Great TV....

I'm sure many of you have heard that old adage that, "TV is a vast wasteland." At times I'm inclined to agree; especially when it comes to a lot (make that, most) of the "so-called" reality shows. However, in the past two seasons I've found a couple shows that I feel are real gems. Both are dramas; both are "cop" shows, and both deal with "Life." :)

The 1st of these is the NBC show "Life" starring Damian Lewis. The show debuted last season, and the premise is that Lewis portrays an LA police officer who is wrongly accused & convicted of the grissly murder of his best friends. After 12 years of hard time, his conviction is overturned, he's freed, he wins a multi-million dollar wrongful imprisonment lawsuit, and he asks for his old job back (which he gets). The reason for getting his job back is so that he can find the real killers & bring them to justice. Of course, part of the subplot is that while in prison he was brutally beaten (due to his cop status) by other inmates. He did his share of retaliations (or at least we are led to believe he did), made some good allies, and found inner peace through Zen.

Now that he's out, he find wonder in the advances in technology since he's been away. He also loves fresh fruit so much that he's seen eating some at least twice each episode (is was constant in the first season). He also has a "conspiracy wall/room" in his extremely sparsely furnished mansion, in which he has photos of those he beleives were "in on" his frame-up & the murder itself.

Initially, I wasn't sure I'd like the show. I'd seen Lewis in a couple of films, and he always played the heavy (bad guy). From that, I wasn't sure if I could believe him as a good guy. However, his acting is so good that I'm totally sucked in during each episode. Often I find myself disapointed when the episode ends.

The other show is ABC's "Life On Mars." It's also a cop drama, and it's on the same night as "Life," therefore you'll probably need to set your TiVo for them both (that's what I do). This show debuted this season, and it's premise is that NY police detective Sam Tyler is struck by a car while pursueing a serial killer on foot. He then wakes up in a vacant lot to find himself in the year 1973 (instead of the present). He goes to his precinct, the 125, and finds that he's supposed to be the new transferee to the unit.

Now I don't remember the name of the show's star (who portray's Tyler), but other cast members are the beautiful Gretchen Mol (from "Rounders" & other films), and heavy-weight actor, Harvey Keitel. Actually, I initially watched the show just because of Keitel's involvement.

A lot of the show is Tyler dealing with being in '73 (when he was actually only 4 years old). He runs into his Mother, and the Father that abandoned the family in that year. He also meets a cops who will later become his mentor on the force. Other situations with which he must deal is the rampant chauvanism still present in the department, the kick-backs that are part of "business as usual," and the lack of modern technology & detective skills that he's used to using.

This show is also well written, and I find myself hating to see its episode end as with "Life."

There are other shows I feel are "can't miss" television, but I think this is enough for now. Be sure to check them out; I think you'll enjoy them as I do. :)

A Myth is Dispelled.....

I totally cop to being an old fart. I'm just three years shy of 50 (as of last month anyway). So when I started listening to music seriously, when I was around 11 or 12, there were a few formats you could get, vinyl LPs, vinyl 45s, 8-track tapes, cassette tapes, & reel-to-reel tapes. Actually, when you examine those options, there were really only two choices, vinyl & tape. I was in my early 20s when CDs were introduced. Since that time there's been a debate about which media has the better sound quality. A lot older folks, around my age, will say vinyl while others tout the clarity of CDs & mp3s. However, I'll tell you a secret; they're both wrong. Furthermore, the adage that vinyl promotes better sound quality is a total myth. Before I explain my previous statement I need to make sure everyone has the same knowledge about sound & audio technology. This will only need a pretty simple explanation, so bear with me.

First you need to know about two things analog & digital. Think of digital as a light switch in your home. You flip the switch one way & the lights are fully on; you flip the switch the other way & the lights are fully off. That's digital; a switch that's either on or off, no in-between. Digital is usually represented by either a 1&0 or by a line or square/rectangle.

Now, think of analog as replacing that light switch with a dimmer switch. This time as you turn or slide the switch the light goes from being totally off to very dim, then brighter & brighter until the light is fully on. When you move the dimmer the other way, the reverse happens until the light is fully off. That's analog; a state that's continually changing between two base values (on & off). Analog is usually represented by a curved symbol that resembles an 'S' laying on its side.

Any sound that you hear (birds, traffic, TV, etc) reaches your ears as an analog signal. Sound is analog. CDs, MP3s, & DVDs are all recorded in a digital format. Digital is great for these because it takes up much less space. The problem comes (in my opinion) when you want to make sound (analog) a digital signal. In that conversion from analog to digital & then back to analog (so you can hear it) parts of the original sound are lost forever. I'll show you what I mean.

