Oh well, another November has come and is more than half gone. This Monday (tomorrow) is my 5th anniversary at work. Whoppee. Can’t say that I exactly love my job. I’m not even sure that I know exactly how to do it. Somehow I’ve gotten enough done and avoided most trouble over the past 5 years. But the rules can change overnight in the crazy world of urban law enforcement. For now, it pays the bills. It’s all somewhat like a song by Steely Dan – a bit dark and cynical, but with a good beat to it. In fact, a line from a Dan song sums the whole situation up quite nicely: “I don’t really care if it’s wrong or if it’s right, but until my ship comes in, I’ll live night by night”. (I work a regular day job, but there ain’t many windows in the whole place, none near my desk; so it might just as well be night while I’m there.)

I still listen to a rock radio station most days, but I can’t say that it’s like radio was when I was a kid. Back then, there was almost always a song that you had to hear, that you could hardly wait until they played it again. But now, hardly any new tunes get my attention. I did experience an exception to that last week, when WDHA started playing “How Long” by Hinder; it’s a new song and a new group. It has a driving sound and angst-filled vocals, with dark choral harmonies in the background. But I had no idea what the song was about. So I looked up the lyrics on a web site, and here’s what it’s about: boy loses girlfriend to a guy he knows. Boy gets very upset about it. Ex-girlfriend tells ex-boyfriend that she still wants to be friends. Ex-boyfriend gives ex-girlfriend the finger. End of story.

Well now . . . . . there’s a new idea for a song. I guess that the standards are lower these days. But to be honest, a whole lot of guys can probably relate to it. It never quite happened to me, but millions of girls have told ex-boyfriends who they dumped that they want to be friends. And most ex-boyfriends play by the rules and say “sure, we can still be friends”. But deep down inside, the animal in you wants to make a disrespectful gesture. So Hinder is probably going to sell a lot of records with this one (oh, yea, wait . . . . . they don’t sell records anymore; it’s CDs and downloads).

On the more civilized topic of scientific research, I read this week that new astrological observations tend to confirm the notion that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. These observations also indicate that the mechanism through which this is occurring is a mysterious force that somehow increases as the universe expands. The more space there is, the more repulsion there is between anything within that space. Eventually that repulsion overcomes the attracting force of gravity, and things start flying apart. If this theory is correct, then eventually the universe will expand itself into nothing but a fine thin dust. Everything that happens now – the shining of stars, the formation of planets, the emergence of life, the recording of songs about ex-girlfriends – is all just a temporary effect on the way to the big rip. It’s up to us, and to maybe a handful of other planets where sentient life has emerged, to give the Universe any meaning it might ever have. Let’s hope that the other planets are off to a better start on that than we are!

END GAME IRAQ: I read the news today about President Bush visiting Vietnam. After arriving, he replied to a reporter’s question about the lessons of the Vietnam War for today’s War in Iraq, and concluded that the lesson from Vietnam is to stick it out. What? Where the heck was he at the time? Buzzing the Texas pinelands in an outdated fighter jet, actually. There wasn’t much chance that a boy from the Bush family would be sent into the treacherous jungles of Vietnam. So I guess he never had to think too much about ‘the Nam’ and what it all meant. (And it shows.)

So now Mr. Bush is sacrificing young American lives once more, unintentionally teaching us about the limits of our power. Bottom line, there ain’t much we can do to stop a civil war. This past week, NPR radio interviewed a series of experts with different opinions as to what to do about Iraq. One guy made a very incisive comment: history shows that civil wars only stop after a whole lot of blood has been spilled. It certainly took a lot of blood to settle the American Civil War, more than any other conflict that American has been involved in.

As with the American Civil War, the conflict in Iraq involves one group that wants a unified nation (the Sunnis) and one group that ultimately does not (the Shiites). Without a unified Iraq, the Sunnis aren’t going to get any oil revenues, and are going to live a dirt poor existence. But the Shiites remember only too well the previous unified Iraqi government, and its tyrannical rule by a Sunni faction. For now, the Shiites dominate the national government structure that the USA helped to set up. But they don’t seem to be acting as though they believe in it – they just want to make sure that the Sunni Baathists don’t make a comeback.

