) by revealing its source: a provision in the proposed legislation that provides government reimbursement of physicians who give end-of-life counseling to their clients (including giving information about living wills, almost universally endorsed and promoted in the past by politicians of both major parties). Now we have Glenn Beck continuing to rant about this false rumor as if it were still true, while politicians like Sarah Palin and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley tweet and speak about death panels and "killing grandma" when they obviously know better. And ordinary (I resist using the designation "normal") citizens continue to shout at politicians in town hall meetings with this ridiculous accusation. What's going on?
There is a doughnut shop across the street from the Starbucks I'm currently sitting at. Many of the times that I go in there, I see several generally elderly people, mostly men, sitting around and loudly discussing politics. Only what they might call "discussing politics" is, to me, just verbally regurgitating what right-wing "information" they heard from their idols on TV and radio. As a matter of fact, one common lead-in to a statement is "I heard Rush say the other day..." These folks obviously relish each other's company and enjoy the ritual of going down there, swilling the java, chomping on the rings, and spewing out the dogma. One of the unwritten rules there though, is that contradictory input from anyone of a different political viewpoint is not welcome. So if you want to play with them (i.e. be liked and socially accepted by them), you need to either express agreement with whatever outlandish opinions they express, find SOMETHING they say to agree with, or keep your mouth shut!
I know what I'm talking about when I say that many people view expressing a belief (or a disbelief) as a matter of belonging and being accepted within a social group much more than as a matter of expressing an honest, personally-arrived-at assessment. I think a lot of this originates from the fact that most people come from religious backgrounds and most of them still practice a form of organized religion. Within just about any religion I can think of, there are certain propositions that, on the surface, are preposterous, but which the religion's adherents still openly express belief in. If you have lived your whole life from childhood expressing preposterous viewpoints that you personally find yourself intellectually rebelling against but still are expressing because you feel compelled to do so in order to be accepted in that religious group, then it will probably carry over into other areas of your life. Including politics.
Folks like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity offer to many people a cozy, easy access to our political system and the news, with ready-to-go analysis that appeals to them and provides a sense of belonging within a political movement. The term "dittohead" (referring to the commonly-found Limbaugh fan who always agrees with him) applies here. For although even I myself occasionally "ditto" some things that ol' Rush says, I still take each thing he says and filter it through my perception of what is reasonable or not. A "dittohead", on the other hand, uses a different process. (S)he first decides to belong to Rush's "family" and THEN absorbs everything he says as gospel truth. Just as the member of a religion would sit there and absorb everything their clergy would say to them as truth. Beck and Hannity fans commonly do this as well. (To be fair, I think quite a few liberals do this sort of thing with MSNBC's Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, too.)
So hearing someone expressing a belief about something is a little more complicated than simply attributing it to their actual feelings. For many, expressing certain opinions, even if they are patently false, is a vital part of a social compact that they have made in a personal desire to belong to and be accepted by a particular group, be it religious, political, or just social. To this betrayal of people's rational thought processes, I say pass the doughnuts and shut your mouth!
Over and over again, people in the media (not just liberals, but mainstream journalists as well) have laid to rest this rumor (or so I would have thought) by revealing its source: a provision in the proposed legislation that provides government reimbursement of physicians who give end-of-life counseling to their clients (including giving information about living wills, almost universally endorsed and promoted in the past by politicians of both major parties). Now we have Glenn Beck continuing to rant about this false rumor as if it were still true, while politicians like Sarah Palin and Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley tweet and speak about death panels and "killing grandma" when they obviously know better. And ordinary (I resist using the designation "normal") citizens continue to shout at politicians in town hall meetings with this ridiculous accusation. What's going on?
There is a doughnut shop across the street from the Starbucks I'm currently sitting at. Many of the times that I go in there, I see several generally elderly people, mostly men, sitting around and loudly discussing politics. Only what they might call "discussing politics" is, to me, just verbally regurgitating what right-wing "information" they heard from their idols on TV and radio. As a matter of fact, one common lead-in to a statement is "I heard Rush say the other day..." These folks obviously relish each other's company and enjoy the ritual of going down there, swilling the java, chomping on the rings, and spewing out the dogma. One of the unwritten rules there though, is that contradictory input from anyone of a different political viewpoint is not welcome. So if you want to play with them (i.e. be liked and socially accepted by them), you need to either express agreement with whatever outlandish opinions they express, find SOMETHING they say to agree with, or keep your mouth shut!
