Mini Discs

There was a thread on the Steve Hoffman forums asking the question of why the Mini Disc music format didn't succeed. It did have a decent shelf life. Here in this post I attempt to answer that question as I was a long time user of MD's, still use them from time to time.

Mini-discs as an overall format stuck around for quite a long time. Not as long as cassettes or CD's but they hung around. I remember when they launched in 1992 with huge displays in the stores and a lot of prerecorded albums available in that format and it was around 1994 when I bought my last player in the store (I ordered more players on eBay after that) and J&R Music World still sold blank MD's until about a year or two ago. I contemplated getting a Mini Disc player when they first came out but they were expensive and the individual prerecorded discs were expensive, 16.99 or 18.99, I don't remember exactly but they never seemed to be on sale. That might have been why the prerecorded format never caught on in terms of having a chance at replacing CD's. I didn't hear much about MD's for awhile after a year or two and even thought they had become another example of a technology that had slipped away when in 1997 a friend told me he picked up a player and really liked it. I ended up getting my first unit in 1998 and then a few years later when the MD-LP format that allowed more than the 74 or 80 minutes.. At least until the iPod became available in mass quantities, the MD-LP concept seemed to breath new life into Mini Discs as new units seemed to come out frequently. Then as MP3 came out, the final nail seemed to be placed into MD's. I still see them from time to time on the train and I still use my S-1 unit when I go on vacation, it's a very well made portable unit that can take a lot of abuse.

Stephen A. Douglas

To understand Abraham Lincoln, one should look at the life of his nemesis and in a way, stepping stone to greatness, Senator Stephen Douglas. Douglas, while four years younger than Lincoln, was a major force in Illinois and later United States politics at an earlier point than Lincoln. When the two debated in the election for Douglas's Senate seat in 1858, Douglas was considered the masterful debater and Lincoln the uncouth upstart. Those debates have been studied over and over again as a model of two masters of the craft of debating. Douglas won the election, winning his third term in the Senate over Lincoln but Lincoln made an impact on the country and was able to capitalize on that to win the Republican nomination for President in 1860 and subsequently the general election for the Presidency. There are countless books on aspects of Lincoln's life both in print and out of print and there are countless general biographies of him but a single biography of Douglas is hard to find. That said, I managed to track down Robert Johannsen's massive bio of Douglas, first published in 1973 and subsequently in 1991. At 874 pages plus massive endnotes and index, this book is as much a definitive biography as we are likely to get. It goes into great detail about those turbulent times in the mid 1800's as tension over slavery threatened to rip to USA to pieces. Douglas died just as the Civil War was beginning but not before he put aside his rivalry with Lincoln and the two worked together, Lincoln as President, Douglas as a powerful Senator who still commanded a considerable amount of respect in the country.

Bruce Lee vs. Mike Tyson

I am a member of the boxingscene forums and have had much fun discussing topics there over the years. I took a long break from posting there but in the last week I've been going back and building my post count up. Sometimes debates can be quite heated on there and when I am in the mood I am up for a good debate. Going through some of my history there, I thought I would post a debate with a guy named leff, who made the mistake of questioning my opinion on what was meant to be a fun hypothetical discussion. He asked for proofs on what can't be proven since one of the relevant parties in this discussion was only about seven years old when the other one died. He sure got a detailed answer from me! This is from four-and-a-half years ago:

ME (just chiming in in the spirit of the threat):

Bruce Lee would move around Tyson and frustrate him enormously, then take out his legs and drop him and stomp his face in when he was down.Tyson was great but had trouble with movers.

Leff:and your proof on lees fighting abilitys are?

ME:What the hell are proofs? Who can PROVE anything? It's a theoretical discourse. The only thing you can PROVE are facts and given that Bruce will never fight Tyson, there are no facts, one can only make theories based on what they have read about or seen regarding the fighting styles of either person...

Leff (here's where he gets a bit smug and pompous, just right to be taken apart):uuuum

you know evidence that lee could fight at all dont exist,
kinda does that tyson could.

pluss lee 130
tyson 215-220

get it?

