Worcestering -- Rambling
Everyone in this state is blogging the weather, so far be it from me to spit in the wind ....
Puttering around the 'Net today I chanced upon an entry from Redbird Nation, a blog dedicated to The Swept, back from October 2004, The Month of the Comeback and, more pertinently, The Month of the Sweep. The author begins with a "World Series post-mortem" heavy on the Flyover Territory angst, but scrolling down to his NLCS commentary, one learns blogger Brian Gunn once lived in Our Fair Commonwealth:
Your faithful correspondent is a (relatively) recent graduate of H.C., however, and does remember a campus phenomenon called "Worcestering" ... but it wasn't ceaseless, driving rain, nor even the intermittent, average rain we saw Tuesday.
Worcestering, as I knew it, was best described as a heavy fog or a light, light drizzle. It was just enough to qualify as a meteorological event, but not enough to break out the umbrella. It was like the steam that hangs in the air the first few seconds after you step out of a hot shower, only a touch heavier, and a lot colder.
And, hence the name, us transplants had never seen it before. Lifetimes in Illinois, New York or even Eastern Mass. had not prepared us college kids for the unique weather of Woo.
That's why, whether or not it's accurate, I prefer my description of Worcestering to Brian's. Ceaseless, driving rain can happen anywhere -- even Busch Stadium (as in his blog post). That light drizzle, just enough to ruin an evening and cast a glum mood on everything, seems appropriately confined to the City of Seven Hills.
Puttering around the 'Net today I chanced upon an entry from Redbird Nation, a blog dedicated to The Swept, back from October 2004, The Month of the Comeback and, more pertinently, The Month of the Sweep. The author begins with a "World Series post-mortem" heavy on the Flyover Territory angst, but scrolling down to his NLCS commentary, one learns blogger Brian Gunn once lived in Our Fair Commonwealth:
I went to college in Worcester, Massachusetts, and back then we had a name for cold, ceaseless, driving rain: "Worcestering." It's miserable stuff....No "about me" page is in the cards here (not like I'm one to cast stones), so it's tough to say when Brian attended school, nor which fine institution he attended. There is a Brian Gunn '92 who graduated from Collegium Sanctae Crucis, but he claims to live in Los Angeles.
Your faithful correspondent is a (relatively) recent graduate of H.C., however, and does remember a campus phenomenon called "Worcestering" ... but it wasn't ceaseless, driving rain, nor even the intermittent, average rain we saw Tuesday.
Worcestering, as I knew it, was best described as a heavy fog or a light, light drizzle. It was just enough to qualify as a meteorological event, but not enough to break out the umbrella. It was like the steam that hangs in the air the first few seconds after you step out of a hot shower, only a touch heavier, and a lot colder.
And, hence the name, us transplants had never seen it before. Lifetimes in Illinois, New York or even Eastern Mass. had not prepared us college kids for the unique weather of Woo.
That's why, whether or not it's accurate, I prefer my description of Worcestering to Brian's. Ceaseless, driving rain can happen anywhere -- even Busch Stadium (as in his blog post). That light drizzle, just enough to ruin an evening and cast a glum mood on everything, seems appropriately confined to the City of Seven Hills.
Poetry and Beauty Will Protect Us
Here we go again....
And this time, for Editorial Licence Revoked, we'll be looking at the Friday, May 20 Springfield Republican. Why? Because that's the day I went to Six Flags New England Riverside Park.
Their lead editorial that day boggled my mind in a way that, I was surprised to find, the Worcester Telegram's editorials hardly ever do. Put simply: the Republican, unlike some other Republicans, is opposed to a space-based missile defense, which they at least refrained from labeling "Star Wars, Episode II." I'll give them credit for that much maturity.
This editorial could have used a bit more grown-up logic, however. It's an emotional appeal to the sanctity of outer space that's long on poetry, short on concrete reasons to oppose what they describe vaguely as "Air Force plans to militarize space."
"They are hoping to get the White House's OK to proceed with their scheme," the editorialist laments. "They must not be allowed to do so." Why? Because:
Also, if humanity's common ownership of space means you can't put a missile base there, what's your take on our spy satellites, or anyone's spy satellites, or even the myriad television and communications hubs owned by governments and companies up there in blessed firmament?
Of course, the editorialist does make a few decent, somewhat unemotional points. To wit:
And then there's the arms race. Who's going to match this, and who really cares? Is Russia going to send up satellites of their own to interfere with our Star Wars? China? Iran? France? The Republican claims a missile defense would be "the catalyst for Cold War II. If not World War III."
