Fox News Fixates on Biden Eating Ice Cream, Echoes of Obama's Tan Suit

Thought this was a pretty funny segment, and worth sharing. 

Fox News Melts Down After Biden Eats Ice Cream with Seth, Talks Gaza Cea...

Book Review: Stephen King's 11/22/63

 

So yes, I reread this book recently. 

Resonated far more the second time around. The love story with Sadie, the paradox of going back in time and altering the past, and what the ramifications might be for the future with the butterfly effect. The irony of almost wanting to go back years earlier to do it again to save the woman he loves, even after having just saved John F. Kennedy, the main goal that he had been aiming for right from the beginning of the novel. 

In the end, Jake goes back to the alternative version of 2011 that he has largely created by altering history. As it turns out, far from having made things better, it actually made things worse. 

***** SPOILER ALERT *****

***** SPOILER ALERT *****

***** SPOILER ALERT *****

What he finds is that the world has turned into a nightmare. Just before he left late November of 1963 after saving Jack Kennedy from an assassin's bullet, there is a huge earthquake in Los Angeles that kills at least 7,000 people. He is sure that he would have remembered that if it had happened just like that in history, and then becomes sure that his intervening with history has in fact likely caused that tragedy to occur. And he is right, because the Earth itself has become destabilized in the new version of 2011, which Jake gets to visit. 

He also mentions political trends. Al, the owner of the diner and the original founder of the time tunnel, or hole, or gate, or whatever you want to call it, was almost positive that things would be better had Kennedy lived. He rationalizes that the United States would never have gotten involved to such an extent in Vietnam, for example. 

As it turns out, things did not end up so great in the country, just because Kennedy survives in this fictional account. He expects to beat Goldwater handily in his 1964 reelection bid, but only wins in a surprisingly close election. Then, his hopes of changing the Jim Crow laws and practices in the Deep South are nowhere near as successful as they had historically been in the previous world that Jake knew, because Kennedy was not able to twist arms and apply political pressure and savvy quite like LBJ was able to do. 

In fact, Alabama Governor George Wallace, known best as one of the last, truly prominent segregationist figures of the era, is elected President after Kennedy. Wallace launched nuclear attacks, which set other nuclear powers fee. There is a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which is only stopped when the United States, Russia, and China all threaten to bow those two countries out of existence. Still, much of the damage has now been done. Also, Wallace winds up being the president who gets assassinated. But not before he does serious damage. Reagan reaches the White House after that, but does so in 1976. And he is evidently not nearly as politically untouchable in this new version of history as he seems to have been in the previous version of the world that Jake knew. 

Meanwhile, the world is tumultuous in others ways, as well. The earthquake in Los Angeles which occurred just after jake saves Kennedy is actually a presage of things to come. In fact, earthquakes and all sorts of other natural (or rather, unnatural) disasters have begun to become both more frequent and far more serious. It is estimated now that the world will literally tear itself apart by 2080. Reality itself is threatened, as there now exists these kinds of watery ripping sounds, which Constant Readers of Stephen King will know reveals that the end of what we understand as reality is near. And on top of all of this, the United States in the new nightmarish version of 2011 which Jake has unknowingly created seems almost like a dystopian nightmare, almost like a version of George Orwell's 1984. 

Jake realizes that altering the future is not a good idea, after all. Far from making the world a better and safer place, he realizes that there are numerous strings linking the past and the future, and that there are not an infinite number of these strings. So he has to go back to "reset" the past. No saving anybody - and there are other situations which Jake got involved in to avoid horrors that befell people - because he now knows that intruding on the past is detrimental to the future. Still, he has one last temptation: he wants to live with his love Sadie, a woman whom he fell in love with after moving to Texas in preparation to assassinate Oswald. In the end, he realizes that even this is intervening too much with the future, and so he goes back to "his" 2011, albeit reluctantly. 

However, he cannot simply end it there. While he recognizes that interfering with the past, and thus altering the future, cannot end well, he does make changes to his life in the present. He moves to Massachusetts, and then visits Jodie, Texas, the town where he had a life, and where he and Sadie fell in love. She actually was killed by Oswald when Jake saved Kennedy from assassination, but in this version of 2011, she is still alive. And he decides to have one last dance with her, even though she is much older, and cannot quite place him, even though she suspects that she knows him, somehow. 

As with almost all King books, this is very well written. The characters feel mostly real, their logic and actions under the circumstances believable. And he makes the circumstances feel real, even though this scenario of a time traveler managing to save Kennedy from assassination is, obviously, the stuff of pure fiction. I would strongly recommend this book, not least of all because you really get a feel for some of the real differences between the era of the 1950's and 1960's, and our more modern world. 

Stephen King's “11/22/63” 

(Originally published on December 13, 2011)

This book was long, and took me longer to read than most of his long books, even. It came out on the 8th, and I had initially wanted to finish it on time for the actual anniversary (hard to believe that it has been 48 years since the assassination of JFK, which took place slightly less than 11 years before I was born!). Yet, the devil fools with the best laid plans, right? I actually misplaced this book for an entire week, only to finally find it at my weekend job, tucked away in a desk drawer. I immediately got back to work on it, although my hopes of finishing it by the 22nd were obviously gone by then. 

Having long been anticipating this one, because it sounded intriguing, I was counting down the days until it was finally released like few books that have come before it. The idea is this: a man gets the opportunity to go back in time, and he has a very specific mission: to save John F. Kennedy from the assassin's bullet on that fateful November day in Dallas. Only, of course, he is a human being, and so he gets wrapped up in very human concerns. Understandable. He meets a girl, falls in love. He makes mistakes, and then has to cope with these, even pays quite a price for them. Still, he feels himself to be on a mission. But then he is torn between his commitment to saving JFK (and thus altering world history for what he assumes to be for the better), and his desire to be with her throughout his preparations for this epic event. 

I have never read a bad Stephen King book, and this one was not disappointing, either. He, like Erik Larson, is able to make the past come alive, and he was convincing this time, as well. The fifties and sixties felt real, and the most convincing aspects of this are in the details. He pays attention, and being such a seasoned author, he makes this look easy. Of course, the premise of time travel may sound absurd and unrealistic, yet he makes it seem, and feel, very realistic and close. He puts you in the shoes of the main character. 