In the picture I've provided, the green line is a sound you can hear as an analog signal. The sound is changed to an MP3 by digitally sampling the analog signal at various points. This is represented by the green & blue rectangles. Note the bits of pale yellow showing between the green wave & the green/blue samples; those are bits of the wave that are not picked up by the conversion to digital. Now granted the signal is actually sampled at a very high rate, so the missing bits are very, very small, but there are still bits missing. Part of the original sound was never picked up. Some will say that the signal has been cleaned up; I don't agree.

There is still more to be done. You want to play the sound back later. Your ears only hear in analog, so the digital signal has to be converted back to analog. This conversion back to analog is represented by the red line in the drawing. So now the signal has been stripped once in a conversion, and even more has been lost in the conversion back to analog.

Back to the myth of vinyl. When people say vinyl LPs have better sound quality, it's true... but only for LPs that were recorded in an analog format. That hasn't happened since around 1990. Therefore, if you have a vinyl LP by, say, Coldplay, it has the same quality as a CD or MP3 of the same album. So it's not the vinyl that has the better sound quality, it's the analog recording itself. Of all the formats I mentioned before (LP, 45, 8-track, reel-to-reel, cassette) vinyl is the best because tape tends to have a hiss that can never be taken out.

To sum-up, vinyl LPs are not better than CDs or MP3s, etc. It's the analog signal that's better than the digital signal. This is not only my belief. I was saying this as far back as 1986, but no one would listen to me. Then around '89 I read an interview with Neil Young in "Spin" magazine. He said that he started recording all of his stuff in digital instead of analog. He said that he did this because he couldn't stand to hear the difference in the recording anymore, so he just went to digital right off. That way he always heard it in digital, and thus, didn't hear any differences. I was vindicated then.

Oh, there is one great thing about vinyl LPs that CDs & MP3s will never have; liner notes. I know that there are liner notes on CDs. However, you have to have a magnifying glass just to read them. On the LP you can just read them. This is more of a factor for me as my eyes get older.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I must say that I love my CDs & MP3s. It's very hard to carry a vinyl LP or 45 in your jacket pocket. :) By the same token, I still have a working turntable & about 200 vinyl LPs. I'm currently working on putting all my vinyl onto my computers hard-drive.

Old Habits Die Hard (if at all)...

I was once a smoker. I started smoking in high school. However, I didn't really smoke that much then, just a butt here & there, mainly with friends. When it developed into a habit was when I went into Basic Training with the Air Force. That was 1980.

Back then, there was no ban on tobacco in the military as there is now. I started smoking in earnest because smokers were given smoke breaks. Those who didn't smoke had to stay in the barracks & clean, shine shoes, make beds, etc. I wanted an extra break, so I took up smoking. By the time those 6 weeks were done, I had a regular habit. I was smoking about a pack a day.

So it continued throughout the rest of my stint in the military and beyond. I pretty much leveled out at 2 packs a day, which at the time was about $4 a day. After about ten years of it, I started thinking about how much I was spending on smokes each week. It was close to $15, and at the time that seemed to be a lot. I was thinking that I wanted to quit.

Then, one day my Dad needed me to take him for his annual MRI at the time. The night before, I smoked the last cigarette in the pack. I hadn't decided to quit yet. I remember thinking that after I picked Dad up the next morning, I needed to stop & get a pack of smokes. But Dad was running late the next day & I had to drive like crazy so he could make his appointment. The cigarettes would have to wait.

After I got him to the MRI place, I asked the receptionist where the nearest convenience store was. It wasn't within walking distance, and I didn't have time to drive there before Dad was finished. So, I was going to have wait until we were headed back home to get my cigarettes. But, Dad wanted to go straight home, and we started talking so I completely forgot to stop.

To make a long story short(er), I went the entire day without a cigarette. The odd part was that I didn't realize it until about 7pm that night. When I did remember, I thought, "Well, let's see how long before I really crave one. When I get a real craving, I'll buy a pack." I never got a cigarette craving. Somehow, I had quit smoking without even trying. That was back in July of 1990.

Why am I telling this boring-assed story? Because about 2 months ago, I started having cravings for cigarettes. I don't know what's causing this. The strangest part came last Saturday. I was in a convenience store buying a soda; when I went up to the counter to pay, I came within an inch of asking for a pack of Camel filters (my former brand). It almost popped out when I put the soda on the counter. It was really weird. Even now the thought of having a smoke is actually kind of nice. But, I don't think I'll be having one any time soon. I'm just wondering why these cravings are coming back now? I'll be damned if I know....

What's fer Supper....

For a lot of folks (if not all), what they'll be having for dinner, supper, the evening meal, etc. For me, it's not really so important. That's probably because I'm single & only have to satisfy myself.