I know what I'm talking about when I say that many people view expressing a belief (or a disbelief) as a matter of belonging and being accepted within a social group much more than as a matter of expressing an honest, personally-arrived-at assessment. I think a lot of this originates from the fact that most people come from religious backgrounds and most of them still practice a form of organized religion. Within just about any religion I can think of, there are certain propositions that, on the surface, are preposterous, but which the religion's adherents still openly express belief in. If you have lived your whole life from childhood expressing preposterous viewpoints that you personally find yourself intellectually rebelling against but still are expressing because you feel compelled to do so in order to be accepted in that religious group, then it will probably carry over into other areas of your life. Including politics.
Folks like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity offer to many people a cozy, easy access to our political system and the news, with ready-to-go analysis that appeals to them and provides a sense of belonging within a political movement. The term "dittohead" (referring to the commonly-found Limbaugh fan who always agrees with him) applies here. For although even I myself occasionally "ditto" some things that ol' Rush says, I still take each thing he says and filter it through my perception of what is reasonable or not. A "dittohead", on the other hand, uses a different process. (S)he first decides to belong to Rush's "family" and THEN absorbs everything he says as gospel truth. Just as the member of a religion would sit there and absorb everything their clergy would say to them as truth. Beck and Hannity fans commonly do this as well. (To be fair, I think quite a few liberals do this sort of thing with MSNBC's Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman, and Rachel Maddow, too.)
So hearing someone expressing a belief about something is a little more complicated than simply attributing it to their actual feelings. For many, expressing certain opinions, even if they are patently false, is a vital part of a social compact that they have made in a personal desire to belong to and be accepted by a particular group, be it religious, political, or just social. To this betrayal of people's rational thought processes, I say pass the doughnuts and shut your mouth!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Vick Conditionally Reinstated in NFL
Michael Vick, the former Atlanta Falcons star quarterback (three Pro Bowl selections, $100 million-plus multi-year contract) is now being conditionally reinstated into the National Football League after serving eighteen months in prison for his role in staging dogfights and the resulting severe cruelty to animals. Vick has naturally been kicked out of the league for two years. He has been the object for anger and hate among the general public, and why not? Here was a guy who had it all: an athletic superstar, very wealthy, and well-liked in his community and across the nation. What possessed him to engage in dogfighting?
On the other hand, cruel exploitation of animals for economic gain or leisure is a time-honored tradition. Look at our beef, pork, poultry, and seafood industries. How much do most of them concern themselves with the well-being of the animals they raise for food? And what about hunting and fishing, which involve "human beings" using increasingly advanced technology to inflict painful deaths on wild animals? I am currently visualizing Sarah Palin shooting moose from a helicopter. How far removed is that really from Vick's crimes?
Having said all that, I believe that Michael Vick deserved to be prosecuted and reviled for his crimes. But I also believe in rehabilitating and allowing those who have served their sentences for the crimes they committed to be fully allowed back into society. Roger Goodell, the NFL's commissioner, apparently agrees with me on this and has permitted Vick conditional reinstatement as a player this year, eligible to play in the regular season on the sixth week. Former coach Tony Dungy has volunteered to mentor Vick through this period. Vick has been very vocal with contrition and regret for his crimes as well as gratitude for the opportunity given to him now to do something positive with his life. The Philadelphia Eagles have signed him to a short-term contract that is conditional on him making the team and staying true to his reinstatement terms. Good for them!
I have read and heard hardliners who apparently want Michael Vick to be banned from football forever and still feel great anger and hatred toward him. But, like Tony Dungy, Commissioner Goodell, and the Eagles, I believe in second chances and reconciliation. I am rooting for Vick's second chance to be a success for all concerned!
On the other hand, cruel exploitation of animals for economic gain or leisure is a time-honored tradition. Look at our beef, pork, poultry, and seafood industries. How much do most of them concern themselves with the well-being of the animals they raise for food? And what about hunting and fishing, which involve "human beings" using increasingly advanced technology to inflict painful deaths on wild animals? I am currently visualizing Sarah Palin shooting moose from a helicopter. How far removed is that really from Vick's crimes?
