Yesterday morning at six, when I stepped outside to go on my morning walk around my neighborhood with my wife, it was a very chilly 52 degrees. I had to wear a sweater and long pants, but Melissa was fine with a tee shirt and shorts. After the first lap around the block, I had to add a jacket to my sweater, it was so cold to me. So here the two of us were, Melissa and I: one dressed for summertime, and one for the winter. Toward the end of our two-mile walk, though, I was shedding the extra layers of clothing. And when we walked back up to our front door, I looked down the street and saw two little boys walking down the block to their school bus stop, huddling under their heavy winter clothing. At 52 degrees.
That's the way it is here in north central Florida at this time of the year. I've gotten so accustomed to the unseasonably late summerlike temperatures that moderately cool weather seems cold to me. But I think this will quickly change, as we should finally be settling down into a cooler pattern.
Oh, for autumn to finally arrive!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
November: Conspiracy Theory Month
[With April as "runner-up"]
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Welcome to Conspiracy Theory Month! November has all kinds of goodies in this area: the 2000 presidential election and its Florida recount, Paul McCartney's supposed fatal automobile accident in 1966, and of course, the John Kennedy assassination in 1963. But as a matter of course, I think I'll be writing from time to time this month about a whole range of conspiracies, real and imagined, whether or not they involve the month of November.
Conspiracy theorists, if you read them, usually have developed their own very specific timelines and locales for the events that they are focusing on. This can create quite a creepy "alternative universe" scenario of sites that in reality were most likely totally devoid of relevance to the matter at hand. The most prominent of these, as I see it, is the "grassy knoll" in Dallas, from which extra gunmen were purported to have secretly shot President Kennedy in the early afternoon of November 22, 1963. But after Oliver Stone's conspiracy-heavy movie JFK, now I can stage my own "conspiracy fantasy" tour focusing on New Orleans and Dallas.
So what are some of the more famous conspiracy theories that have permeated our collective consciousness over the years? Here are a few that come to my mind:
--JFK's assassination wasn't just by lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald acting on his own, but was a plot carried out by various parties aggrieved with the President, acting in a highly improbable unholy alliance with each other. Depending upon the conspiracy theorist, these suspected parties include extreme right wing southerners, the CIA, organized crime, Castro, and even Lyndon Johnson.
--Robert F. Kennedy's assassination in June 1968 wasn't a lone job by Sirhan Sirhan, but rather a conspiracy with another gunman on the scene. With such a crowded setting in which this crime occurred, this view is one of the more utterly preposterous conspiracy theories (to me).
--Much less preposterous-sounding is the idea that the 4/4/68 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee was a conspiracy. I personally have a difficult time accepting the notion that a career criminal such as James Earl Ray would have the motive to take out this great civil rights leader on his own. But as a hired gun or someone set up to be there when it happened? Makes more sense.
--The "9/11 was an inside job" notion carries a lot of weight with some people because those accused of plotting these horrendous attacks enjoyed enormous political gains from the attacks and were freed to carry out policies (Patriot Act, invasion of Iraq) that would otherwise have never been tolerated by the American people.
--Similarly, Franklin Roosevelt has been accused of setting Pearl Harbor up for attack in December 1941 in order to formally bring America directly into World War II, which it had successfully avoided for more than two years, thanks in large part to the enormous popular and political opposition to direct combat involvement.
--The idea that nobody ever really went to the moon and that it was all done and broadcast from a remote movie set in the American West was reinforced by movies like 1971's James Bond flick Diamonds Are Forever, which featured a scene where our hero busts through exactly such a set and commandeers the "Lunar Rover" in a chase scene, using it to flee from the bad guys. The later film Capricorn One lays out the Moon Hoax conspiracy theory more directly by portraying a staged mission for a Mars trip.
--A personal favorite conspiracy theory is the "Paul is dead" narrative, first promoted in 1969 by some Detroit radio DJs and still enduring to this day. Much of the supporting "evidence" for the notion that Beatles great Paul McCartney died in a November 1966 car crash is given in the form of subsequent Beatles lyrics and album cover clues.
--Aliens gave us advanced technology, which we "reverse-engineered". The crash at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947 (which actually never happened) gave the US government access to higher technology in areas like fiber optics and digitization. I see this theory as an application to modern times of Erich Von Däniken's "ancient astronaut" ideas, in which he expresses that space aliens visited Earth in ancient times and were responsible for pyramids and giant statues. In both "theories", the implication is that humans are too stupid to think up anything on their own, and therefore outside help must be the explanation for great innovations.
--A whole new wave of conspiracy theories is being generated by wacko, paranoid elements of the political right about our current President, Barack Obama. Which is giving rise to a mirror-conspiracy theory being put out by the political left, laying the blame for derogatory statements about the President on the Republican Party and corporate interests opposed to the Obama agenda.
Well, let's see what the coming month holds for this blog regarding conspiracies. I personally plan to invest some time reading up on them and then reporting some of my findings. Should be a lot of fun!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Typical UF Bulletin Board
Just one of those wild and crazy university bulletin boards with wild and crazy ads placed in a wild and crazy manner. It used to tick me off to see someone covering over an entire bulletin board with a stack of the same ads and a stapler. Now I just laugh. This board, though, has a healthy degree of variety to it. Maybe the folks stapling bulletin board ads have become more socially conscious nowadays....Naaah!!!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Philip K. Dick's Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said
I just finished reading the late Philip K. Dick's novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said. Evidently written in the midst of the turmoil in America of the early 1970s with law-and-order and abuse-of-power president Richard Nixon and the political radicalization of college students across the nation, this novel takes that setting and extends it into the future. Into a world dominated by a repressive police state where a deceased Nixon is worshipped as a manifestation of Christ and students are imprisoned in ghettos across the land following a second Civil War.
Flow My Tears has as its protagonist a charismatic television idol, Jason Taverner, who is secretly a "six"; this is a person who was the product of genetic engineering in the past (of the "sixth" experimental group, that is). One day, Taverner wakes up to find that his existence has been wiped clean from the memories of all those he knew. As a matter of fact, there is no record of his life anywhere (remind you of a couple of Twilight Zone episodes?). And his lack of an identity places him in imminent danger of being arrested and sent off to a forced labor camp.