From a practical perspective, I don’t think that the USA can completely withdraw from Iraq. We probably need to keep our special forces in Anbar and anywhere else where anti-western terrorist groups are active. But as to the dream of establishing a unified Iraq, I don’t think that even 500,000 American troops on the ground could do that. Once we get out of Iraq, there will probably be an even worse bloodbath than today; and the ultimate victor may be those trouble-making Iranians. But will there be any less net bloodletting if US troops remain in Iraq? The evidence on that is unclear, either way. Perhaps the best we can do is to take the consolation prize, i.e. a reasonably free and democratic Kurdistan. We can help set up a model nation state within the Islamic heartland after all, but only about 1/3 the size we had in mind. Nevertheless, the Kurdish north is where we can get something done.

Back to the Vietnam War days: we knew darn well that pulling out of Vietnam would mean a lot of bad stuff for our former friends over there. But it just wasn’t worth continuing a war against an enemy that we didn’t know how to beat (and still wouldn’t). Today, in Iraq, we have another situation that we don’t know how to beat. Time doesn’t seem to be on our side. There’s no good evidence of progress. Once we leave Iraq, there may be a horrendous escalation of violence. Or there may not be. Circumstances have proven that we did not understand the situation there when we got in, and we probably still don’t really understand it. It seems clear that there are better places and causes for us to use our military and our many other strengths.

But OK, I do write this with somewhat of a bias. Had Mr. Bush’s brand of thinking held sway in 1972 and 73, I might well have been drafted and could have been sent to Vietnam. I only missed it by about a year. So yes, I am biased against Mr. Bush’s rationale (but the latest election results would indicate that I’m not alone these days). Still, would Vietnam and America have been better places today if people like me continued to die in the jungles and mountains of Southeast Asia? And will Iraq and America be better in 10 years if our men and women over there continue to sacrifice themselves? When the answer is not too clear, then it’s probably not worth the price.

Two quick notes from the news. First off, the theory of greenhouse gasses and global warming is definitely getting traction these days. Everyone is taking it seriously. The electrical power industry now accepts the fact that it will soon be required to take steps to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, especially from coal-fired power plants. And it’s taking steps right now to get ahead of this, by building coal power plants as fast as possible with the hope that any new laws regulating carbon dioxide emissions will “grandfather” existing coal plants. So they want to build a batch of coal plants now, and then stop building them for 20 or 30 years after the greenhouse gas laws are finally enacted. Some huge coal plants are now under construction in Texas with this in mind; they will probably contribute massively to global warming for the next 30 to 40 years. Here’s the article.

Well, looks like the Democrats are finally back in the saddle in Washington. Do you think they will have the guts to pass some legislation putting a halt to these shenanigans, when the future of civilization as we know it is at stake? All I would say is, don’t hold your breath. By the time the Dems finally get around to doing anything progressive and foresighted, you would have died by choking on – guess what – carbon dioxide.

The second bit of news is that scientists now think that in the early days of humankind, around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, some homo sapiens still mated with Neanderthals. And thus, we still have some Neanderthal influence floating around in our gene pool. Well, that doesn’t surprise me one bit. There are plenty of guys out there who still look and act like Neanderthals.

And what about those women from back in the early days of modern man who decided to cross the line and date those crude guys with the flat heads? Ah, not much different from today. There are still plenty of women who complain about guys acting like animals and yet fall for the crudest ones of the bunch. They think that the Neanderthal’s strength will make him a good provider and protector for their children. They think they can civilize the beast. Yea, right. Guys definitely need to take responsibility for their poor behavior, but women are the ones who keep that kind of behavior in the gene pool. That’s a thought to keep in mind next time you hear a bunch of women taking a break at work, talking (and complaining) about men.

Oh, here’s the article cite.

AN AUTUMN SATURDAY AFTERNOON in the suburbs isn’t complete unless you can hear the sound of a marching band playing at a high school football game in the distance. It can be a classic fall day, bright, sunny, just a few puffy clouds in the blue sky, crisp temperatures, yellow and red leaves tumbling to the ground. But unless you come within a half mile or so of a local stadium during halftime, it isn’t 100% autumn. Not in my book, anyway. I grew up about a half-mile away from a football field (actually in the next town over, but so what), and I always remember the sounds of brass and percussion coming up from the south, fading in and out as the breezes shifted. There’s something unique about the distinctive, off-tune notes from those gridiron trumpets, as their sound waves bounce along the streets and off the buildings and get out of phase with themselves. Not being much of a sportsman and not having any kids, I hardly ever go to a high school football game. But those blustery, discordant tones from the marching band still make me smile.