There are questions left, of course. The main question seems to be one that applies in our present day lives, ironically. Can we, as human beings, possibly understand the full ramifications of our actions? Even if we mean well, there are some things, some realities, that we cannot change. In creating a character and situation where the past can be changed, a well intentioned man is forced to ask himself if having the power to change the past necessarily means that he should, even if he initially thinks that by so doing, the world would be a better place. It shows us, ultimately, that although perhaps we see that our efforts will be with a design to eliminate evil or create a better world, we ultimately cannot know the full ramifications of our actions. It is a story about acceptance, ultimately. Of coming to terms with our own smallness, our inability to alter the past, or indeed even the present, and make it exactly what we would want it to be, ideally. Ours in not an ideal world, and we just have to cope with it the best that we can. Things can be worse, even when we perhaps lose sight of this fact. 

This book was a departure for Stephen King, because it has a lot to do with an actual historical event, and has virtually nothing to do with much of his other works. Yet, he has one interesting diversion, when the main character visits the world of Derry in 1958, and meets a couple of the characters from an earlier work of his, “IT”. That was quite entertaining and enjoyable, and showed cleverness on King's part. Yet, the book remains unique among his works. Of course, I personally have always felt that he was too quickly labeled as writer of “horror”, when some of his most memorable works, such as “Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile”, in fact have nothing to do wit horror. Much like those, this is an enjoyable read that brings the past to life, so that you almost feel like you yourself were in Dallas on that fateful day that changed the world, nd serves also as a reminder that we cannot change the past and make it what we wanted it to be. We simply have to adapt and go on with our lives. 

Book Review: Alexander Hamilton by Ronald Chernow

This was another audio book which I obtained for next to nothing during a recent trip to the library.

And you know what?

It was entertaining, plus informative. Indeed, I learned something. Quite a few things, actually. That includes some stuff regarding his philosophy and relevant debates both during and after the United States had achieved independence, as well as the serious challenges and difficulties that the new nation faced in the first few years after winning it's independence from Great Britain.

What I learned was about Hamilton's personal relations - and squabbles - with some of the towering figures of the times, including some of the most respected and even venerated Founding Fathers. That includes, of course, George Washington, with whom Hamilton had a close relationship both during the Revolutionary War, as well as during Washington's term as the first President of these United States. It also delves a bit into their own personal squabble, which evidently happened right at what is now known as Washington's Headquarters in Morristown, which prompted me to take a small detour and take pictures of the house a couple of weeks ago or so, after work on one Sunday.

Hamilton was not from any of the original thirteen colonies. He was born in St. Kitts and Nevis, and indeed lived the earliest part of his life not in the colonies, but in the Caribbean, which was far more important politically and economically then, due mostly to sugar. Eventually, Hamilton made his way to the colonies, and obviously came to play a very prominent part in the American Revolution, which would help to shape his life. 

You learn about the other Founding Fathers, as well, most of whom had even contentious relations with Hamilton. It surprised me to learn this, that Hamilton seemed to make serious political enemies. He had good relations originally with James Madison, and the two collaborated on many of the most iconic Federalist papers in favor of the Constitution. Yet not too much later, the two were bitterest of political enemies, and this lasted for the rest of their years. Hamilton and Jefferson also were serious political enemies, as were Hamilton and James Monroe, George Clinton, and of course, most infamously, Aaron Burr. The tensions between Monroe and Hamilton were so serious that even decades after the death of Hamilton, his wife rejected overtures for a burying of the hatch and peace made by Monroe, as she held him largely responsible for the tensions.

This, of course, was due to an affair which Hamilton had, and in which he really showed surprisingly poor judgement. The affair was with Maria Reynolds, but it was one in which Hamilton was manipulated and used, yet he seemed somehow to refuse to believe it. This made the situation infinitely worse, as he was blackmailed by her and her husband, as well as another man who entered the picture a bit later. And Hamilton showed equally bad judgement in being a little too open about this affair. During those puritanical times, this seriously came to be his undoing, and my explain why he never went further politically, possibly even succeeding Washington as the president. Hamilton believed that Monroe was more responsible for compromising  - even hijacking - Hamilton's political career in this regard. The hard feelings between the two literally were to last the rest of their lives. 

In this book, you really get the in depth analysis and behind the scenes tensions that make these tensions and rivalries. It is easier to understand just how delicate the political situation for the newly independent - yet hardly strongly united - fledgling nation was in those days. So you come to understand the thinking behind the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, and the suspicions of and bitterness between the two different sides.

Finally, there is the rivalry which Hamilton had with Aaron Burr, the Vice-President  This wound up being so serious, that it ended up resulting in arguably the most famous duel in American history. It cost Hamilton his life, and he seemed to know it beforehand. Hamilton's life ended as a result of the fatal wound he received from it, but Burr effectively committed political suicide as a result of this duel. The way it came across, Burr was regarded as little more than a murderer of one of Ameirca's most influential Founding Fathers. 

One thing which rather surprised me to learn was that Hamilton rarely was regarded in heroic terms, as Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were. There were times when he did receive public adulation. At one point, some people actually advocated renaming New York City in his honor. I believe they wanted it to be renamed Hamiltoniana, which would have been interesting. Obviously, that did not happen. And that was one of the few times when Hamilton received the public adulation and support which, admittedly, I had wrongly assumed he had enjoyed before reading this book. 

Learning More About One of France's Greatest & Most Unique Treasures: Mont-Saint-Michel

 

This was a picture taken from a video I made of a trip to the Mont-Saint-Michel back in May of 2000, when my then new wife (now my ex) and I went on our honeymoon. Not sure why I relied solely on videos back then, because obviously, this picture suffered in quality for it. Still, it's better than nothing, right?

 

Back in 2000, I got married. As newlyweds, my then wife and I went to France for about a week and a half or so. Mostly, we visited Paris, although we took side trips for a day visiting other things, particularly the chateaux of the Loire, and Mont-Saint-Michel. Although there remains plenty of places in France that I would love to visit but have yet to see (Carcassonne, the Normandy Beaches, and the French Riviera in particular come to mind), I had long wanted to visit each of these sites, and was happy to so. 