Most of the time, my dinner consists of a bowl of cereal & milk. Some of you are going, "ewww cereal for supper?!?! What's wrong with you?" There's nothing wrong; I just prefer it. It's quick, easy to prepare, and keeps me from eating too much most of the time. It's also a good source of fiber (since I like those types of cereal), so that's a plus as well.

Now I can cook, and I do enjoy cooking. However, I learned to cook for my family, and there were six of us. Therefore, I can't cook a meal just for one. I don't know if it's a mental block or a lack of planning.

Sometimes, on Sunday, I go ahead & cook a meal. I then portion it out into six servings and freeze them to eat later. I'll take one or two to work for lunch, or I'll have a serving for supper when I get in. Just nuke it for a bit, and I'm ready to go.

Right now, I'm eating a bowl of Kashi's shredded wheat with organic milk. It's very good. The Kashi cereals have just enough sweetness without being overpowering. I may have another bowl.

Bob Appetit.... :)

What weather we're having....

I'll tell ya, we've been having more than our share of extreme weather the past few weeks. Here in Seattle, starting around Dec 15, we've had two weeks of snow, then a warm up & nothing but rain and very gusty winds.

When I moved here, everyone told me the weather is fairly stable here. It's nicely warm in the summer & chilly and rainy throughout the winter. That's been true mostly, but the recent weather has put that on its ear. The snow was about a foot deep in most places (deeper in some places), and it kept everyone inside for the most part. I worked from home for a week solid. The buses were running about half as often, which meant about an hour/hour-and-a-half wait most of the time. Then when a bus came by, so many folks were waiting, and the bus was so packed, that not everyone got on.

Now it's been raining since Sunday, and not the normal rain. It's been raining hard & very windy. Yesterday there were 60mph gusts all around the area. Today's been pretty windy too. It makes waiting for the bus much more of an ordeal.

The local news is talking about how how towns like Kelso & Chehalis are really getting flooded. Hell, I can even hear it raining from inside my apartment, and that's not normal.

However, I know that this is just a fluke. Our weather will be back to normal soon. The weatherman just said we should have sun by this weekend. That will be GREAT!

One thing that living in Seattle has done for me. It's given me a better appreciation of the sunny days when we have them.

I hope the weather is good where you live. :)

Christms, Xmas, Saturnalia, Winter Solstice, & other Holiday Issues...

First off, I want to say that I don't want to make it a habit of mine to post political or religious material on a regular basis. I want those posting to only be a rare occurrence. This is because there are so many other blogs dealing with those issues, and I doubt that I have any more insight than others out there. That being said, here is my take on this holiday season & the controversies that seem to come up more frequently each year.

I totally enjoy Christmas. That may surprise many who know that I'm very agnostic in my religious views. In many ways, I'm probably an atheist; however, considering that I don't know everything, I think it's safer (and more accurate) to say that I don't think there is a God (or higher power) rather than say, "There is no God."

I enjoy the Holiday or Christmas season because it's meant to be an inclusive time for everyone. Even from it's pagan beginnings in the Scandinavian/German areas, it was meant to be a time to gather with friend & family. A time to look forward to better, warmer times that were on the horizon. In the Norse traditions, strangers would be given refuge from the bitter cold at this time. This kind of tradition was eventually adopted by Christians when they came later.

However, there is one part of the Holidays that I've come to loathe within the last 15 years or so. That is all the harping, groaning, & bitching about "The salesclerk said, 'Happy Holidays' to me instead of 'Merry Christmas.'; 'The liberals are waging war on Christmas!'; 'Remember that Jesus is the reason for the season.'" I just don't get why this is suddenly an issue as of 1990 when I didn't remember it being a big deal in the years before that.

Back when I lived in Alabama, I could always count on several Letters to the Editor of newspapers, from people who are 'insulted' that someone dared say, "Happy Holidays" to them instead of "Merry Christmas." They act like this is a new thing. They act like this is some liberal atheistic plot to diminish or banish Christmas. It's none of that. Just watch the old Warner Bros. cartoons from the '40s. Happy Holidays, Xmas, & Merry Christmas are used fairly equally throughout them. It's been that way since before I was born.

As to sales clerks using Happy Holidays, I'm all for that. I was a sales clerk at one time. I also remember that I started using Happy Holidays exclusively after wishing a customer Merry Christmas. The customer was a bit put-off, and she informed me that she was, "Jehovah's Witness and [did] not celebrate or believe in Christmas" (her words to me). I then realized that this time was also Hanukkah, so Happy Holidays would be more appropriate & more inclusive of everyone.