Unfortunately, my present residence is not within earshot of any football fields. I’ll have to take a walk down by the “Montclair Mounties” field one Saturday before the season is up (guess I need to do that soon!), to hear just a bit of that brassy tribute to budding youth during a melancholy season. It won’t be autumn without it!

A WARNING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING FROM THE BRITS: I recently discussed the global warming situation on this blog. And with excellent timing, the British Government just released a comprehensive report on what the economic consequences of global warming will likely be, and what should be done to avoid the worst. Senior government economist Sir Nicholas Stern presented the report, which happens to agree with my contention that we need to take big-time action RIGHT NOW or face some really bad consequences in another 50 years. The report strongly concludes that waiting it out (as President Bush is doing), or doing just a little until we’re 1000% sure just how bad the situation will get, is very dumb. Anyway, I commend this report to your attention, if you haven’t already read it or heard about it.

PROGRAMMER BLUES: About 6 years ago, I decided that I’d had enough of trying to save the world. I didn’t get any further with that than becoming a lowly grant writer for a non-profit agency that had seen better days. So I figured it was time to go back to my mathematical and engineering heritage, by becoming a computer programmer. I’d still be lowly, but at least I’d be doing something that I was good at. And maybe I’d get to do an honest day’s work; productivity at the non-profit was pretty much a joke. And maybe I’d also get an honest day’s pay. The pay at the non-profit was so-so (a bit better if you were part of the director’s cult, which I had gotten tired of), but the benefits were pretty bad. So I applied to Chubb’s “Top Gun” program, which was supposedly there to teach you how to program in the modern languages, and then get you a year’s internship with a big company. In return, you agreed to work for peanuts during that internship. If you did a good job, you’d become permanent and make a pretty good buck. Most people from the program supposedly did all right.

Well, my class finished just in time for the IT (info tech) crash of 2000. I don’t think that half of the class ever got a placement. Only the younger guys made it, what a surprise. Being an older guy, I had to go crawling back to the world of grant writing and management. This time it would be at a government agency, where the pay wasn’t much better, but at least the benefits were decent. (Unfortunately, the “human atmosphere” isn’t as nice; I do miss the people back at the non-profit).

But who knows, maybe it was all for the best. Back in the 60’s, 70’s and even most of the 80’s, programming was a pretty cushy job. The pay was decent, the job security was good, the work was fairly interesting, and you didn’t break your behind. By the turn of the century, this had all changed. Today, a programmer obviously faces the constant threat of having his or her job outsourced to India. Job security is nil. In fact, regular jobs with health and pension benefits are becoming scarce; more and more programmers need to get by on a short-term contract basis. This might be interesting for you young dudes in your 20s, but for a foggie like me, it just doesn’t work.

So I wasn’t too surprised the other day when I saw an article about “code jams”, another lovely way that modern business minds exploit the geeks. It’s a growing trend in the computer world today. High Tech company XYZ decides to look for programmers by having a “fun event”. You get to compete for the opportunity to get paid for your programming skills. You get an hour or so to solve a hard coding problem. Maybe 100 people get to compete. Maybe 5 get to stay for pay. As to the rest, well, thanks for whatever you got done during the hour or two you were here. We can probably still use it.

Yea, the programming world has become a Hobbsian nightmare. Perhaps the beauty and fun and comradeship of programming still exists, but the business world has certainly ravaged whatever economic dignity it once had. Some people will still make money doing it, but they’d better save up, because there is no security, no reasonable guarantee of income next year. For anyone who isn’t interested in living jam to jam, perhaps the best thing is to do what I did (quite inadvertently). I learned how to program, but I also learned how to do other stuff that arguably has some use (and can’t easily be done by someone in Shanghai). I still get to use my programming skills once in a while, whenever I see a need at my job for a customized computer application (I’ve put together a lot of Access databases for myself and various other people at work).

But, programming is like the icing, not the cake; it’s like the sauce, not the pasta. It’s tasty, but you couldn’t live on it. But it could make you a more valuable employee than if you just did the basic, boring stuff that you were hired for. Yea, the business world still needs men (and women) for all seasons. And programming could be one of those seasons. But the season in which you could make a nice living doing nothing but programming – that season has become a cold and cruel winter, unfortunately.