I'll admit to not being up-to-date on this proposal, but every time I've heard missile defenses proposed in the last ... oh ... three and a half years, it's been as a defense against rogue nations or independent terrorists with WMD's. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will be willing to recognize our moderate, peace-loving nature and agree to drop all their animosity toward us if we forego such an aggressive national defense in this matter.
"Space is a place for humankind's fondest imaginings, not our worst nightmares," the Republican editorial concludes. "Next time we see a twinkling star, we'd prefer to ponder our place in the universe, not wonder what it might be aimed at."
Tell me, Republican: Would a space-based missile defense would be your "worst nightmare" if that twinkling star were a Russian ICBM, hijacked by terrorists, aimed at Springfield, Mass.?
And this time, for Editorial Licence Revoked, we'll be looking at the Friday, May 20 Springfield Republican. Why? Because that's the day I went to Six Flags New England Riverside Park.
Their lead editorial that day boggled my mind in a way that, I was surprised to find, the Worcester Telegram's editorials hardly ever do. Put simply: the Republican, unlike some other Republicans, is opposed to a space-based missile defense, which they at least refrained from labeling "Star Wars, Episode II." I'll give them credit for that much maturity.
This editorial could have used a bit more grown-up logic, however. It's an emotional appeal to the sanctity of outer space that's long on poetry, short on concrete reasons to oppose what they describe vaguely as "Air Force plans to militarize space."
"They are hoping to get the White House's OK to proceed with their scheme," the editorialist laments. "They must not be allowed to do so." Why? Because:
Space is not the property of the U.S. government. It belongs at once to everyone and no one.Quick, Rummy, let's decommission all the aircraft carriers and battleships because international waters "belong at once to everyone and no one." Let's cancel all our spy plane flights because the air over those waters "belongs at once to everyone and no one." This is exactly the kind of thinking that did not allow the British to survive World War II, or our own country to get the drop on Russia and Cuba during the Cold War.
Also, if humanity's common ownership of space means you can't put a missile base there, what's your take on our spy satellites, or anyone's spy satellites, or even the myriad television and communications hubs owned by governments and companies up there in blessed firmament?
The details of the plans are the stuff of the worst science fiction. Disabling radio waves from space. Destructive laser beams bounced off orbiting mirrors. And, perhaps the most chilling plan, nicknamed Rods from God, would rocket cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from deep space toward earthly targets.Cool! "Worst science fiction," my ass. This is exactly the sort of cutting edge stuff that could save American troops' lives and protect our country. Imagine what the Sunday Republican's reaction must have been, in the 1950s, to the idea of a -- gasp -- nuclear submarine. Or what the Springfield Morning Union would have said, before World War I, about the prospect of flying aeroplanes dropping bombs. The horror! Is nothing sacred?
Of course, the editorialist does make a few decent, somewhat unemotional points. To wit:
Our allies hate the plan. Our enemies hate the plan. The cost would be astronomical, reaching, by one estimate for one component, $1 trillion. And launching weapons into space would most certainly precipitate a new arms race, further destabilizing an already volatile worldDear Lord, heaven forbid we embrace a defense strategy our enemies hate! The editorial specifically notes that the Chinese are probably ticked off that our XSS-11 satellite can "disrupt the workings of other nations' satellites."
And then there's the arms race. Who's going to match this, and who really cares? Is Russia going to send up satellites of their own to interfere with our Star Wars? China? Iran? France? The Republican claims a missile defense would be "the catalyst for Cold War II. If not World War III."
I'll admit to not being up-to-date on this proposal, but every time I've heard missile defenses proposed in the last ... oh ... three and a half years, it's been as a defense against rogue nations or independent terrorists with WMD's. I'm sure Osama bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will be willing to recognize our moderate, peace-loving nature and agree to drop all their animosity toward us if we forego such an aggressive national defense in this matter.
"Space is a place for humankind's fondest imaginings, not our worst nightmares," the Republican editorial concludes. "Next time we see a twinkling star, we'd prefer to ponder our place in the universe, not wonder what it might be aimed at."
Tell me, Republican: Would a space-based missile defense would be your "worst nightmare" if that twinkling star were a Russian ICBM, hijacked by terrorists, aimed at Springfield, Mass.?
Day by Day
Quotidian quips of four sharp wits with bad posture ... © by Chris Muir.