Me (this is where he got more than he bargained for):

Yes I do get it. First of all, unfortunately I did not know Bruce Lee, he was a bit before my time. I can only go by what other people say about him and what I've seen in documentaries and I've read his book. Is it possible that he didn't know what he was talking about? Maybe, yes, look, maybe he had someone else ghost write the notes that became Bruce Lee's Fighting Method and all the other books that have been issued under his name. Yes, maybe one day we'll find out that he was a farce. Maybe we will learn that the fights that I've heard about in interviews didn't happen and were all made up;that he really didn't know what he was talking about, that the possibility as remote as it is, does exist. Then tyson would turn his jaw bone into powder and knock his head off his shoulders if they were to actually fight. But the point here is that this whole thread is a what if as are many of the threads on this forum. Of course there are many variables that can affect the outcome of a fight(so and so could come into the fight drunk, so and so could have the flu, so and so's mother may have died the night before, etc). But when you add to a thread, you are placing your opinion and to place an opinion you have to work with what you know. I believe that it was Tyson who said that everyone has a plan until they get hit. So anything can happen. Since I put my opinion down I based it on what I know about Lee andTyson. Yes, Tyson when he was motivated is one of my all time favorites and yes, I've seen most of his fights. If Tyson fought Lee in the boxing ring with gloves no less, he would bring his weight to bear on Lee and the odds of Lee even surviving or coming out uninjured are in question. I'm basing my opinion on Lee knowing what he was talking about and having been in many street fights. If he wasn't and like I said before if that wasn't true, then that changes everything. But assuming that he did know what he was talking about and was an experienced street fighter, and I am talking about a fight on the street, (maybe I didn't make that clear in my other post, not in the ring, which I am here), Bruce wouldn't fightTyson's fight, he would use fast footwork and stay out of Tyson's range (and yes, I know Tyson could potentially kill him with one punch). He would fight dirty on Tyson when he saw an opening, if he could flick a finger jab to the eyes or he would, as I said in the other post kick him in the knee. The dirty fighting is what i think would tip the scales towardBruce and neutralize the size advantage. But, like I said there are always variables. If we base everything strictly on size, Dempsey 187 Willard 245 Dempsey TKO Round 3 with seven knockdowns in the first round alone. Granted the size between Tyson and Lee is even more distanced than that, but I already said how I think Lee would neutralize it in a street fight where they both have the opportunity to face off ie no sucker punches.

That was fun!

Controversies And Commanders

As those of you who know me are aware, I read a considerable amount on American History with a particular emphasis on the American Civil War. I have read well over 100 books on the subject and find books describing specific battles in detail and biographies as the books on the subject I enjoy reading the most. That said, sometimes it's good to come across a book that has a slightly different twist. Eleven years ago I found one of these books and pull it out and reread it from time to time. It's written by one of my favorite Civil War writers, Stephen W. Sears and is called Controversies And Commanders: Dispatches From The Army Of The Potomac.

It's not a massive tome describing the history of the Army of The Potomac like it sounds it would be but is rather is a compact little series of ten thirty or so page essays. The battle descriptions take a back seat to descriptions of drama behind the scenes and descriptions of some fascinating character. Stephen Sears rehabilitates General Joseph Hooker for his performance in the battle Chancellorsville, a battle which damaged his reputation, and while it didn't finish him as the top general in the Army of the Potomac, it did leave him on thin ice and he would be removed as top general close to two months later right before the battle of Gettysburg. Sears, a biographer of General George McClellan, is no admirer of McClellan, and its McClellan who dominates most of the essays in the first half of the book until President Lincoln finally loses patience with him and removes him. There is a detailed essay on the intrigues by many of the generals in the Army of the Potomac to remove McClellan's successor in the essay titled, "The Revolt Of The Generals". Again, it's politics, not battles that dominates this book and there are few more political generals than Daniel Sickles, described in the fascinating essay, "Daniel Sickles, Political General" about the man who killed the son of the author of the "The Star Spangled Banner" for love triangle reasons and managed to avoid prosecution and become one of the generals in the Army of The Potomac who ran afoul of the commanding general at that point, George Meade and engaged in much feuding with him. One of the most fascinating essays is the "Raid On Richmond" about the Union cavalry attack that included an instruction to kill Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a note that added to a lot of controversy and led to questions on who sanctioned that order. There's an essay on the controversy surrounding General Phil Sheridan's relief of General Warren just a few days before the end of the war. Great book that I cannot recommend any higher. Anyone looking for a description for how adults in positions of respect and power behave in situations of incredible pressure could do much worse than to read this book.