FEAR of DARKNESS?: It seems pretty apparent to me that a dark skinned person (of any race, but especially applicable to those of African descent) doesn’t have the same chance to make it in America as a lighter skinned person. Not to say that there aren’t exceptions, but I honestly think that a general trend exists, despite the ideal of color-blindness which our system espouses – on its better days.

I don’t know of any scientific studies that prove this. I suppose there aren’t any, because it would be politically incorrect as hell. So here’s my two-bit attempt at an unscientific analysis. I gathered some digital photos of African American men and women arrested over the past two years for violent crime, and isolated a block of space on one side of the person’s temple, where the lighting was even (between the glare of the flash and the shadows). I managed to find thirteen such color samples; I didn’t pick and choose, just used whatever I found. Then I found relatively well-lit pictures of five nationally acclaimed political leaders of African American heritage. Same thing, I isolated an evenly-lit block from the face, usually the temple. Then I put these blocks side by side. It’s fairly clear to see that on average, the criminals have darker skin tones.

Again, I don’t claim that this “analysis” has any scientific validity. It’s extremely quick and dirty. My criminal picture selection process attempted to be random, but it could still be “system-biased”. And my “national leaders” selection is not random at all. It’s a very small cohort; if you expanded it to 30 or 50 top black political leaders, you would get a broader range of skin tones. That range of tones would expand even more if you included other successful blacks in academia and industry. But you do have to admit, the people I did select are the most well known black leaders nationwide, at the moment.

If my “analysis” were to hold up under a more rigorous methodology, it would still be a comparison of the extremes. But if the extreme social failures (violent criminals) are, on average, darker skinned, and the extreme social successes (national political leaders) are significantly lighter skinned, it would indicate that the playing field is not level, that it does tip against darker skin. I think it would be good for some gutsy academian who isn’t grinding any axes but is merely in it for the truth (hope there are such people!) to do a real study like this, and then investigate the mechanisms by which darker skin tones are disfavored. Oh, and do it on a cross-cultural basis, including dark-skinned Asians and Mediterranean peoples. America needs to learn that it shouldn’t fear the dark; such fear becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I read the news story about the Islamic Sheik in Australia who caused a stir because of a line he used during a sermon defending the practice of women wearing head covering. Here’s the quote: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside … without cover, and the cats come to eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s?” The Sheik (Taj Aldin al Hilali) took a lot of flack for that from various luminaries, including the Australian Prime Minister. And to be fair, a number of other Muslim leaders condemned this statement, and the Sheik later conceded that women in Australian society have the right to dress as they choose.

Most of the criticism focuses on the Sheik’s “whose fault is it” line, which seems to say that if a woman is raped, it’s her own fault for flaunting her charms. I myself am amused at the good Sheik’s high estimation of a woman’s sexual power, and his low estimation of a man’s self control. He seems to see us all as totally overwhelmed by sexuality, totally out of control before it. The only way we can be Godly is by brutally repressing this sexuality; and since women are the source of sexual energy, they must bear the brunt of this repression.

I’ll be the first to admit that humanity is not totally above its animal heritage. Unfortunately, there are too many places and circumstances where people become the equivalent of dumb animals (and even worse, as they still have a conniving brain). I can think of one situation where the Sheik’s advice makes sense; my employer runs an annual summer program to familiarize high school youth with the world of criminal justice. One part of this program involves a tour of a jail. And every year, without fail, one of the young female participants shows up for this tour with a sexy, revealing outfit on. Obviously, they are sent home; we aren’t about to start a prison riot.

But for the most part, we here in the western world would like to think that the laws and notions of civilized society hold, in most instances. Sexuality is all over the place here, because it greases the skids of capitalism. But to be honest, I find that all the T&A; on TV and the movies and on the Internet has an “inoculation” effect. It honestly becomes boring after awhile. We still have way too much rape, unfortunately (1 rape is too much). But although I’m not an expert on sexual assault, it seems to me that rape is generally not a matter of being overwhelmed by sexual desire; it’s usually a pathological exercise in domination, control, and humiliation. The sex is almost incidental.

Personally, I’m not totally opposed to women wearing head coverings and long baggy robes that hide everything – if they so choose. I know a woman at work who faithfully dresses this way, as a sign of dedication to her heritage and to her spirituality. She’s a crime victim counselor. You can’t help but sense her sincerity and her holiness (and yet her smile and her sense of humor still shine thru). And there’s something to the argument that American society puts too much emphasis on judging women by their appearance, whereby the old Islamic tradition of making all women look alike perhaps levels the playing field and gives all women a better chance to manifest their inner qualities. Unfortunately, however, “old school Islam” also keeps women from developing those inner qualities, e.g. by denying schooling and career opportunities to them.