Having said all that, I believe that Michael Vick deserved to be prosecuted and reviled for his crimes. But I also believe in rehabilitating and allowing those who have served their sentences for the crimes they committed to be fully allowed back into society. Roger Goodell, the NFL's commissioner, apparently agrees with me on this and has permitted Vick conditional reinstatement as a player this year, eligible to play in the regular season on the sixth week. Former coach Tony Dungy has volunteered to mentor Vick through this period. Vick has been very vocal with contrition and regret for his crimes as well as gratitude for the opportunity given to him now to do something positive with his life. The Philadelphia Eagles have signed him to a short-term contract that is conditional on him making the team and staying true to his reinstatement terms. Good for them!
I have read and heard hardliners who apparently want Michael Vick to be banned from football forever and still feel great anger and hatred toward him. But, like Tony Dungy, Commissioner Goodell, and the Eagles, I believe in second chances and reconciliation. I am rooting for Vick's second chance to be a success for all concerned!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Four Movies on TV, Part 2
[Bruce Willis in Die Hard]
I put off watching Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis, for more than twenty years. Finally, on a night that I was glued to my recliner, it came up and I watched it in its entirety.
One of the factors that had earlier been working against me watching Die Hard was the fact that I didn’t particularly like the character that Willis portrayed in his successful prime-time mystery/romance series Moonlighting. But that character, presented as a counterpoint to co-star Cybil Shepherd’s, wasn’t really a good enough reason to avoid Willis in the movies. This was strongly borne out when I saw his riveting performance as an international terrorist in The Jackal. After seeing what a complete actor Willis was, it was only a matter of time and opportunity before I saw him in Die Hard.
Die Hard is a story, set in a Los Angeles skyscraper, that deals with terrorists/crooks who take over the building and use the novel ploy of terrorism as a cover to commit a large robbery there. I was stunned to see that their leader, the arch-villain Hans Gruber, was played by Alan Rickman, the same actor who has played Severus Snape so well in the Harry Potter movie series. Although his voice as Gruber was identical to Snape’s, Rickman’s appearance was very, very different. I understand that Rickman is primarily a stage actor in Britain whose only two major film credits to date are: Die Hard and the Harry Potter series! With his enormous talent, he should be appearing in many more movies. But then again, Rickman’s paucity of cinema appearances may be by his own design.
In Die Hard, Willis portrays a New York policeman who is visiting his somewhat estranged wife, who works in the aforementioned skyscraper and is attending a large company party there. While Willis is sulking around his wife, the bad guys sneak into the building and take the partygoers hostage. But by sheer luck, Willis isn’t in the hostage group when this happens and then spends the rest of the movie as a Rambo-type warrior hiding within the building, knocking off the hoods one by one and generally aggravating Rickman’s Gruber character.
Meanwhile, on the outside the police (except for one officer), FBI (whose chief agent was the villain in the James Bond movie License to Kill), and media behave collectively as a bunch of counterproductive morons, each with its own special agenda that has little to do with aiding Willis in rescuing the hostages and stopping the criminals.
The action was great, Willis’s character was very compelling and easy to sympathize with , and I couldn’t argue with Hans Gruber as a character embodying pure intellectual evil. And the fact that a sequel to Die Hard came out a few years later should give a clue as to how the movie ended.
The next movie from that night that I saw (for the umpteen millionth time) was the 1967 Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick collaboration 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’ll write about it in a few days.
*******************************************
On a completely random note, I received a comment from my Summer of 1969: So What? entry a couple of days ago, but decided not to publish it. The submitter had nothing to say about my article, but instead promoted his/her video presentation on YouTube. I have nothing against that per se, but the substance of the comment needs to be pertinent to my article. To that individual, I suggest a resubmission of your comment that at least demonstrates that you read my article and have some type of reaction to it, agree or disagree.
I put off watching Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis, for more than twenty years. Finally, on a night that I was glued to my recliner, it came up and I watched it in its entirety.
One of the factors that had earlier been working against me watching Die Hard was the fact that I didn’t particularly like the character that Willis portrayed in his successful prime-time mystery/romance series Moonlighting. But that character, presented as a counterpoint to co-star Cybil Shepherd’s, wasn’t really a good enough reason to avoid Willis in the movies. This was strongly borne out when I saw his riveting performance as an international terrorist in The Jackal. After seeing what a complete actor Willis was, it was only a matter of time and opportunity before I saw him in Die Hard.