Mont-Saint-Michel in particular is one place which I am glad to have visited. I saw a documentary on it not too long ago, and it was fascinating. Also, it is one of the most iconic places in France, in Europe, and arguably, the world. Probably among the top hundred to two hundred famous and historic landmarks in the world.

It was interesting watching that video for the first time in years. A flood of memories came back from the trip. These days, I remember some parts of it, including the bus ride on the way, and especially on the way back. I remember getting a taste of the Crêpe bretonne that my brother ordered, and how windy it was (it comes out very loudly on the video). We climbed all the way to the top, stopped at some of the shops along the way in the very narrow street through the medieval village at the base of the island. I remember the view from the top, and the view of Mont-Saint-Michel from the other side of the water. It was an incredible day, although since it was through a tourist agency, it was a bit rushed. We all wished that we had had more time to explore.

Hopefully, there will be a next visit, and maybe we can get a more thorough visit next time.

Still, I am very glad to have been there at least once. After coming across this article, it seemed like something worth posting about. Take a look at this interesting article (click on the link below) featuring some information about this landmark, one of France's greatest treasures, and an iconic pilgrimage site, as well. 

Mont-Saint-Michel: 8 things you probably didn't know about this French treasure It's one of France's most recognisable symbols – these are its secrets BY TINA LOFTHOUSE  2 April 2023:

https://www.cntraveller.com/article/mont-saint-michel?utm_campaign=falcon_Qyhd&utm_brand=conde-nast-traveller-uk&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1ICtvv55DKIQ_ZYZ5wWuf8B1aqr072Ip1vrcE3R5UWXKl9Ls0KnC5LhyM

The original picture that I took from the video (which I transferred onto DVD) taken of our visit to Mont-Saint-Michel, before making the adjustments and alterations for the version above. None of them came out great, but this was the best of the ones which I did manage to take.

Some other pictures from the video taken of the trip to Mont-Saint-Michel:

A Recent Report Warns That the United States Must Prepare For Simultaneous Conflicts With Both China & Russia

 

Meant to publish this months ago, but never quite got around to it.

According to a report from the Strategic Posture Commission, the United States should prepare itself for simultaneous wars against both Russia and China.

One anonymous official explained how there are serious worries about how Russia and China might be cooperating amongst themselves, forging a potential new alliance which, by implication, may threaten a wider armed conflict. 

Here is one quote from the anonymous official in the article about this report from October of last year:

"We worry ... there may be ultimate coordination between them in some way, which gets us to this two-war construct," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Not long ago, during the days of the George W. Bush administration, the United States frankly recklessly entered into simultaneous wars against much weaker nations than China and Russia. You may remember that it did not go so well. We attacked Afghanistan a month after the September 11th attacks, and seemed at first to root out the Taliban regime, which had harbored terrorists, including those responsible for the September 11th terror attacks. Then, before the Taliban had actually been fully removed, and without yet having captured Osama Bin laden, the man most responsible for those attacks, the Bush administration aggressively pined for an invasion of Iraq, largely citing the same justifications, claiming that this was part of the wider "War on Terror." They never outright stated hat Saddam Hussein's Iraq was actually involved in the September 11th attacks, although they used his name, and the country he was head of, so frequently with key words implying terrorism, that a solid majority of Americans believed that Saddam's Iraq had some kind of a role in the attacks. Americans continued to believe this even after the Bush administration and their key political allies conceding that there was no actual evidence of this. Below is a snippet from an article from The Guardian dated just days before the two year anniversary of the September 11th attacks, and nearly six months after Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003:

Seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the 11 September 2001 attacks, even though the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this.  

Sixty-nine per cent of Americans said they thought it at least likely that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, according to a Washington Post poll published yesterday.

And we Americans wonder why so much of the rest of the world thinks that we are backwards and dumb, at least when it comes to our collective political thinking? 

Americans also believed the claims by the Bush administration - which blamed Tony Blair and Britain for the allegedly faulty information - that Saddam's Iraq had built up an enormous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's). Despite this absence of any evidence either of involvement by Saddam's Iraq in the September 11th attacks or of WMD's, we had gone to war, again with a solid majority of Americans (72 percent after Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, and still 66 percent supporting the invasion once it actually began) supporting the war. The Bush administration had promised a quick and decisive victory, with then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly predicting that the war might last days or weeks, but would not last months. Only as the war continued on and on (as it did for the better part of two decades) did this support for the war finally wane. Suddenly, it dawned on us that fighting this war - especially while we were fighting another war that had far clearer links to the September 11th attacks - might not have been the best idea. Of course, the time to consider such things should have been before we committed to war, not after the fact. 

So why do I mention this? Didn't the Iraq invasion happen decades ago? What relevance could it possibly have now? 

Well, it seems relevant because since World War II, we Americans collectively always seem to be ready to throw support to go fight a war. Many Americans deny this when you outright mention it, or the implications that, far from being a peace loving nation as most American political leaders claim, the country generally seems to like war. In the very beginning of our major involvement in Vietnam in August of 1965, 61 percent of Americans supported the conflict. Those numbers started to wane as the war dragged on and on, and as it seemed to grow worse for Americans. More and more Americans conceded that our involvement there was a mistake, and by May of 1971, only 28 percent of Americans still supported the war in Vietnam.

Lesson learned?

No, not really. When Reagan won the White House, militarism spiked up. There seemed to be a sense that Vietnam had been some sort of an aberration, rather than a warning. It felt like some people hungered for another war, so that we could prove that Vietnam was some sort of a fluke. Movies like the Rambo franchise, as well as Top Gun, Iron Eagle and Red Dawn seemed to reinforce this renewed militarism. In his book "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," author and former American Colonel Andrew Bacevich suggested that Reagan's relentless and jingoistic propaganda seemed to convince most Americans of it's nation's military invincibility. When Reagan launched a military invasion of Grenada, he enjoyed "broad popular support for his decision to invade Grenada," according to Time magazine. In 1989, combatting a reputation that he had for some reason obtained as a "wimp," President George H.W. Bush launched an invasion of Panama, which was called "Operation Just Cause." It came to be viewed almost in an almost comical light after Panama's now deposed leader Manuel Noriega hid out in the Vatican embassy, with Americans rooting him out by playing very loud music continuously. Yet, much like with Grenada, Americans very much supported it, and potential criticism of the invasion was stifled because of this enormous public support. According to a 2018 article by Politico on the Panama invasion:

Bush’s reasons for the invasion provided sufficient justification to secure bipartisan congressional support for it. In any event, the speed of the successful invasion, and public support for it — 80 percent of Americans approved — precluded any determined Democratic objections to Bush’s initiative.