Not being someone who likes to spoil the endings of novels, I'll just say that the explanation for Jason Taverner's predicament was quite impressive, to say the least. As Philip K. Dick has done in other works of his that I have read, his characters are complex and interesting. The way they think and present themselves to each other reminds me a little of Ernest Hemingway's style. Dick's writing style also resembles Hemingway in its simplicity. All to his credit, in my opinion.
So get a copy of Philip K. Dick's short novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said (I checked it out from my public library). It is a science fiction story of the best kind: one that shares some profound insights into how society and technology may merge in the future to create crushing oppression, as well as providing interesting angles on what is real and the nature of subjectivity.
Flow My Tears has as its protagonist a charismatic television idol, Jason Taverner, who is secretly a "six"; this is a person who was the product of genetic engineering in the past (of the "sixth" experimental group, that is). One day, Taverner wakes up to find that his existence has been wiped clean from the memories of all those he knew. As a matter of fact, there is no record of his life anywhere (remind you of a couple of Twilight Zone episodes?). And his lack of an identity places him in imminent danger of being arrested and sent off to a forced labor camp.
Not being someone who likes to spoil the endings of novels, I'll just say that the explanation for Jason Taverner's predicament was quite impressive, to say the least. As Philip K. Dick has done in other works of his that I have read, his characters are complex and interesting. The way they think and present themselves to each other reminds me a little of Ernest Hemingway's style. Dick's writing style also resembles Hemingway in its simplicity. All to his credit, in my opinion.
So get a copy of Philip K. Dick's short novel Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said (I checked it out from my public library). It is a science fiction story of the best kind: one that shares some profound insights into how society and technology may merge in the future to create crushing oppression, as well as providing interesting angles on what is real and the nature of subjectivity.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Assuming Total Personal Responsibility
I've noticed a trend over the years as I've watched various sports events and the subsequent spin that participants and their coaches have put on their performances. The tendency, as I have observed, is to take a rather myopic view of what happened, with all of the lessons learned from the event being based on one's own performance, without regard to whether the other side was having an especially good or bad game.
When I was much younger and had athletic aspirations, I would sometimes play beyond my abilities and have spectacular games. I would run a football kickoff back for a touchdown, score three quick goals in soccer, or play devastating defense in basketball, repeatedly stealing the ball from my opponent. But although these performances represented personal peaks in my achievement, when they happened my opponents tended instead to berate themselves and each other for "letting me win".
I see this all the time on TV. Florida's Tim Tebow throws a couple of interceptions against Mississippi State and it's all about "what's wrong with Tebow", not "wow, Mississippi State's pass defense is playing extraordinarily well". Of course, coaches and players alike will make the perfunctory "good sportsmanship" remarks praising the other team's performance. But their overwhelming emphasis is on their own performances, almost as if the other side were a constant, unchanging element that had little or no impact on the game's outcome.
As dishonest as just looking at one's own performance and ignoring or diminishing the opposition's may be, it is actually a healthy attitude, in a manner of speaking. As an athlete or coach, I can't control how my opposition will play on any given day. The only thing I can do is to optimize my own (or my players') performance by insisting on taking personal responsibility for every outcome. Only then can problems be identified and strategies enacted for overcoming them in the future. The idea of assuming total personal responsibility in an interactive contest may be a lie, but it is a useful lie, nevertheless. And this principle can carry over beyond sports, into general living.
The principle of "it's not what happens to you, but rather what you do about what happens to you that matters" is a corollary to the above "lie", and has its own limitations as well. We should each of us focus on our own behavior while still being cognizant of what others do. There are some things in life we have little or no control over. Still, we need to act AS IF we had control, nevertheless. Because, sometimes, we really do!
When I was much younger and had athletic aspirations, I would sometimes play beyond my abilities and have spectacular games. I would run a football kickoff back for a touchdown, score three quick goals in soccer, or play devastating defense in basketball, repeatedly stealing the ball from my opponent. But although these performances represented personal peaks in my achievement, when they happened my opponents tended instead to berate themselves and each other for "letting me win".
I see this all the time on TV. Florida's Tim Tebow throws a couple of interceptions against Mississippi State and it's all about "what's wrong with Tebow", not "wow, Mississippi State's pass defense is playing extraordinarily well". Of course, coaches and players alike will make the perfunctory "good sportsmanship" remarks praising the other team's performance. But their overwhelming emphasis is on their own performances, almost as if the other side were a constant, unchanging element that had little or no impact on the game's outcome.
As dishonest as just looking at one's own performance and ignoring or diminishing the opposition's may be, it is actually a healthy attitude, in a manner of speaking. As an athlete or coach, I can't control how my opposition will play on any given day. The only thing I can do is to optimize my own (or my players') performance by insisting on taking personal responsibility for every outcome. Only then can problems be identified and strategies enacted for overcoming them in the future. The idea of assuming total personal responsibility in an interactive contest may be a lie, but it is a useful lie, nevertheless. And this principle can carry over beyond sports, into general living.
The principle of "it's not what happens to you, but rather what you do about what happens to you that matters" is a corollary to the above "lie", and has its own limitations as well. We should each of us focus on our own behavior while still being cognizant of what others do. There are some things in life we have little or no control over. Still, we need to act AS IF we had control, nevertheless. Because, sometimes, we really do!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Heffalumps and Woozles in Hogtown
I loved the Disney cartoon series Winnie the Pooh, along with the spin-off movies. One of my favorite characters was timid, easily-frightened Piglet, whose chief fear was of the Heffalumps [elephants] and Woozles [weasels] he mostly imagined were lurking about the Hundred Acre Wood. Here in Gainesville, we're building up a local "fright" about some wild animals as well: hogs and coyotes.