When it comes to "Jesus is the reason for the season," nothing can be further from the truth. The time of year was used, as I mentioned before, by the Scandinavians for their Winter Solstice celebrations. This was done thousands of years before Jesus was born. Also, the Romans celebrated a festival around the same time called Saturnalia to celebrate the Roman god Saturn. Again, the Roman festival was a regular event long before Jesus was born. However, there's another reason why that adage isn't correct. That's because, if you go by the Biblical account, Jesus was born in a time of warmer temperatures. This is born out by passage stating shepherds were with their flocks at night, outside. This is a practice done during the 'lambing' season in which lambs are born. The shepherds used to (and still do in some cases today) to protect the new lambs from predators at night. Lambs are normally born in the spring, which is a much better climate to sleep outside at night than in December.

The December 25th celebration date for Jesus' birth was taken by early Christians from these pagan holidays. That's because the pagans were not about to give up their celebrations that had been going on for centuries. The Christians wanted their holiday celebrated too, so a white lie was done in order to put the birthday celebration in the forefront to those they wanted to convert.

Okay, now that I've raked the Christians over the coals, it's time for equal treatment. Another thing I dislike seeing at this time of year is the humbugging of the holiday by non-Christians. I'm a non-Christian myself, and I think this is a time of year to come together, not tear apart.

Here in Washington, a group of atheists posted a placard in the statehouse next to the state Christmas tree, Menorah, and other symbols of the season. I don't have a problem with this. I think everyone should be represented at this time as I've already stated. What I didn't agree with was the language that was used on the atheist plaque. It brutally said something like, "There is no God, angels, Jesus, or such. Religion is a myth. Celebrate the holiday with reason." I can get behind the last part; it's always best, in my opinion, to use reason in all things. I do take exception to how they worded the rest of their plaque. I think they could've stated their beliefs without ripping apart or insulting the beliefs of others. If nothing else, it's just not polite, and it's certainly not a reasoned approach. Had they used more reason, maybe they would've gotten the message across without so much acrimony.

By the way, Xmas is not an atheistic attempt to get Christ out of Christmas. It's a legitimate short-hand for Christmas. The early Christians were Jewish & Greeks. In the Greek alphabet the C equivalent is X, and the Greek Christians used X as a short-hand for themselves. So they would refer to themselves as Xians. It's not a giant leap to then get Xmas using this rational.

The bottom line is that this time of year is one of forgiveness & inclusion. We shouldn't worry about what others are doing, and just try to make the world a better place.

I hope you all have a Great Holiday or Non-Holiday whichever you prefer. :)

Auto Bail-out...

Though I do have strong political beliefs, I want to keep my political posts to a very minimum. This is because 1) there are already TONS of political blogs everywhere, 2) I'm not really out to influence anyone else. However, there may be things happening that I think I have a decent idea/solution for. This is one of those cases.

We all know that here in the USA, the big three auto makers (GM, Ford, Chrysler) are petitioning our government for a bail-out. They say if they don't receive one, they'll go out of business. It's probably true.

Another thing that is true is this. If one, two, or all of the "big three" go under, potentially millions will lose their jobs. It's also true that having no job means, in the short term, that those folks will be on unemployment. And that may/will put another strain on our already faltering economy.

I say, the big three got themselves into this mess, let them dig their own way out. I also feel that way about the bail-out of the banking/lending/mortgage industry. They caused their own failure. It was due to simple greed, and I think it should be allowed to rectify itself.

Now you might be asking, "but what about those folks who'll lose their jobs? Why should they suffer for someone else's mistake?" The thing is, they already are/will suffering for someone else's mistake. We all are. If the government bails-out the big three, the banks/investors, & whoever else, where exactly do you think that money comes from? Taxes that we all pay. By that, I mean those of us who make less than $250,000/year. We are the ones who actually pay taxes. Most people & business making more than that figure always weasel out of paying the bulk of their fair share. Even when their taxes are raised, they find loopholes that let them pay less than most of us.

So let the auto makers fail. Let the investors fail. Let the capitalistic "free market" system sort itself out. It will, and only the businesses that have a sound business plan & foresight will prevail. Maybe it will impart a lesson to those who's greed distracted them from making sound business choices.

As to those folks who would be laid-off, I have a solution for that too. Like I said before, those folks will be getting unemployment, so they'll effectively be paid by the government for not working anyway. The financial strain would already be there if there's a bail-out, or if there's no bail-out. The solution to those unemployed can be found in the past. They can be put to work for the government. There are plenty of infrastructure projects that need the manpower to be completed. There have also been plenty of cut-backs in government offices, so there are positions there too. Simply put those folks to work.

It may not be as simple as it sounds, but I think it can work. It did before, back in the '30s. I think that would go further in making people feel better if they had something to do.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.