Bush Senior was still in power for the next military action, which wound up being the "big one" that many Americans had been waiting for. Saddam Hussein's Iraq invaded Kuwait early in August of 1990, prompting an international (largely led by the United States) response. Was it popular? Did Americans use caution in proceeding with the first major war since Vietnam?

Not so much, no. In fact, not only did a huge majority of Americans support the first Gulf War against Saddam's Iraq, but George H.W. Bush received levels of popularity that few American presidents ever reach. Here is a snippet of an article by David. W. Moore in early 2001:

By the end of the Persian Gulf War, there was widespread public support for U.S. participation in the war and approval of the way President George Bush was handling the situation. In fact, in the wake of the cease-fire, Bush received the highest job approval rating any president has received since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s, with 89% of Americans indicating their approval and just 8% disapproval. President Harry Truman received his highest rating (87%) in June 1945, right after Germany's surrender in World War II. The only other two presidents to receive approval ratings of at least 80% are Franklin D. Roosevelt , who received his highest rating (84%) in the wake of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and John F. Kennedy, whose highest approval rating (83%) came after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.  

I remember mentioning all of this to a former American girlfriend of mine some years ago. She could not accept my contention that Americans seemed militant. But when I mentioned how widespread public support was for each of these wars - Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I and Gulf War II - she fell silent. These numbers don't lie. While popularity for some of these wars waned over time, it only did so once things took an obvious and irrefutable turn for the worst. 

It seems that Americans may finally have become a bit war wary for the time being. This is not all that surprising, following not one but two seeming defeats in recent years, with the situation in Iraq having turned bad with ISIS having taken over much of Iraq as we were winding down our involvement there, and with the Taliban having ultimately conquered pretty much all of Afghanistan by the time of our final withdrawal there in 2021. Finally, Americans are recognizing that it might not be a very good idea to throw our weight around militarily anytime that a leader wants us to do that. 

So when I see reports like this, which seem to be laying the groundwork for another potential war - and this one would be major, quite possibly, even perhaps likely, a world war - with both China and Russia simultaneously, I cannot help but wonder if Americans can be persuaded to support such a war. It seems to me that in recent years, there is a political divide regarding these two nations in particular. Republicans - particularly Donald Trump and his supporters - seem to demonize China. Democrats seem to demonize Russia. 

Behind these hostilities is what now feels like typically reckless American boisterousness. It hardly takes much for Trump to get his supporters to get all worked up when it comes to China. Similarly, it does not take much for Biden to get his supporters all worked up when he demonizes Russia. So yes, there is a militarism there, and I feel justified in worrying about it. Perhaps even the two recent disastrous wars, which so seriously compromised America's reputation the world over, were not enough to dissuade Americans of their faith in what Bacevich described as the perception of America's military invincibility. And it worries me that we seem to be hearing the echoes of the drumbeats of war for yet another possible conflict, this one perhaps bigger than any conflict since at least World War II. I wonder if we yet possess the wisdom collectively to approach such a potentially calamitous conflict seriously and soberly, or if this will be yet another case of diving into a war with a majority supporting it, only to voice regrets well after the fact, just like we did in Vietnam and Iraq.

 

Below are the links to the articles I used in writing this particular blog entry, including both quotes and specific information, particularly the poll numbers showing support for conflicts:

US must be ready for simultaneous wars with China, Russia, report says By Jonathan Landay October 12, 2023:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-must-be-ready-simultaneous-wars-with-china-russia-report-says-2023-10-12/

Public Opinion and the Vietnam War    

https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/vietnam/vietnam_pubopinion.cfm

Grenada: Getting Back to Normal By Ed Magnuson Monday, Nov. 21, 1983

https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,926318-2,00.html

THIS DAY IN POLITICS  United States invades Panama, Dec. 20, 1989  By ANDREW GLASS  12/20/2018:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/20/united-states-invades-panama-1989-1067072

Americans Believe U.S. Participation in Gulf War a Decade Ago Worthwhile by David W. Moore, February 26, 2001:

Small majority favor new war to remove Saddam Hussein from power 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1963/americans-believe-us-participation-gulf-war-decade-ago-worthwhile.aspx

Polls show support for Iraq War drop in 20 years post invasion by Jonathan Lehrfeld  Mar 17, 2023:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/03/17/polls-show-support-for-iraq-war-drop-in-20-years-post-invasion/

US public thinks Saddam had role in 9/11 by The Guardian, Sat 6 Sep 2003:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/07/usa.theobserver

Sunday Funny: Outdated Sex Ed Curriculum

 

Outdated Sex Ed Curriculum Still Teaches How Boyfriend’s Balls Could Explode If You Don’t Give Him Hand Job Published February 18, 2022 Alerts:

https://www.theonion.com/outdated-sex-ed-curriculum-still-teaches-how-boyfriend-1848442477?utm_campaign=TheOnion&utm_content=1684870650&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=twitter&fbclid=IwAR3gLgT-MoNtLoyihgoI-nh1CqFjQ8yM2c-9nCNGcAFo1hgehPPRKL2noKo

The Skull of St. Valentine's May Be Preserved at the Basilica di Santa Maria in Rome, Italy

Wanted to publish this for Valentine's Day, but never quite got around to it.

Also, it is not exactly what most people think of, in terms of a Valentine's Day theme. However, it actually does involve the real story of St. Valentine himself. At least his skull.