I've already reported a few days ago on the exploding wild hog population northwest of Gainesville that is spilling into residents' yards. But coyotes abound here as well, and they are not as confined as their porcine "pals". A typical coyote family, as Monday's Gainesville Sun article pointed out, has a range of about ten square miles. And they can be anywhere, even in the heart of the city. Coyotes have attacked both cats and small dogs, although they generally quickly shy away from humans. Lately though, coyotes have been seen about openly in broad daylight, a new development for Gainesville.
I have personally seen neither wild hogs nor coyotes in Gainesville, but I recognize that they are around. I think the main predators to be feared are neither of these animals, which for the most part are just trying to survive and mind their own business. Rather it is the age-old nemesis that people have always had to be on the watch against: other people!
And I don't just mean violent people who commit or threaten to commit crimes of aggression like the mugging incidents that have recently dramatically increased in frequency here. Put some people behind the wheel in a motor vehicle and just walking down the street can be a frightening experience, with all of the distracted, aggressive, and/or alcohol-impaired drivers out there. "Our" Heffalumps and Woozles? Not boars and coyotes, but muggers and poor drivers!
I've already reported a few days ago on the exploding wild hog population northwest of Gainesville that is spilling into residents' yards. But coyotes abound here as well, and they are not as confined as their porcine "pals". A typical coyote family, as Monday's Gainesville Sun article pointed out, has a range of about ten square miles. And they can be anywhere, even in the heart of the city. Coyotes have attacked both cats and small dogs, although they generally quickly shy away from humans. Lately though, coyotes have been seen about openly in broad daylight, a new development for Gainesville.
I have personally seen neither wild hogs nor coyotes in Gainesville, but I recognize that they are around. I think the main predators to be feared are neither of these animals, which for the most part are just trying to survive and mind their own business. Rather it is the age-old nemesis that people have always had to be on the watch against: other people!
And I don't just mean violent people who commit or threaten to commit crimes of aggression like the mugging incidents that have recently dramatically increased in frequency here. Put some people behind the wheel in a motor vehicle and just walking down the street can be a frightening experience, with all of the distracted, aggressive, and/or alcohol-impaired drivers out there. "Our" Heffalumps and Woozles? Not boars and coyotes, but muggers and poor drivers!
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Short, Random Notes
Not a "tweeter" by nature, I generally prefer to write a paragraph or two (or more) about topics that pique my interest. But there are a few things floating around that I'd like to get off my chest in a hurry, so here goes:
--Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid decided to push for a health care form bill that has a much stronger public option in it than most observers had foreseen, especially after the lame Baucus version had passed the Finance Committee. Good, I think that I am back on track with supporting health care reform as it currently being legislated.
--A couple of weeks ago, I thought that we in north-central Florida were experiencing the last vestiges of hot summer weather. But I was wrong, as the hot, muggy weather has returned with a vengeance. Ugh!
--The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies will play in this year's World Series, with the first game starting tonight. Go Yanks!
--My local rag The Gainesville Sun has a new topic that it has been playing with recently on its editorial page: air-boats on Orange Lake and how appropriate or inappropriate they are. My take is that since the chief objection that residents on the lake have against air-boats there is that they keep them awake at night with their noise, simple common courtesy would dictate that people refrain from operating them late at night and just stick to the daytime and early evening hours. After all, I don't go out and mow my lawn at three in the morning! It's amazing how many conflicts could be alleviated were people to show some simple consideration and respect for each other.
--I was watching a football game last night between the Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. Not caring much for either team, I arbitrarily decided to root for Washington in this game. And became infuriated by their total incompetence on offense. I can accept my team losing a game because the other team outplayed them. But when my side continuously fumbles away the football and incurs ridiculous penalties, that's when my patience wears thin. I think it's going to be a while before I root for the Redskins again in a game.
--With the H1N1 flu vaccine currently being in such short supply, the parents of young children are being placed in a bind. On one hand, they are continually being warned to get their kids vaccinated because this flu primarily affects children and has already caused many deaths. Shame on parents who don't get their children vaccinated, right? On the other hand, if the vaccine isn't available anyway, then WTF?
--Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid decided to push for a health care form bill that has a much stronger public option in it than most observers had foreseen, especially after the lame Baucus version had passed the Finance Committee. Good, I think that I am back on track with supporting health care reform as it currently being legislated.
--A couple of weeks ago, I thought that we in north-central Florida were experiencing the last vestiges of hot summer weather. But I was wrong, as the hot, muggy weather has returned with a vengeance. Ugh!
--The New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies will play in this year's World Series, with the first game starting tonight. Go Yanks!
--My local rag The Gainesville Sun has a new topic that it has been playing with recently on its editorial page: air-boats on Orange Lake and how appropriate or inappropriate they are. My take is that since the chief objection that residents on the lake have against air-boats there is that they keep them awake at night with their noise, simple common courtesy would dictate that people refrain from operating them late at night and just stick to the daytime and early evening hours. After all, I don't go out and mow my lawn at three in the morning! It's amazing how many conflicts could be alleviated were people to show some simple consideration and respect for each other.
--I was watching a football game last night between the Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. Not caring much for either team, I arbitrarily decided to root for Washington in this game. And became infuriated by their total incompetence on offense. I can accept my team losing a game because the other team outplayed them. But when my side continuously fumbles away the football and incurs ridiculous penalties, that's when my patience wears thin. I think it's going to be a while before I root for the Redskins again in a game.
--With the H1N1 flu vaccine currently being in such short supply, the parents of young children are being placed in a bind. On one hand, they are continually being warned to get their kids vaccinated because this flu primarily affects children and has already caused many deaths. Shame on parents who don't get their children vaccinated, right? On the other hand, if the vaccine isn't available anyway, then WTF?
Monday, October 26, 2009
U.S. Supreme Court on Web
Back in 2002, I took a history class at the University of Florida probing the history of the U.S. Supreme Court since the American Civil War. The professor was Elizabeth Dale, whom I regard as my all-time favorite professor at UF. The course focused on the development of the Court's philosophy by examining various crucial decisions through the years and their written opinions, both majority and dissenting. So I already have a bit of experience in reading and interpreting Supreme Court rulings.