Die Hard is a story, set in a Los Angeles skyscraper, that deals with terrorists/crooks who take over the building and use the novel ploy of terrorism as a cover to commit a large robbery there. I was stunned to see that their leader, the arch-villain Hans Gruber, was played by Alan Rickman, the same actor who has played Severus Snape so well in the Harry Potter movie series. Although his voice as Gruber was identical to Snape’s, Rickman’s appearance was very, very different. I understand that Rickman is primarily a stage actor in Britain whose only two major film credits to date are: Die Hard and the Harry Potter series! With his enormous talent, he should be appearing in many more movies. But then again, Rickman’s paucity of cinema appearances may be by his own design.
In Die Hard, Willis portrays a New York policeman who is visiting his somewhat estranged wife, who works in the aforementioned skyscraper and is attending a large company party there. While Willis is sulking around his wife, the bad guys sneak into the building and take the partygoers hostage. But by sheer luck, Willis isn’t in the hostage group when this happens and then spends the rest of the movie as a Rambo-type warrior hiding within the building, knocking off the hoods one by one and generally aggravating Rickman’s Gruber character.
Meanwhile, on the outside the police (except for one officer), FBI (whose chief agent was the villain in the James Bond movie License to Kill), and media behave collectively as a bunch of counterproductive morons, each with its own special agenda that has little to do with aiding Willis in rescuing the hostages and stopping the criminals.
The action was great, Willis’s character was very compelling and easy to sympathize with , and I couldn’t argue with Hans Gruber as a character embodying pure intellectual evil. And the fact that a sequel to Die Hard came out a few years later should give a clue as to how the movie ended.
The next movie from that night that I saw (for the umpteen millionth time) was the 1967 Arthur C. Clarke/Stanley Kubrick collaboration 2001: A Space Odyssey. I’ll write about it in a few days.
*******************************************
On a completely random note, I received a comment from my Summer of 1969: So What? entry a couple of days ago, but decided not to publish it. The submitter had nothing to say about my article, but instead promoted his/her video presentation on YouTube. I have nothing against that per se, but the substance of the comment needs to be pertinent to my article. To that individual, I suggest a resubmission of your comment that at least demonstrates that you read my article and have some type of reaction to it, agree or disagree.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Perseid Sighting Preempted
Due to health problems I've been experiencing (not critical, but incapacitating) this week, I wasn't able to see the Perseid meteor shower as I had planned. It was pretty overcast the last two nights anyway.
Truth is, living within a city of more than 100,000 residents like Gainesville makes it difficult for me to observe the night sky the way I want to. Add to the urban environment with its night lights the fact that there are so many trees everywhere blocking the view and you can see that star-gazing simply doesn't work here for me. I need to find a dependable location in an open field or hilltop on the outskirts of Gainesville to be able to reasonably observe the night sky.
As for figuring a way to photograph celestial objects with my cheap binoculars and digital camera, that didn't work out either. But I do have an old telescope stand that I believe I could place on a tabletop and attach the camera to it. Then, with a long exposure setting I may be able to capture the moon, some stars, and planets. But for the time being, I am not in physical condition to do much moving around, so this project will have to wait for a future opportunity.
Truth is, living within a city of more than 100,000 residents like Gainesville makes it difficult for me to observe the night sky the way I want to. Add to the urban environment with its night lights the fact that there are so many trees everywhere blocking the view and you can see that star-gazing simply doesn't work here for me. I need to find a dependable location in an open field or hilltop on the outskirts of Gainesville to be able to reasonably observe the night sky.
As for figuring a way to photograph celestial objects with my cheap binoculars and digital camera, that didn't work out either. But I do have an old telescope stand that I believe I could place on a tabletop and attach the camera to it. Then, with a long exposure setting I may be able to capture the moon, some stars, and planets. But for the time being, I am not in physical condition to do much moving around, so this project will have to wait for a future opportunity.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Summer of 1969: So What?
Yeh, I know that this summer marks forty years since anyone first set foot on the Moon. Back in the summer of 1969.
Yeh, I know that the Tate-LaBianca murders, instigated by Charles Manson and executed by his flock of murderous all-American young zombies, also occurred forty years ago this summer. In 1969.
Yeh, that so-called “greatest musical concert of all time”, Woodstock, also took place around this time forty years ago, in 1969.
And yeh, the Beatles walked across Abbey Road (Paul shoeless) for their famous album cover in the summer of 1969.