Take a look at the article for more information by clicking on the link below:

St. Valentine's Skull Basilica di Santa Maria Rome, Italy The skull of the patron saint of lovers lies in the Basilica di Santa Maria in Cosmedin—maybe.   BEEN HERE? 714  WANT TO VISIT? 1908

https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/st-valentines-skull/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=atlas-page&fbclid=IwAR1azMhNg3FJ8lRLBbT08qTRxXelY388IQMeYI4Jgv_cZhsbP5LE92fJnAU

Is It Possible That Complex Life May Have Existed on Earth Before Us?

This was a fascinating article which I meant to write something and publish something about here, yet never quite got around to.

Really, the thought that life - even complex life - may have existed before on Earth is truly fascinating. It really would make everything feel cyclical and impermanent, yet also imply a sort of permanence to this very cyclical nature.

Quite fascinating and thought-provoking stuff, really. 

Take a look at the link below for access to the article that got me on this topic:

Complex Life Could Have Existed on Earth at Least Once Before NATURE 18 January 2017 ByFIONA MACDONALD

https://www.sciencealert.com/complex-life-could-have-existed-on-earth-at-least-once-before?fbclid=IwAR2tsxDgWNNt3w_FnYKaok0Xds3Y0Tjkv71JfWrt_mx8rS2Oz61vQzwik4Q

Old Video Clip of John Fugelsang Making Case to Stop Trivializing Hate Crimes As Mere Bullying

An old clip of comedian John Fugelsang making a very valid point regarding trivializing hate crimes with the label "bullying."

Obviously, this is old. But it still seemed worth sharing.

GRITtv: John Fugelsang: Stop Calling it Bullying

Review of ESPN's "30 For 30: Four Falls of Buffalo"

Think that I've mentioned, and possibly even reviewed, some episodes of the ESPN film series "30 For 30" before.

Well, whether I have or not, this series is enjoyable. It often shows you some of the behind the scenes stories that you probably were not familiar with. It also usually includes interviews with thoughts from prominent figures involved in whatever story they are doing.

In the weeks leading up to, and since, the Super Bowl, there were a lot of football related stories. One of them was particularly enjoyable. It was "30 For 30: Four Falls of Buffalo." It was released in 2015, and it explored the fate of the Buffalo Bills of the nineties, the only team to go to four straight Super Bowls, but also the only team to have lost four straight Super Bowls.

Here's something strange, admittedly: I am a Giants fan, yet I liked those Buffalo Bills. Don't get me wrong: I was so happy when the field goal went wide right and the Giants won Super Bowl XXV, that I jumped up in celebration. I taped the game, and think I might have watched it literally three times that first week alone! 

Yet, I was happy that Buffalo had enjoyed such a successful season. And I really did hope that they would get back to the Super Bowl, and win it. But when they did go back the next season, I had a bad feeling. People don't seem to remember, or appreciate, just how dominant that 1991 Washington Redskins team was. To my mind's eye, they were likely the third most dominant single season team that I can recall, behind only the 1985 Chicago Bears and the 1989 San Francisco 49ers. They had the most explosive offense in the league, scoring nearly 500 points (back when that was really saying something) and the second best defense that season. They scored at least 33 points in half of their regular season games, and held opponents to 17 points or less in 12 of their 16 regular season games. Then they swept aside the Atlanta Falcons in the divisional round and crushed the Detroit Lions in the NFC Championship Game. They raced out to a fast start in Super Bowl XXVI, and Buffalo only got in rhythm and finally realized that they could play with that Washington team when the game was already out of reach. 

After that, it felt like the narrative for the Bills was that they had established themselves as a very good team, but one that could not take that next step and win the Super Bowl. That mixed legacy followed them around, unfortunately, when they reached the next two Super Bowls, both against Dallas. Nobody before had ever reached four straight Super Bowls, and they also had the greatest comeback in NFL history under their belts. Yet, they are remembered largely only for losing those Super Bowls.

Still, to me, they were a team that I both liked and appreciated at the time. If anything, my respect for them has only grown in the years since. 

This documentary really goes into that team's mixed bag of success and failures. It focuses mostly on the Super Bowls themselves. But you get to hear from many members of that team: running back Thurman Thomas (probably the biggest star on the team), quarterback Jim Kelly, wide receiver Andre Reed, defensive end Bruce Smith, linebacker Darryl Talley, head coach Marv Levy (who I thought then, and still think now, was a class act), back-up quarterback Frank Reich, wide receiver Don Beebe,  special teams star Steve Tasker. Most of those guys are in the Hall of Fame, and they all seem like pretty damn decent guys. Frankly, that's not a given in football, where you get a lot of...well, guys that are less than likeable, to say the least. And I'm not just talking about those who were convicted (or should have been convicted) of awful crimes. Many personalities in the NFL were just jackasses off the field, even if their talent on the field made them stars. Also, you hear from Scott Norwood, the placekicker who missed that field goal that could have won it for Buffalo in Super Bowl XXV, and which clearly is a memory that still haunts the Buffalo Bills franchise and their fans, as the "Wide Right 2" playoff exit last month reminded us. 

So I really enjoyed this particular installment of "30 For 30." And I would recommend it to anyone who wants to understand that incredibly resilient (and again, likeable) Buffalo Bills team, who came so close to reaching the summit numerous times, and just could not quite get there. They were a great team, and deserve to be remembered as such. This documentary relives those times, and was highly entertaining! Recommended to any fair-minded football fans, or sports fans more generally. 

New ESPN First Take - Andre Reed on  ESPN 30 For 30 Four Falls of Buffalo

The Most Watched Super Bowl Halftime Shows in History

Below is a list of the most viewed Super Bowl halftime shows ever. That does not necessarily mean the best halftime shows ever, but the most viewed.

For me, some of the best and most memorable Super Bowl halftime shows include Michael Jackson (XXVII), Paul McCartney (the only Beatles representation), the Stones, Aerosmith, Prince, Bruno Mars with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Shakira and Jennifer Lopez (neither are necessarily my favorite artists, but they put on a good show, and looked very sexy), Katy Perry and obviously the halftime show with Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, which actually overshadowed a great game. 

Not sure about the worst, although the Backstreet Boys performance for Super Bowl XXV (my personal favorite Super Bowl) was not even aired on television at the time. At least, not on the broadcast that I watched. Also, one that was aired, and which I felt largely sucked, was Maroon-5. 