The recent confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the new Supreme Court Justice replacing retiring Justice David Souter spurred a new interest within me regarding this very important institution. And I began to explore websites about the US Supreme Court. Naturally, my first choice was the Court's own site, and for all practical purposes it keeps me abreast as to its schedule of cases, oral arguments, and decisions, complete with majority and dissenting opinions.
For example, a case challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of federal campaign finance law was reheard back in September, giving new associate justice Sotomayer a chance to make her debut. The fall session officially began about three weeks ago, the first heavily-publicized case of which concerns the constitutionality of a war memorial in the form of a cross, erected back in the 1930s at a relatively remote spot in California on then-public land. But these aren't the only cases being heard, and this site lists them, along with word-for-word transcripts of the oral arguments (poor grammar and all).
I find following these arguments to be quite an intellectual challenge, and have come to respect the justices (and arguing attorneys) for their skill and precision with the law and its oral presentation.
In these arguments the ideological division in the Court between conservative and liberal justices is often difficult to perceive. Each justice is truly an independent thinker and often contributes unexpectedly novel outlooks on the cases being examined.
I recommend following the US Supreme Court website to get a true feel about how cases are argued, and to get the complete decisions along with their written opinions. The level of discourse during oral arguments is much higher than anything you would hear on news/talk television or radio, and that includes C-Span broadcasts of the proceedings of the US House of Representatives and the Senate. I look forward to a future day when I will be able to view Supreme Court oral arguments live on my TV screen. But until then, I still have them to read (and in very large print, too) on my computer.
The recent confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the new Supreme Court Justice replacing retiring Justice David Souter spurred a new interest within me regarding this very important institution. And I began to explore websites about the US Supreme Court. Naturally, my first choice was the Court's own site, and for all practical purposes it keeps me abreast as to its schedule of cases, oral arguments, and decisions, complete with majority and dissenting opinions.
For example, a case challenging the constitutionality of an aspect of federal campaign finance law was reheard back in September, giving new associate justice Sotomayer a chance to make her debut. The fall session officially began about three weeks ago, the first heavily-publicized case of which concerns the constitutionality of a war memorial in the form of a cross, erected back in the 1930s at a relatively remote spot in California on then-public land. But these aren't the only cases being heard, and this site lists them, along with word-for-word transcripts of the oral arguments (poor grammar and all).
I find following these arguments to be quite an intellectual challenge, and have come to respect the justices (and arguing attorneys) for their skill and precision with the law and its oral presentation.
In these arguments the ideological division in the Court between conservative and liberal justices is often difficult to perceive. Each justice is truly an independent thinker and often contributes unexpectedly novel outlooks on the cases being examined.
I recommend following the US Supreme Court website to get a true feel about how cases are argued, and to get the complete decisions along with their written opinions. The level of discourse during oral arguments is much higher than anything you would hear on news/talk television or radio, and that includes C-Span broadcasts of the proceedings of the US House of Representatives and the Senate. I look forward to a future day when I will be able to view Supreme Court oral arguments live on my TV screen. But until then, I still have them to read (and in very large print, too) on my computer.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
From Stephen King to Philip K. Dick
I have nearly reached the end of my exploration of Stephen King's literary works, with only a couple of novellas from his Four Past Midnight collection left to read before I begin on his soon-to-be-published novel Under the Dome. I exclude from my reading history his novels The Green Mile, Misery, and Firestarter, as I saw the movies first and already know their outcomes. Obviously, I am a fan of King's, one of his "constant readers" as he likes to put it. And I am now looking for another writer of comparable worth to focus on.
There are plenty of candidates out there, but I think I may have settled on the "winner": science fiction icon Philip K. Dick (1928-82) who wrote numerous short stories (a few of which I have already read) and 36 novels. Some of these novels fit more into the genre of general fiction than science fiction. During his lifetime, Dick experienced difficulty getting many of these published. But during recent years, his collected works have been resurrected and have received much critical praise. I just finished reading one of these novels: Humpty Dumpty in Oakland. It is a stark, brutal depiction of class divisions, real and perceived, existing within America and the creeping paranoia that can arise from them that can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences. And the novel's main characters, Jim Fergesson and Al Miller, are unforgettable and masterfully revealed.
I may have lucked out with Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, but I am already experienced with Philip K. Dick's shorter works and know of their quality. My favorite short stories of his are Impostor (later adapted into a movie of the same title), Fair Game, and The Days of Perky Pat. So I'm pretty confident that I will be enjoying plenty of good reading in the weeks to come. I am currently reading a science fiction novel of his: Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
One other thing: Dick's novels tend to be on the short side, by today's standards that is. I hear Stephen King's new novel will be around a thousand pages long; Philip Dick's novels tend to be about 200-300 pages in length. I kind of like that.
There are plenty of candidates out there, but I think I may have settled on the "winner": science fiction icon Philip K. Dick (1928-82) who wrote numerous short stories (a few of which I have already read) and 36 novels. Some of these novels fit more into the genre of general fiction than science fiction. During his lifetime, Dick experienced difficulty getting many of these published. But during recent years, his collected works have been resurrected and have received much critical praise. I just finished reading one of these novels: Humpty Dumpty in Oakland. It is a stark, brutal depiction of class divisions, real and perceived, existing within America and the creeping paranoia that can arise from them that can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences. And the novel's main characters, Jim Fergesson and Al Miller, are unforgettable and masterfully revealed.
I may have lucked out with Humpty Dumpty in Oakland, but I am already experienced with Philip K. Dick's shorter works and know of their quality. My favorite short stories of his are Impostor (later adapted into a movie of the same title), Fair Game, and The Days of Perky Pat. So I'm pretty confident that I will be enjoying plenty of good reading in the weeks to come. I am currently reading a science fiction novel of his: Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.
One other thing: Dick's novels tend to be on the short side, by today's standards that is. I hear Stephen King's new novel will be around a thousand pages long; Philip Dick's novels tend to be about 200-300 pages in length. I kind of like that.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Where I Stand
I thought it might be interesting to just lay out in a blog article a list of statements spelling out where I stand on various issues.