So what? Why is the mass media obsessing on summer, 1969?
True, the Apollo 11 moon mission was a milestone in human achievement. But then-President Nixon, who talked to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon live from the White House, slashed the Apollo missions, canceling planned moon voyages and ending the last one in 1972. In the 37 years since, all manned space trips have consisted of going in circles closely around Earth.
Manson and Woodstock were certainly symbols of the times back then and are interesting for studying human nature gone awry and for listening to some good music, but our recent history is full of other examples. And album covers...well, they're just album covers.
Why make “40” the anniversary year anyway? Didn’t people used to have to wait until “50” before they did this sort of thing? And speaking of “50”, why aren’t we talking about 1959 anyway?
In 1959, the Cold War between the US and the USSR was going on full strength. Both sides were fighting each other through proxy wars in third world countries, building up their nuclear missile arsenals and designing newer long-range missiles, and engaging in the space race (the Soviets had the edge in 1959). In America, a national campaign had begun to upgrade educational standards in the sciences and encourage development of new young scientists and engineers. If you’re old enough (like me) you may remember those old Bell Science films starring bald bespectacled “scientist” Dr. Frank Baxter, who introduced very interesting, entertaining and inspiring programs about diverse scientific topics such as genetics, subatomic particles, time, the Sun, the weather, the five senses, the circulatory system, and language. These were part of that national effort going on then.
And many, many other events were transpiring in 1959 as well. The civil rights effort was going on full steam, especially in the South, and rock n’ roll music dominated the popular culture.
Is there a sort of disconnect that occurred at some time between 1959 and 1969, making people want to remember the latter while ignoring or forgetting the former? Or maybe it’s something simpler.
Perhaps the emphasis on 1969 is simply due to the fact that far more people around today personally experienced it and remember it. I myself only turned three in the fall of 1959, so my memories of that year are completely confined to my home and family. And of course, I had no idea that I was living through 1959 while I was living through 1959!
But the professional media should take that into account when deciding what to commemorate. I think people would be much more enlightened to hear accounts about—say Castro consolidating his power in Cuba in 1959 while became gradually more estranged with the US in the process—than to hear the same old stories about Woodstock or Manson (or Neil Armstrong’s “that’s one small step for man” verbal goofup).
For many younger people of course, both 1959 and 1969 are years of the past that happened either before they were born or during their early childhood. What I think is the main reason for 1969’s emphasis nowadays is that many of those responsible for putting on these retrospective stories on television, printed media, and radio were old enough to remember the events of that year but too young to remember what went on fifty years ago. But that’s no reason to ignore the very important year of 1959.
Yeh, I know that the Tate-LaBianca murders, instigated by Charles Manson and executed by his flock of murderous all-American young zombies, also occurred forty years ago this summer. In 1969.
Yeh, that so-called “greatest musical concert of all time”, Woodstock, also took place around this time forty years ago, in 1969.
And yeh, the Beatles walked across Abbey Road (Paul shoeless) for their famous album cover in the summer of 1969.
So what? Why is the mass media obsessing on summer, 1969?
True, the Apollo 11 moon mission was a milestone in human achievement. But then-President Nixon, who talked to the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon live from the White House, slashed the Apollo missions, canceling planned moon voyages and ending the last one in 1972. In the 37 years since, all manned space trips have consisted of going in circles closely around Earth.
Manson and Woodstock were certainly symbols of the times back then and are interesting for studying human nature gone awry and for listening to some good music, but our recent history is full of other examples. And album covers...well, they're just album covers.
Why make “40” the anniversary year anyway? Didn’t people used to have to wait until “50” before they did this sort of thing? And speaking of “50”, why aren’t we talking about 1959 anyway?
In 1959, the Cold War between the US and the USSR was going on full strength. Both sides were fighting each other through proxy wars in third world countries, building up their nuclear missile arsenals and designing newer long-range missiles, and engaging in the space race (the Soviets had the edge in 1959). In America, a national campaign had begun to upgrade educational standards in the sciences and encourage development of new young scientists and engineers. If you’re old enough (like me) you may remember those old Bell Science films starring bald bespectacled “scientist” Dr. Frank Baxter, who introduced very interesting, entertaining and inspiring programs about diverse scientific topics such as genetics, subatomic particles, time, the Sun, the weather, the five senses, the circulatory system, and language. These were part of that national effort going on then.