This last halftime show? Frankly, it didn't do much for me, admittedly. Sorry, that's just the way I feel, though. 

In any case, click on the link below for the most watched halftime shows of all time, which also happen to largely be the most recent Super Bowls, not surprisingly. 

10 most-viewed Super Bowl Halftime shows, ranked Dan Girolamo By Dan Girolamo February 11, 2024 6:09PM

https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/most-viewed-super-bowl-halftime-shows/

One Recent Op/Ed Piece Feels That Democracy Itself May Be in Critical Danger

It is 2024. Election year. And I will admit to dreading this particular election year for a long time. Probably since the very end of the 2020 election, in fact. And especially after January 6th. Because frankly, I felt this one coming for a long time. As I understand it, I'm not the only one. Many people seemed to expect a Biden-Trump rematch, including Bill Maher, who voiced one of my own fears: that this election might usher in a very explosive situation, particularly on January 20, 2025, when two people - and all of their supporters - converge on Washington, each side believing themselves to have won the election, and determined to see their candidate sworn in.

Perhaps even worse, seeing Trump win outright. Because this country simply does not seem to be politically mature. And we seem absolutely determined to repeat our mistakes. Not just one or twice, but over and over and over again. 

Not sure about this particular Op/Ed piece. Yet, it feels like this year, nothing short of democracy itself is on the line. Trump, and many (although not necessarily all) of his loyal supporters seem ready to drop any pretense of being fans of democracy, or of even being bound by laws. And yet, I am not a firm believer that Biden and the Democratic party are actually all that much better. After all, there were a lot of abuses of power by each of the last three Democratic administrations: Clinton, Obama, and Biden. Yet so paranoid of the "other" have mainstream Democrats become, that they consistently turn a blind eye to these abuses, and give "their" guy a free pass. Both the Democrats and Republicans seem to be guilty of this.

And the state of our democracy  - and our country more generally - suffers as a result. Now personally, I admittedly seem to have grown more cynical with age. It seems to me now that things inevitably need to get worse - perhaps considerably worse - before things actually begin to really get better in this country. So we shall see what happens. Even if my own worst fears regarding this election are not realizing - God willing - it still seems to me that we will continue to be in a sorry, compromised state as a nation. Not sure what it will take for Americans to wake up and put an end to this consistent state of deterioration - a deterioration which, it seems to me, has been happening likely since November of 1963 - but I admittedly do not hold out much hope that we collectively possess the wisdom to avert some kind of disaster.

Let's hope that I am wrong.

In any case, take a look at this link below and see if you agree or not.

Believe in democracy? Then, I’ve got some bad news for you. | Opinion by Star-Ledger Guest Columnis | Opinion Updated: Feb. 04, 2024: 

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2024/02/believe-in-democracy-then-ive-got-some-bad-news-for-you-opinion.html?utm_term=NJ.com++-+Conversions_nj_paid&utm_medium=social&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.10.11.12.2024+SNDX+DNA+Advance+Local++-+Conversion+-+MLIVE+%26+NJ+-+NEW_love_dcr2023&utm_content=NJ.com++-+Conversions&fbclid=IwAR3Q-j6XaZBc6VxBFA_34NuGQUJR3OMyJtTeq1EXz3RaLHq0v0svmQ1M0es

Incredible Episode of "Nature: The Serengeti Rules Season 38 Episode 2"

I saw this program not too long ago, and it proved fascinating. Fascinating enough that I decided to record it, then watch it again.              

Fascinating enough, in fact, to try and find it online, in a full video, and to find the link to it, in hopes of being able to share it here.              

And so, this is what I am doing. Because this was truly one of the most impactful nature programs that I ever saw. It began with the bold assertion that what you were about to see would change the way that you view nature, or wilderness, or even the world, from here on out. At first, I was skeptical.              

Then, after watching it, I not only felt converted to that precise viewpoint, but felt others should at least see it, and make up their minds for themselves. Because this really does change  - or could change – how we view the world, and the food cycle, and how it affects habitat the world over, regardless of how different the different habitat this experiment was attempted, and all around the world, in very different circumstances.              

Please take a look at this program. I kid you not, it can change not only how you see the world – and how we collectively see our place in it – but also how we understand the world to work, and maybe what we can do about it.              

No, I am not saying that we can save the world with this, or anything so remotely naïve. I might once have been that idealistic, but no longer. As I have grown older, I have lost much of that youthful idealism, or as I view it now, some of that old-style, idealistic naivete.              

Still, I urge everyone reading this to take a look at the video, and see for yourself what they are saying. It can help us – all of us – to understand the world around us a whole lot better. And in the end, isn’t knowledge of how the world works ultimately what might lead not just to greater understanding, but also respect? Perhaps even action, even if that action is merely limited to not engaging in activities that can be proven to have very detrimental effects?   

Please take a look at the video below. It is informative and very thought-provoking. Also, it is admittedly both frightening and hopeful, simultaneously. But it is important to understand these things, while there may still be time to do something about them.

NATURE  The Serengeti Rules Season 38 Episode 2 | 53m 13s  | 

https://www.pbs.org/video/the-serengeti-rules-41dfru/

rules of nature, the serengeti rules

Listening To "Ordinary World" By Duran Duran With Very Different Ears After All Of These Years

Recently, I suddenly began listening to an old song that first became very popular early in 1993.

I remember it well. The song is "Ordinary World" by Duran Duran, and I think it first started to get really popular early in 1993. That was a good time in my life, as I was recovering from a very depressing year in 1992. I started college, and it felt so refreshingly different than high school. There were new friends, and I got far more exposure to the blossoming music scene that existed at the time than ever before. It felt like there were far more interesting and often like-minded young people around me, and that anything was possible. I really miss those times, even if a lot of this impression was admittedly based on naïveté. 

Back then, I was a recovering metal head, who was really only beginning to get into the "grunge" scene from Seattle. Like everybody else, I really liked Nirvana almost from the first, when I heard them late in 1991. But also like most everybody else, it was hard not to pay attention to the other Seattle bands. In time, I became a big Pearl Jam fan. Later in life, Soundgarden - and almost anything which Chris Cornell was involved with - appealed to me a bit more. 