War in Afghanistan:
The U.S. should not be engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan. It should concentrate its efforts on fighting Al-Qaeda, which is an international terrorist network, and not the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement in that area. Our efforts should be to put a wedge between the more moderate elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We should reduce our visible presence there, else we will be seen as just another in a string of foreign occupiers, attracting greater and greater resistance and popular opposition.
Health Care Reform:
I would prefer a simpler system like Britain’s, where citizens could get their medical needs met without going broke, going through masses of red tape, or restricting any career or lifestyle changes for fear of being denied future insurance coverage. I’m a realist, though; this is the U.S. and the political environment won’t tolerate that (preferable) change. But I would at least like a low-cost public option, especially if everyone is going to be mandated to purchase health insurance. So I’m quite skeptical about the current legislation being process through the Senate (the Baucus bill) which I see as an abominable betrayal of the whole point of health care reform in the first place.
Energy:
I would like to see Americans using safe, nonpolluting, domestic, and renewable energy sources to power their vehicles and electricity. But I’m realistic here: let’s just concentrate for now on keeping carbon emissions low and encouraging domestic sources. And that means (environmentalists can now gasp in horror) building nuclear reactors and using the cleaner coal technology that has been developed in recent years that keeps carbon emissions low. Why? Simply that (1) I would like the planet to survive and (2) it sure would be nice for my country’s leaders to feel that there wasn’t an extreme crisis every time an oil-rich nation underwent a political crisis. And as an important corollary to (2), it should help to keep us out of military adventures abroad. Of course, those intent on military intervention and war will most assuredly come up with other excuses for concentrating their efforts on certain nations while ignoring others.
The answer to our energy problems also must encompass better conservation, which is already under way as greater technology allows it and more people become educated to its importance.
War in Afghanistan:
The U.S. should not be engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan. It should concentrate its efforts on fighting Al-Qaeda, which is an international terrorist network, and not the Taliban, which is an indigenous political/military movement in that area. Our efforts should be to put a wedge between the more moderate elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. We should reduce our visible presence there, else we will be seen as just another in a string of foreign occupiers, attracting greater and greater resistance and popular opposition.
Health Care Reform:
I would prefer a simpler system like Britain’s, where citizens could get their medical needs met without going broke, going through masses of red tape, or restricting any career or lifestyle changes for fear of being denied future insurance coverage. I’m a realist, though; this is the U.S. and the political environment won’t tolerate that (preferable) change. But I would at least like a low-cost public option, especially if everyone is going to be mandated to purchase health insurance. So I’m quite skeptical about the current legislation being process through the Senate (the Baucus bill) which I see as an abominable betrayal of the whole point of health care reform in the first place.
Energy:
I would like to see Americans using safe, nonpolluting, domestic, and renewable energy sources to power their vehicles and electricity. But I’m realistic here: let’s just concentrate for now on keeping carbon emissions low and encouraging domestic sources. And that means (environmentalists can now gasp in horror) building nuclear reactors and using the cleaner coal technology that has been developed in recent years that keeps carbon emissions low. Why? Simply that (1) I would like the planet to survive and (2) it sure would be nice for my country’s leaders to feel that there wasn’t an extreme crisis every time an oil-rich nation underwent a political crisis. And as an important corollary to (2), it should help to keep us out of military adventures abroad. Of course, those intent on military intervention and war will most assuredly come up with other excuses for concentrating their efforts on certain nations while ignoring others.
The answer to our energy problems also must encompass better conservation, which is already under way as greater technology allows it and more people become educated to its importance.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Howl With Running
This past week I stepped up the mileage in my daily runs around my neighborhood. My increase in running may be due in large part to the fact that I have begun to listen to my mp3 player during my runs, which makes the experience more pleasurable and helps take my attention off the exertion involved in covering the increasing distance. Today I upped the distance to 5.09 miles. In the process I ran down roads that I hadn't run down before. Roads that went by houses with fences that had big, ferociously barking dogs behind them.
As I was completing my sojourn through these new stretches of my home subdivision, I began to hear barking--a small dog's barking, seeming to originate from near the house I was running toward. But I couldn't see the dog as I passed this house, although I could still hear the barking. As I turned the corner onto another street, I began to hear mournful howling originating, it seemed, from different directions. But no dogs to be seen! Truly an eerie experience, worthy of late October and Halloween with its spookiness!
And then it hit me. I lifted up my mp3 player and looked at what was playing: Seamus, by Pink Floyd, from their Meddle album. And featuring a lot of loud, funny dog barks and howls. And I began to howl, too. With laughter. Hope I didn't scare anyone.
As I was completing my sojourn through these new stretches of my home subdivision, I began to hear barking--a small dog's barking, seeming to originate from near the house I was running toward. But I couldn't see the dog as I passed this house, although I could still hear the barking. As I turned the corner onto another street, I began to hear mournful howling originating, it seemed, from different directions. But no dogs to be seen! Truly an eerie experience, worthy of late October and Halloween with its spookiness!
And then it hit me. I lifted up my mp3 player and looked at what was playing: Seamus, by Pink Floyd, from their Meddle album. And featuring a lot of loud, funny dog barks and howls. And I began to howl, too. With laughter. Hope I didn't scare anyone.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Media News and Commentary
There are still some TV channels, notably the traditional “alphabet” networks ABC, CBS, and NBC, which still attempt to show even-handedness in their presentation of news and commentary. And for the most part (with the one glaring exception of Lou Dobbs), I would say this about CNN. But there is another practice that I find disturbing, both by its presumed, deliberate bias and by its burgeoning popularity. And that is having shows hosted by confirmed and unapologetic ideologues who construct their programs to promote their own opinions and to put down opposing views. Lou Dobson, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow all fit this mold. Since I tend to be more liberal than conservative, I also tend to watch MSNBC’s Schultz, Olbermann, and Maddow more. But were I conservative, I doubtless would think that those right-wingers on Fox were the tops. There are some hosts, like MSNBC’s conservative Joe Scarborough and liberal Chris Matthews, who express their views openly but also try to conduct an open airing of the issues with a diversity of opinions expressed.