But Sheik Hilali’s words reflect an unhealthy mindset regarding women, sexuality, and humankind in general. I admire Islam in its insistence upon a fervent reliance and trust in God’s will. But when that fervor describes men and women as something even lower than sinners, as mere animals out of control and in need of harsh and strict husbandry, then I think there’s a big problem. You want to ask some of those old-school imams and ayatollahs, “does Allah make junk?”

P.S., Christianity hasn’t had such a great track record with regard to sexuality and women either. But I doubt if Islam could accommodate the story regarding a 7th Century monk named Vitali. According to legend, Vitali compiled a list of all “women of ill repute” within Alexandria, Egypt. During the day he worked for cash, and at night he visited the brothels – but not for the obvious. Vitali supposedly gave his hard-earned money to the lady de la nuit and shut himself in her room. . (Guess he paid enough to hire her for the evening). Vitali then begged the hooker to lie down and sleep, while he spent the entire night in the other corner in prayer to God for her sins. He did this long enough to “hit” every prostitute in town, more than once. Because of his faith, many of these women left the trade; some married, others went to a monastery and others got day work.

Well, who knows if that could be true or not (or mostly true, but perhaps Vitali slipped once or twice??). All I’m saying is that Christianity often assumes that people can and should get their sexuality under control and sublimate it to godly causes. Feminine sexuality is not seen as an inherently corrupting force. Although, it wasn’t all that long ago that the Roman faith required women to wear head cover in its churches; and women still can’t become priests. So, both Christianity and Islam have yet a long way to go.

SIDEWALK SENTIMENT: They were fixing a walkway on a house up the street, and the work crew decided to cast its baseball playoff sentiments into stone (they’re eventually gonna cover it with pavers). Unfortunately, they were rooting for the New York Mets. And so was I. Oh well, maybe next year.

Global warming: what to do. The global warming crisis is a real toughie. The government can’t just put out laws and regulations to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike other pollutants, we don’t really know how to effectively cut back on them, other than to lower our living standards. Greenhouse gasses are a necessary by-product of any fossil fuel combustion; a whole lot of it is created whenever there is fire. I hear much talk about “carbon sequestering technology”, but such technology is in its infancy. We’re still very unsure just how effective such technology will be in removing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the exhaust created by power plants, furnaces and engines (yes, including automobile engines). And then, just where do we put the stuff so that it doesn’t leak back out into the air? The nuclear power industry never did solve the problem of radioactive waste disposal. So why do we think that greenhouse gasses are going to be any easier?

Another tough thing about global warming is that we’re still not sure whether it’s going to become the huge environmental crisis that now certainly seems possible. The whole thing is still very probabilistic. So if we go into crisis mode and spend what may be needed to deal with a situation that threatens billions of people, we could really mess up the economy; taxes and prices would shoot way up, and increased government control might be needed to avoid severe depressions. A whole lot of people would become poorer in the short and medium terms, and some personal freedoms would be given up (although in the long run the world might experience an economic boom from the spin-offs from all the technology that would be developed to deal with greenhouse gasses). So do we take that chance, given that the whole thing may turn out to be a semi-false alarm (i.e., something that will happen more slowly and manageably over the next few centuries than James Lovelock and his like predict)?

Well, I would say this – it’s time for our world to start hedging its bets about global warming. Unfortunately, the world is an unruly, every-nation-for-itself place. It’s going to take one really big player to start the ball rolling. As the Kyoto accords show, not much is going to happen without the USA. Uncle Sam is the man here. It’s up to our nation to decide whether to save the world or not. Or at least get things going in that direction.

What I’m imagining is an expensive crash technology program by the American government to develop carbon sequestering and alternative (non-fossil) energy sources. It would be funded by a nasty tax on oil, gas and coal, and by progressive surcharges on the incomes of the top 10% of earners (perhaps with special credits for investments in the commercial development of anti-warming technologies, and for purchase of carbon reduction credits).