In any case, I like heavy, hard rocking stuff at the time. So I doubt that I would admit too loudly to anyone that I really liked the new Duran Duran album, and particularly that son "Ordinary World." Yet I did, enough to go out and buy the album. And listen to it relatively frequently, to boot. I did not advertise that fact, but yes, I enjoyed it immensely.

Here's the thing, though: as much as I liked it, I'm not entirely sure it was on a deep enough level. When I recently "rediscovered" the song, I found that it not only appealed to me musically, like it always has since I first heard it all those years ago, but that the lyrics meant much, much more than they did back then. Don't get me wrong, I liked the lyrics back then. They were vaguely mysterious, and held appeal. But I don't think that I "got" the lyrics.

Hearing it again after all of these years, the song hit me very differently. Isn't that the magic of music, and of art more generally? You can hear the same son - or see the same movie or television show, or read the same book - after many years. And while it is familiar on some level, it also sometimes can feel like an entirely different piece of art altogether. 

That is what happened when listening to this song. I noticed things that I had never really noticed before. It appealed to me because it was nostalgic, as well as just being a damn good song. Yet, it also added something entirely new, which I had never really fully noticed or appreciated back then. Having been through loss in the intervening years since, the lyrics felt like they hit me much, much harder than they had in the past. 

So it seemed like something worth sharing here. Below are some videos of the song. There is the official music video version, but there is also a beautiful rendition of it on piano by Marie Digby, who lends this familiar song an entirely different feel altogether. Also, I added a video with the history behind this song by the Professor of Rock, and it is a rather fascinating story. Finally, there is an interesting video of the song being performed live in concert, and with Luciano Pavarotti of "The Three Tenors."

Enjoy.

Duran Duran - Ordinary World (Official Music Video)

Ordinary World - Duran Duran cover by Marie Digby

Haunted By GRIEF & About To LOSE IT ALL Until They Wrote This COMEBACK Smash Hit | Professor of Rock

Le Bon & Pavarotti "Ordinary World"

A Cartoon That Speaks Volumes Regarding Conflict Between Israel & Palestine

 

Cartoon by Rob Rogers

A recent cartoon by Rob Rogers feels like it encapsulates the current tragic situation in Israeli-occupied Palestine.

It shows both sides standing next to ruined areas. And it shows seemingly shell-shocked families on both sides holding up signs suggesting that they are not supporters of the violence inflicted on their side, by their supposed leaders.

Admittedly, this is kind of what I feel about the situation in Israel/Palestine. In principle, I believe that a two-state solution would be ideal. The problem is that too many Palestinians - and many others in the region, including Iran - will never accept Israel's existence, under any circumstances. Also, it feels like far too many Palestinians seem to support the violence and terrorism by people on their side. If not overtly, then by remaining silent when it happens, while loudly protesting Israeli violence.

Meanwhile on the Israeli side of things, Netanyahu is a despicable leader who stands in the way of a peaceful solution. He is an obstacle to peace, and is opposed to a two-state solution, and seems to condemn anyone who recognizes any form of Palestinian sovereignty. 

In short, it feels like both sides gravitate towards wrong and counterproductive ideas, intent on dehumanizing and brutalizing the other side. Supporters of Israel justify all sorts of war crimes - let's call it what it is - against Palestinians who obviously are not in any serious position to really fight back. At least not anywhere near equal terms. Yet, too many of them just seem to completely reject the right of Israel to exist, which obviously also is not helping matters, either.

Some people suggest - and not without some legitimacy - that there is a form of de facto apartheid at work in the occupied territories. Comparisons have been made with the apartheid era of South Africa. Jimmy Carter got into hot water when he pointed this out in a book. Yet despite the widespread condemnation, he made some very valid points. What he described sounds a lot like what is going on there still to this day, and it does feel like it warrants comparison to apartheid. It is unhelpful to say the least for supporters of Israel to suggest that anyone who criticizes these practices are somehow anti-Semitic. Carter was accused of anti-Semitism, and this felt so absurd that it would feel comical, if it were not so serious. 

Apartheid is a very serious allegation, of course. Back in the eighties and early nineties, I followed the situation in South Africa, as it seemed to coming to an end, more or less. It was easy to see that the harsh policies of the white minority government were wrong. So you wanted to see right prevail there. And despite the obvious misgivings of many within the minority white community, enough of them saw that things could not go on as they had, that it was not sustainable, and so reform came. South Africa is not perfect. Yet, it also is no longer the "skunk of the world," as Nelson Mandela aptly put it. 

However, the situation is quite different in Israel. As I understand it, is is acceptable within Israel to criticize many of these policies. As we saw in recent months prior to October 7th, there is hardly undivided political unity within Israel. Yet, nobody accuses these people of being anti-Semitic. And it cuts both ways, it seems. When American Senator Bernie Sanders criticized Israel, he was accused of being a self-loathing Jew. Yet when he did not come right out and describe what is happening there as genocide, he is accused by some of being a "Zionist genocide denier."

It appears that there is no middle ground whatsoever. It's an all or nothing proposition. Admittedly, I am on the outside of this argument. I have never been to Israel or Palestine, let alone lived there. Obviously, there are many, many people more familiar with the situation there than I am, and who are much more immediately impacted by what goes on there. 

Still, it seems to me that this gravitation towards extremes  - the old "you're either with us, or you're against us" - mentality, which the United States itself is obviously not exempt from. And this, to me, is wrong. It feels wrong for some Israelis to be strictly and unwaveringly opposed to a Palestinian state, including the man in charge right now. Netanyahu has been in charge (on and off, admittedly, but mostly on) for decades now. What is it about that man that Israelis keep electing him in? I don't get it. Yet, it also feels wrong for Palestinians to protest Israeli violence on them while remaining silent on acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis, or the seeming tolerance - if not outright support - of those Palestinians who will never, ever accept the existence of Israel under any circumstances, no matter what. It feels as if that kind of gravitation towards extremes is the reason why this ridiculous situation continues to exist. And it makes it difficult to fully sympathize with either side, since they seem to get in their own way. Clearly, violence begets more violence in that corner of the world. It is a cycle that never ends, and it muddies the waters there far more than it ever did in South Africa, the example that most people use and feel is the closest to what is going on in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. 