There are also three increasingly ugly aspects to many of the ideologically driven shows on cable news channels. First, ad hominem personal attacks on political adversaries are commonplace, as if the merit of an individual’s views on an issue should be determined by some breaking news, true or false, about their personal lives. Second, reasonable debates about important issues have been distorted on these shows into morality plays between the heroic good guys and the evildoers bent on destroying everything good about America. And third, those who supposedly are simply providing a media forum for opinions and debate have become so powerful nowadays that elected representatives are now basing their votes and statements on how they think this tiny number of powerful people will react to them. Choose your favorite, Fox or MSNBC: both sides are guilty of this!
There are also three increasingly ugly aspects to many of the ideologically driven shows on cable news channels. First, ad hominem personal attacks on political adversaries are commonplace, as if the merit of an individual’s views on an issue should be determined by some breaking news, true or false, about their personal lives. Second, reasonable debates about important issues have been distorted on these shows into morality plays between the heroic good guys and the evildoers bent on destroying everything good about America. And third, those who supposedly are simply providing a media forum for opinions and debate have become so powerful nowadays that elected representatives are now basing their votes and statements on how they think this tiny number of powerful people will react to them. Choose your favorite, Fox or MSNBC: both sides are guilty of this!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Don't Sell Tebow Short
College football sensation Tim Tebow, the senior starting quarterback for the Florida Gators, is indisputably the most popular athlete in the history of this university. He is idolized everywhere and has even been dubbed with the appellation "Superman". Yes, Tim is indeed living within a bubble of intense adulation. But once he graduates, what will happen to that bubble?
Although Tebow has won the Heisman Trophy (and may win a second this year) and has participated in two national championship teams (and may participate in a third this year), the professional talking heads on television and radio seem to feel that his prospects for success in professional football aren't all that bright. Tim, apparently, isn't playing for a college that uses a "pro" style offense that displays and develops quarterbacks as passing "machines". Instead, at UF he coordinates a rather complex spread-style offense that isn't used much in the National Football League (although the Miami Dolphins are doing something similar with its"wildcat" formation). But just because Tebow doesn't play in a standard pro offense does not mean that he isn't fully capable of excelling in one.
I have seen Tim Tebow as he walks up to the line before plays, and he is quite adept at reading the opponent's defense and making last-second adjustments. As a matter of fact, his behavior just before a play reminds me a bit of NFL's famed quarterback Peyton Manning. Tim is also a very intelligent runner who knows how to follow his blockers as well as how to stretch out a run for a few extra (and often crucial) yards. Add this to the fact that Tebow has a very strong and accurate arm and I would say that the NFL team that ends up drafting him next year may well be setting itself up for quite a rosy future.
So don't sell Tim Tebow short just because of the type of offense that he has to operate in. Instead, realize that, with whatever role that has been assigned to him, Tebow has fulfilled it well beyond expectations. I think he will continue this pattern into his professional football career. And beyond.
Although Tebow has won the Heisman Trophy (and may win a second this year) and has participated in two national championship teams (and may participate in a third this year), the professional talking heads on television and radio seem to feel that his prospects for success in professional football aren't all that bright. Tim, apparently, isn't playing for a college that uses a "pro" style offense that displays and develops quarterbacks as passing "machines". Instead, at UF he coordinates a rather complex spread-style offense that isn't used much in the National Football League (although the Miami Dolphins are doing something similar with its"wildcat" formation). But just because Tebow doesn't play in a standard pro offense does not mean that he isn't fully capable of excelling in one.
I have seen Tim Tebow as he walks up to the line before plays, and he is quite adept at reading the opponent's defense and making last-second adjustments. As a matter of fact, his behavior just before a play reminds me a bit of NFL's famed quarterback Peyton Manning. Tim is also a very intelligent runner who knows how to follow his blockers as well as how to stretch out a run for a few extra (and often crucial) yards. Add this to the fact that Tebow has a very strong and accurate arm and I would say that the NFL team that ends up drafting him next year may well be setting itself up for quite a rosy future.
So don't sell Tim Tebow short just because of the type of offense that he has to operate in. Instead, realize that, with whatever role that has been assigned to him, Tebow has fulfilled it well beyond expectations. I think he will continue this pattern into his professional football career. And beyond.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Colorado Family Balloon Hoax
The whole setup seemed a wee bit suspicious when a boy, suspected of stowing and floating away in his inventor father's makeshift huge helium balloon (which just happened to have a compartment that would accommodate the child), turned up, apparently at home the whole time that the hours-long frantic search was going on. Before calling 911 to report their child's disappearance, the family reportedly contacted a local television station, further fueling doubts. Now it looks as if felony charges will be filed for this charade. The parents, Richard and Mayumi Heene, were hoping for their own television reality show and, according to the Associated Press, have already appeared in the ABC reality show "Wife Swap". All of which makes me wonder about the mental state of the average Amercian television viewer.
If the reality show garbage permeating the television channels nowadays were shown back in the 1960s, they would have been disasters. Viewers back then expected better programming and got it. But today, these scripted shows depict people going about their lives generally behaving like nincompoops, reflecting upon their nincompoopish behavior in short "interview" segments, and then returning to further nincompoopery (and even further reflection). While channel surfing, I keep haplessly landing on these sorry excuses for actual programs, and I have begun to fear for our future. Do regular viewers really care about what is going on with the people portrayed on these reality shows? The prospect makes me shudder.
When I first heard of this Colorado balloon incident and its outcome from a co-worker while at my job, I thought that the writers for the satirical cartoon series South Park couldn't have dreamed upon a better idea for one of their episodes. I could just see it: father thinks Butters has floated away in the balloon. After finding him in the box, he angrily shakes his fist and says "Butters, you're grounded, go to your room!" To which little Butters says "Dang it!" and trudges upstairs. But now that we know of the phony nature of the incident, I would have to change the story's emphasis to the foolish adults in South Park (Stan's sometimes-conniving father comes to the forefront as a possible lead role).