And many, many other events were transpiring in 1959 as well. The civil rights effort was going on full steam, especially in the South, and rock n’ roll music dominated the popular culture.
Is there a sort of disconnect that occurred at some time between 1959 and 1969, making people want to remember the latter while ignoring or forgetting the former? Or maybe it’s something simpler.
Perhaps the emphasis on 1969 is simply due to the fact that far more people around today personally experienced it and remember it. I myself only turned three in the fall of 1959, so my memories of that year are completely confined to my home and family. And of course, I had no idea that I was living through 1959 while I was living through 1959!
But the professional media should take that into account when deciding what to commemorate. I think people would be much more enlightened to hear accounts about—say Castro consolidating his power in Cuba in 1959 while became gradually more estranged with the US in the process—than to hear the same old stories about Woodstock or Manson (or Neil Armstrong’s “that’s one small step for man” verbal goofup).
For many younger people of course, both 1959 and 1969 are years of the past that happened either before they were born or during their early childhood. What I think is the main reason for 1969’s emphasis nowadays is that many of those responsible for putting on these retrospective stories on television, printed media, and radio were old enough to remember the events of that year but too young to remember what went on fifty years ago. But that’s no reason to ignore the very important year of 1959.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Budding Musicians Need Boldness, Confidence
After discovering the independent/alternative music artist Sufjan Stevens on AOL Radio and then exploring some of his works on YouTube, I felt that I had found something special. On his very long albums Michigan, Illinois, and The Avalanche, put out in a relatively short period from 2003 to 2005, song after song was a joy to listen to. And some like Casimir Pulaski Day, Pittsfield, Flint, and Detroit Lift Up Your Weary Head, have risen to all-time favorites of mine. Naturally, I wanted to hear his very first album A Sun Came, which he originally recorded back in 1998. Well, that debut album was a bit of a chore to listen through, to say the least. There were some pretty hideous songs on it (like Rice Pudding and Satan’s Saxophones) and some vulgar little tracks with Alvin-the-Chipmunk-like voices talking about people vomiting and the like. I’d say that, all in all, about half the album was a “throw away”, a quarter was reasonably listenable, and three tracks were pretty good. It was, to me, definitely his worst album. But that was O.K. because it was his FIRST, and in your first album you have to figure out what works and what doesn’t. And some of that analysis can’t come about until that first product is already out there for everyone to hear. What made this generally mediocre work stand out to me was the attitude that Sufjan Stevens stamped all over it, on every track, good or bad. An attitude of utter and complete boldness and confidence, bordering on (and at times crossing into) arrogance.
I have heard very talented, inspired musicians who have all the talent that it takes to become a major success. But they are too tentative and insecure, and they project that in their performances and recordings. Being bold and confident can cover up the weaknesses that everyone has in one form or another.
An artist has to foster the habit of producing works with the mind of satisfying personal standards and not those of others, be they friends, family, or the public-at-large. And then, once a work is produced, to have the courage (or gall) to let others in on it. While recognizing that there will always be a few (or more) who will thoroughly detest it.
Naturally, a creative musician usually collaborates with other musicians to produce recordings or give performances, and their feedback on the quality (or lack thereof) of that musician’s works can be either positive and nurturing or negative and destructive. It’s important that musical collaboration directs the artist to produce better works, but in the beginning I think the most important goal is to encourage and grow a strong sense of personal confidence that will be reflected in the product, even if that product contains some serious flaws.
I have heard very talented, inspired musicians who have all the talent that it takes to become a major success. But they are too tentative and insecure, and they project that in their performances and recordings. Being bold and confident can cover up the weaknesses that everyone has in one form or another.
An artist has to foster the habit of producing works with the mind of satisfying personal standards and not those of others, be they friends, family, or the public-at-large. And then, once a work is produced, to have the courage (or gall) to let others in on it. While recognizing that there will always be a few (or more) who will thoroughly detest it.
Naturally, a creative musician usually collaborates with other musicians to produce recordings or give performances, and their feedback on the quality (or lack thereof) of that musician’s works can be either positive and nurturing or negative and destructive. It’s important that musical collaboration directs the artist to produce better works, but in the beginning I think the most important goal is to encourage and grow a strong sense of personal confidence that will be reflected in the product, even if that product contains some serious flaws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