Once these technologies start to reach the feasibility stage, they would be offered to entrepreneurs who would try to make a fortune by selling the best and cheapest greenhouse gas reducers, carbon storage arrangements, and alternative energy sources. As with things like the canals, railroads, the aircraft industry, the telephone and the internet, government would have to “prime the pump”. Once things went beyond the experimental stage, the business world could take over. Once anti-warming technologies were proven to work, the government could impose limits on carbon emissions (making use of reduction-credit bartering systems), and private entrepreneurs would have a guaranteed market for their investments in sequestering and alternative energy technologies.

Such a crash program would probably take 20 or more years to make a dent in the problem. Living standards in the USA would stagnate or even fall back a few decades. (But in a way that would be good, especially if the overall distribution of wealth went back to the way it was in the 1960s – i.e., much fairer than today). However, if in 5 or 10 years our scientists conclusively determined that global warming is not going to have such a big impact after all, we could “waive off” and go back to a low-tax, high-growth, high-inequality economy such as we have today. And furthermore, much of the research into carbon sequestration would not go to waste; there would no doubt be many spin-off technologies, as with the Space Race back in the 1960’s. The economic growth that the US experienced up through the mid-1970’s was probably fueled to a large extent by all of those government dollars that went into beating the Russians to the moon.

How about the rest of the world? Europe would take its usual hypocritical stance for a while, i.e. talking a good line but not doing much. But once the USA proved that it was serious, I think that France and Germany and Britain would take our cue and join in with our research efforts. Cautiously at first, but with greater enthusiasm as the first fruits of our programs became apparent. And as we got further down the road, I suspect that India, China and Russia would get aboard too. In the short term, they would seemingly have more to gain by ignoring our expensive greenhouse gas control techniques. But over time, once those technologies started to get traction and the costs of fighting global warming started to come down, they would realize that they had better get on board the technology train or be left behind, along with the rest of the “developing world”. Imagine that – the USA once again being the technology leader of the planet, as it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Obviously, George W. Bush is not going to be the President who would get such a crash program under way. The GWB presidency has become a presidency of denial. One can only hope that the 2008 election is going to be about reality fixes. Still, I’m not sure if the American public will be ready for the notion of sacrifice by then; the consumer spending party that has been going on since the late Reagan years will not be easily ended (even 9-11 hardly put a damper on things). We’d like to think that we can still have our McMansions and SUVs and consumer electronics devices and big vacation trips, while fighting the world’s problems. A change to this attitude may not come until 2012 or 2016, when the public finally realizes that we have a real crisis that threatens everyone. Well that’s too bad, because for every half-decade that we wait, the global warming problem gets that much harder to solve. If by some miracle we could get a real start on an American techno-ingenuity program within the next couple of years, I’d be optimistic that we might avoid the worst of it. But if we keep on choosing big TV screens and surround-sound and Caribbean cruises over a sustainable world for our children, then I really have my doubts.

It will be interesting to see if and how Al Gore will play a role in the great policy deliberations that will start just over a year from now in the 2008 battle for the White House. But hey, Al can only propose. America, it’s up to you as to how you dispose.

Of your carbon, and of your conscience. And, your vote.

SHINE ON HARVEST MOON: I saw the moon setting into the trees the other morning, so I pulled out my camera and got a few pix. Since it’s autumn, I guess it would be called a “harvest moon”.

That brings back some memories. I was never an athlete; just wasn’t built with the body or brain for it. I just couldn’t coordinate my muscles thru time and space as well as other kids could, and to make it even worse, my arms and legs weren’t quite as strong or fast. But for some odd reason, I went out for the high school track team in senior year. I guess I was reaching out and trying other molds, even though it was clear that I didn’t fit into them. Well, obviously I never earned any points for the team. My long jumping just wasn’t all that long. But the whole thing was kind-of fun to do, and most of the kids respected me for trying.

But what I remember more than the practice sessions and the competitive events were the bus rides to and from the different schools where we had our meets. Put a bunch of viral, athletic high school guys on a bus stuck in traffic and you’re bound to get some pranks. Of course, one of the classic pranks was to get a fellow to put his backside against the glass on the rear escape door and pull down his pants, so as to make an impression upon local motorists. Once this was done, the group would spontaneously break into song. I’ll never forget those accapella refrains: “shine on, shine on harvest moon, up in the sky”. I can still hear those raspy young male voices singing in unison as the bus bounced along thru suburbia. And finally that half-second break followed by the coda: “for me and my gal”. It still brings a smile to my face as I wander the moon-gray landscapes of Essex County bureaucracy on a typical workday, 35 years after those after-school track meets took place.