All that the South Park writers really have to do with this story is to report it straight as it happened!
If the reality show garbage permeating the television channels nowadays were shown back in the 1960s, they would have been disasters. Viewers back then expected better programming and got it. But today, these scripted shows depict people going about their lives generally behaving like nincompoops, reflecting upon their nincompoopish behavior in short "interview" segments, and then returning to further nincompoopery (and even further reflection). While channel surfing, I keep haplessly landing on these sorry excuses for actual programs, and I have begun to fear for our future. Do regular viewers really care about what is going on with the people portrayed on these reality shows? The prospect makes me shudder.
When I first heard of this Colorado balloon incident and its outcome from a co-worker while at my job, I thought that the writers for the satirical cartoon series South Park couldn't have dreamed upon a better idea for one of their episodes. I could just see it: father thinks Butters has floated away in the balloon. After finding him in the box, he angrily shakes his fist and says "Butters, you're grounded, go to your room!" To which little Butters says "Dang it!" and trudges upstairs. But now that we know of the phony nature of the incident, I would have to change the story's emphasis to the foolish adults in South Park (Stan's sometimes-conniving father comes to the forefront as a possible lead role).
All that the South Park writers really have to do with this story is to report it straight as it happened!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Baseball Hides Its Playoffs on TV
What happened to Major League Baseball? We are in October and the playoffs are already in the second round, with the winners of the current series to play each other in the World Series. But none of the major networks or sports channels are broadcasting the games [Correction: see below]. Only Atlanta's WTBS seems interested in letting viewers in on the action.
I have to suspect that MLB itself may be responsible for the playoffs dropping out of sight on television. They have made their regular season games harder for the average viewer to follow by making them part of their own premium channels. They seem to be interesting in soaking the American public for as much moolah as they can muster by making their product more difficult to access over the regular channels.
Which brings me to the two industries not covered by the Federal Antitrust Act: the health insurance industry and ...Major League Baseball. The fact that baseball has special legislated protection should, I would think, make it more of a publicly accessible sport. The regular broadcasting networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) should be carrying all of the playoff games, but they're not. It seems that health insurance and baseball, both beneficiaries of legalized monopoly status, can't do enough to antagonize the public with their voracious greed, well beyond reasonable notions of making a respectable profit.
But now that I'm writing about baseball, I might as well comment on the playoffs. I would like to see a World Series match-up between the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It would pit ex-Yankee and now-Dodger manager Joe Torre against his old team. I would get to see my favorite player, Derek Jeter. And it would revive the ancient rivalry between the two franchises which goes back to the years when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn. But should the Los Angeles Angels and/or Philadelphia Phillies come back in their series and win (actually, the Phillies are leading their series with the Dodgers), that would be all right with me, too. Just let me watch the World Series on "ordinary television", O.K.?
Correction: Well, I just checked my TV listings for today and Fox IS carrying one of the games (Yankees vs. Angels). Just one of them. The other game today, between the Phillies and the Dodgers, is on TBS. But Fox should be showing both of them. Apparently, during the weekend football reigns supreme over everything else (except for those horrid reality shows). In spite of some coverage, I think that baseball is shooting itself in the foot by not insisting on contracts with general broadcasting networks for the widest viewership possible.
I have to suspect that MLB itself may be responsible for the playoffs dropping out of sight on television. They have made their regular season games harder for the average viewer to follow by making them part of their own premium channels. They seem to be interesting in soaking the American public for as much moolah as they can muster by making their product more difficult to access over the regular channels.
Which brings me to the two industries not covered by the Federal Antitrust Act: the health insurance industry and ...Major League Baseball. The fact that baseball has special legislated protection should, I would think, make it more of a publicly accessible sport. The regular broadcasting networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox) should be carrying all of the playoff games, but they're not. It seems that health insurance and baseball, both beneficiaries of legalized monopoly status, can't do enough to antagonize the public with their voracious greed, well beyond reasonable notions of making a respectable profit.
But now that I'm writing about baseball, I might as well comment on the playoffs. I would like to see a World Series match-up between the New York Yankees and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It would pit ex-Yankee and now-Dodger manager Joe Torre against his old team. I would get to see my favorite player, Derek Jeter. And it would revive the ancient rivalry between the two franchises which goes back to the years when the Dodgers were in Brooklyn. But should the Los Angeles Angels and/or Philadelphia Phillies come back in their series and win (actually, the Phillies are leading their series with the Dodgers), that would be all right with me, too. Just let me watch the World Series on "ordinary television", O.K.?
Correction: Well, I just checked my TV listings for today and Fox IS carrying one of the games (Yankees vs. Angels). Just one of them. The other game today, between the Phillies and the Dodgers, is on TBS. But Fox should be showing both of them. Apparently, during the weekend football reigns supreme over everything else (except for those horrid reality shows). In spite of some coverage, I think that baseball is shooting itself in the foot by not insisting on contracts with general broadcasting networks for the widest viewership possible.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Suggestion for C-Span2
If I had my way, C-Span2, which carries live United States Senate floor proceedings, would operate in a different manner. I would keep their live Senate coverage, but afterwards I would rebroadcast the day's proceedings. The second go around, though, I would cut out all of that dead "quorum call" time and concentrate on the actual floor speakers and votes. Although the votes take up a lot of time, they do reveal a lot to me. Not only can I see how different senators vote (and sometimes switch their votes around), but I can observe how they personally relate to each other.
For example, although Illinois senator Roland Burris has tried to fit in and chat with other senators, I have yet to see others warm up to him. At the beginning of Al Franken's tenure, I noticed something similar, with his Democratic colleagues often seeming cool to him (major exceptions: fellow Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and Vermont Independent senator Bernie Sanders). But the junior senator from Minnesota has been doing something unexpected and interesting. Instead of just hanging around his fellow Democrats to try to converse and chum up, Franken often crosses over to the GOP side during floor votes and hangs out with his Republican counterparts. And he seems to get along quite well with them.