Irish protesters denounce Bernie Sanders as a Zionist genocide denier over Gaza by Chris Marsden, 19 February 2024:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/02/20/qdjy-f20.html

HAMAS ISRAEL CARTOON

https://propaganda.mediaeducationlab.com/rate/hamas-israel-cartoon

Cartoon by Rob Rogers

A Walk in Wawayanda's Wintry Wonderland

 

My son and I went for an afternoon walk at Wawayanda yesterday. 

He was off from school for President's Day. So we had plenty of time. It was brisk, but not freezing out. Yet, Wawayanda was icy and snowy, for the most part.

Below are some pictures from our visit:

Today Would Have Been Kurt Cobain's 55th Birthday

                     

Image courtesy of niteprowl3r's Flick page -  cobain: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sreichenbach/3025141223/in/photolist-5BjD6i-nKLkNN-6r2Cch-RkGawu-8SopY-cbVDR1-9ao6Go-c4NAym-a5FVuB-8s66yD-dYWGuL-8j9g8p-4QctZD-5WUhv2-5WUgzn-5WYuCN-dWnxkw-6CM6eY-5WYtxN-ie8X1-6zD8X3-68UAFW-7GYrmQ-5REXiX-JvQaZW-m3MnVf-8NB8BV-fHhEqx-MbP6L-66DBU6-av3qkj-69WqZS-ccaK67-nikkfw-nikkuu-3ud8T8-nk6vWn-8GctPg-nknLFK-nkq1f3-413urK-87LL45-hJasjk-marRYD-dCixi-gsCtBk-86Cjw5-jMCjj-5JJ5f7-nikngL

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

It's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?

Had he lived, Kurt Cobain would have turned 57 years old today. Of course, he did not survive his own worst enemy: himself. Yes, that probably sounds cliche, but it is also true. He basically predicted his own life and death with striking accuracy, seeing himself becoming the biggest rock star on the planet (which he was for a while there) and then blowing his own head off (which he basically did).

That is obviously a tragedy, which makes this a difficult subject for me to think of or talk about at length, especially since he was able to produce some unbelievable, and highly influential, music and art.

Image by: www.dooyoo.co.uk

Let me just say, right off the bat, that this is a very well written and concise book! I don't know how Charles Cross got his hands on some of this information, but he puts it to good use. As you read this very vivid biography, it comes alive almost to the point that you feel you are witnessing Kurt Cobain living through these times, from his childhood through the teen years, and into adulthood, before and after he catapulted to stardom. You almost feel that you are getting to know the real person, rather than the hyped rock star.

I always knew that Kurt Cobain had been tormented, although at some distant level. You can see it in his works, in his words. Even in his facial expressions during some musical videos.

But Charles Cross really gives a great diagnosis of the life and times of Kurt Cobain, and those around him. This book is extensively researched. So well researched, frankly, that I don't even know how he managed to get his hands on some of the stuff that was used in writing this.

The effect is that you feel almost like you are there, so vivid is the description. That is a sign of very strong writing skills.

You really get a feel for his native town of Aberdeen, Washington, and the happy childhood that too soon yielded to family tensions and fights. You can relate to the rebellious and angry young teenager who dreams of being a rock star, and you can sympathize with his nervousness before playing his first ever gig at what amounted to a frat party. You watch Nirvana begin to take form, as they struggle to find their identity and make a name for themselves, even spending a night on a highway median at one point, and then you witness their rise to superstardom with a bang. You also see Cobain's self-destructive tendencies clash with the excesses of success, and as the book goes along, you bear witness to what proved to be the inevitable crash from the heights.

Somehow or other, all of this is done while making you feel like it is coming to life, rather than history. You begin to pull for Cobain, and it seems that there are so many choices out there that he could have made to change the outcome. Yet, the past cannot be undone, and although Cross has been criticized for taking liberties with the final aspects of Cobain's life (that being his suicide), he really makes it pack an emotional punch. Even though he was completely alone and feeling the weight of an all too familiar isolation, Cross almost seems to take you there, to witness a tragedy unfold, as a young, heartthrob rock star who seemed to many to have everything hits rock bottom, and takes his own life, leaving behind a beautiful young daughter who will have to live on with such a legacy that her father left her.

Cross has also been criticized for not talking to Dave Grohl, the longest lasting drummer that Nirvana ever had, as well as the one who was with them during the salad days, and obviously, the most famous drummer for Nirvana, and perhaps the most famous surviving former member of the band, period. He has also been criticized for siding too closely with Courtney Love. I cannot, or at least will not, speak to that at present. What I will say is that you are not likely to find a more thorough, or vivid, account of Kurt Cobain's life, or a history of Nirvana, that is as thorough and detailed as this.

There were a lot of contradictions in regards to Kurt Cobain, and Cross does a very good job in highlighting some of these. Cobain seemed to embody paradox, at times. For example, he seemed to suggest that he despised popularity, yet he complained when his videos were not played on MTV as much as he wanted them to be played. Also, he had a great deal of empathy and a great conscience. Yet, at times, his actions defied logic, as with his first sexual experience (which seemed abusive at best, and could almost have been defined as borderline rape), or his leaving a beautiful young daughter with a lifetime to cope with her own father's suicide, at an age when she was yet too young to understand what happened.

One thing I was surprised by was the lack of mention to Kurt Cobain's animosity towards fellow Seattle band Pearl Jam, although Cross does detail the feud that existed between Nirvana and Guns N' Roses. But Cobain's constant mention of Pearl Jam at the time that they were rising I think illustrates some of the contradictions in Cobain's character.

But Cross does get a lot right in this book. A hell of a lot, actually! There are some descriptions of the shows that are spot on, and you can almost feel the success (or the lack thereof, depending on the situation) involved. What makes it even more fascinating is the background story leading up to, and immediately after, shows.  For example, you gain a far better understanding of the legendary MTV Unplugged, and the circumstances surrounding it. If you're like me, you'll never watch or listen to that show, or Nirvana in general, the same way again!

All in all, an excellent read! Informative and everything you could want out of a book like this, and I highly recommend it!