But back to compressed same-day rerun coverage: I have more than enough analysis, summaries, and commentary from other news/talk stations. C-Span2 HAS the Senate proceedings, and as such should rebroadcast them each day that it is in session, starting at about 6 pm (unless that body is holding an extended session, that is). I would much rather see my elected representatives up there explaining legislation, pro or con, conservative or liberal, than some corporate hack talking head who is only accountable to his/her boss, instead of to the American people!
For example, although Illinois senator Roland Burris has tried to fit in and chat with other senators, I have yet to see others warm up to him. At the beginning of Al Franken's tenure, I noticed something similar, with his Democratic colleagues often seeming cool to him (major exceptions: fellow Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar and Vermont Independent senator Bernie Sanders). But the junior senator from Minnesota has been doing something unexpected and interesting. Instead of just hanging around his fellow Democrats to try to converse and chum up, Franken often crosses over to the GOP side during floor votes and hangs out with his Republican counterparts. And he seems to get along quite well with them.
But back to compressed same-day rerun coverage: I have more than enough analysis, summaries, and commentary from other news/talk stations. C-Span2 HAS the Senate proceedings, and as such should rebroadcast them each day that it is in session, starting at about 6 pm (unless that body is holding an extended session, that is). I would much rather see my elected representatives up there explaining legislation, pro or con, conservative or liberal, than some corporate hack talking head who is only accountable to his/her boss, instead of to the American people!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Hiking Can Be Such a Boar
A few weeks ago I visited Devil's Millhopper, a sinkhole designated as a State Geological Site that is located only a couple of miles from my home. Around that time, I discovered that, about three miles further west on the same road was located San Felasco Hammock State Park, a much larger park than Devil's Millhopper. The hiking trails at this place are numerous and much longer than "DM"'s, whose only trail was .6 mile in length. So I envisioned myself eventually getting off my butt and heading down there (with my camera, of course).
But alas, a story has been circulating in the Gainesville news media of late regarding the large population of wild boars running rampant within San Felasco Hammock. As a matter of fact, residents in homes near the park have experienced boars in their yards, an obvious threat to their well-being (and much more so to their pets). Well, if that's the case, I'm not all that keen on walking or jogging down miles of remote stretches of hiking trails with wild boars waiting in ambush for me (that scene near the end of the movie Hannibal still weighs heavily on me). Maybe this is an overblown concern. After all, hiking out in the country will naturally increase the possibility of encountering some dangerous animal, like a bear. That just goes with the territory, right? But the way it is being reported, these boars are aggressive and exploding in numbers.
So who needs to go down to Hallow-Scream at Busch Gardens to get a scare this October? Just pay a visit to your friendly, local state park...and let your blood curdle into anguished screams of mortal terror!
But alas, a story has been circulating in the Gainesville news media of late regarding the large population of wild boars running rampant within San Felasco Hammock. As a matter of fact, residents in homes near the park have experienced boars in their yards, an obvious threat to their well-being (and much more so to their pets). Well, if that's the case, I'm not all that keen on walking or jogging down miles of remote stretches of hiking trails with wild boars waiting in ambush for me (that scene near the end of the movie Hannibal still weighs heavily on me). Maybe this is an overblown concern. After all, hiking out in the country will naturally increase the possibility of encountering some dangerous animal, like a bear. That just goes with the territory, right? But the way it is being reported, these boars are aggressive and exploding in numbers.
So who needs to go down to Hallow-Scream at Busch Gardens to get a scare this October? Just pay a visit to your friendly, local state park...and let your blood curdle into anguished screams of mortal terror!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Moore and Dean Slam Baucus Bill
This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe show starring independently-thinking conservative (how refreshing) Joe Scarborough, guests Howard Dean and Michael Moore expressed their firm opposition to the Baucus health care reform bill recently passed out of the Senate Finance Committee. Both, like me, see it as a forced mass giveaway to the powerful insurance companies at the expense of the very American people who are suffering the most from health insurance's increasing unaffordability. And Moore, like me, stated that this piece of legislation is worse than the status quo. Meaning, for this time around at least, that Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Bill Irwin are rooting for the stalwart hard-line anti-Obama Republican crowd in the Senate to somehow be able to defeat this horrendous (Moore called it "deplorable"), fraudulently-named "reform" bill. Moore also pointed out that the highly touted provision within the Baucus bill outlawing denial of coverage for preexisting conditions carried only a $5,000 fine, which to an insurance company would be minuscule compared to the medical bills they would be paying for were they to provide coverage in those cases.
I know that the Democrats are calculating that any health reform bill is politically better than no bill. But when the American people see what has been perpetrated upon them with the Baucus legislation and its catering to the health insurance cartel, I predict a much worse political toll eventually being taken on the Democratic Party.
Is there any chance at all for getting a public option included in the health care bill? I keeping hearing of a "trigger" proposal floating about. Senator Schumer wants to amend the legislation to let individual states decide whether or not to allow a public option for consumers. To me, the idea of my federal government legally mandating that, simply because I "exist", I must then purchase health insurance at manipulated high prices from private corporations exempted from the Anti-Trust Act, sounds like something concocted by an extreme fringe group of the political right. But so-called center/left politicians are standing in line to endorse it! This to me is nothing less than a betrayal.
I know that the Democrats are calculating that any health reform bill is politically better than no bill. But when the American people see what has been perpetrated upon them with the Baucus legislation and its catering to the health insurance cartel, I predict a much worse political toll eventually being taken on the Democratic Party.
Is there any chance at all for getting a public option included in the health care bill? I keeping hearing of a "trigger" proposal floating about. Senator Schumer wants to amend the legislation to let individual states decide whether or not to allow a public option for consumers. To me, the idea of my federal government legally mandating that, simply because I "exist", I must then purchase health insurance at manipulated high prices from private corporations exempted from the Anti-Trust Act, sounds like something concocted by an extreme fringe group of the political right. But so-called center/left politicians are standing in line to endorse it! This to me is nothing less than a betrayal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)