Machete

About three-and-a-half years ago, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez teamed up for the ambitious film, Grindhouse, which I saw in the theater. That film consisted of two films paired together with trailers to fake films that was intended to invoke the spirit of the old b movies from the 70's. The whole thing was long but I found it to be a fairly enjoyable experience, if not a masterpiece. It wasn't intended to be a masterpiece so it accomplished its goal of being a fun homage. I know there were a lot of people who didn't like it at all. One of the trailers was for a movie called Machete and it was that trailer, which featured the great Danny Trejo in the lead, that got the biggest response from the crowd when I saw the movie. So well did that trailer go over, that it was decided to make it into a film of its own. It was one of those rare times where a trailer was made for a film that did not exist and a film had to be subsequently built around that trailer.

Well the movie that was made opened a few weeks ago and I went to see it. I don't go much these days to the theater to see films, not like the old days when I used to see movies all the time it seemed. I recommend it, its not for everyone, of course. It's more of an entertaining action film rather than a literary film or some sort of high drama. Danny Trejo is "Machete", a former Mexican federale, who runs afoul of Steven Seagal, a drug dealing federale and the fun ensues. There is a great cast in the film, with Jeff Fahey as a particularly oily campaign manager (and much more) for Robert De Niro's racist state senator, Lindsay Lohan as Fahey's daughter. Jessica Alba and Michelle Rodriguez are very easy on the eyes. Don Johnson plays a sleazy redneck sheriff-type. I'll be picking this one up on DVD, too bad its not doing better at the box office. It could have a fun sequel.

Bara Hack (Part Two)

A year or so ago I made a post on here about the Bara Hack site in Pomfret. Well, two months ago I finally got the chance to go there for the first time since that day back in 1983 when I went on an elementary school trip. A friend of mine came across the caretakers of the site and they gave us an invitation to come and see the place, an offer which we gladly accepted. Well, there were no haunted sightings while we were there. In fact what we felt was a strong sense of peacefulness. It's a very relaxing place. The girl who is the caretaker explained that the voices that people have heard there are actually people in houses off in the distance as the place sits in a valley and there is a sort of echo there. You can't see any houses with all of the thick overgrowth as the place is quite deeply situated in the woods but apparently sound travels well there.

The Idiot at work is no longer there

Since I haven't updated this blog in awhile and I had made in the past here some detailed posts about an annoying problem at work, the guy who wouldn't stop trying to make problems, I decided to post an update. Three weeks ago he was finally fired. He proved the adage, "give an idiot enough rope and he'll find a way to hang himself". Well, this guy certainly did that. He was warned time and time again to knock off his crap, crap that I've gone in much detail about in prior posts. He received so many warnings. All he had to do was shut up and stop trying to make problems. After coming in to work drunk and belligerent, he still had a job, he just received more warnings. He and I had some explosive conflicts and I warned him very strongly to stop and he might quiet for a few days but would be right back to trouble making in a week or two .

Finally one day he hid the keys that I needed to open everything up in the morning and that was it. He wanted a confrontation, he got one. I didn't yell, I just persistently asked him why he felt the need to engage in this sort of garbage. At first he tried to be sarcastic but he didn't know how to deal with my relentless persistence and finally took a punch at me to try to scare me off. It didn't work. I kept after him and finally he threatened to slit my throat, a threat I recorded on tape. Finally there were no more chances for him. His luck ran out and he was finished. Now he has to find a job at a place that will tolerate him and I am sure few places will tolerate him as much as the company he used to work for did.

Philadelphia

Thursday I took the New Century bus to Philadelphia, something I try to do a few times a year. It is a grand old city that I like because I can cover a fair percentage of it on foot in a day. The Reading Terminal Market is a stellar eatery with farm fresh foods from the Amish farms in Pennsylvania. Their Philly Cheese steak is unbelievably good with top notch bread and fresh provolone cheese. A visit there is not complete without having Chocolate Chip Cookies from the Famous 4th Street Cookie. Then I walked over to the Eastern State Penitentiary, I haven't gone inside yet I usually have a lot of places to see when in the city and decided not to spend the time going through but maybe next visit I'll go in. I just walked around the perimeter which is a fun thing to do. It's on a big hill with a view of the downtown skyscrapers and there is large garden around the perimeter. Then I walked over to Ritenhouse Square, which is one of the better downtown city parks I have seen, it's like a cleaner version of NYC's Union Square. I recommend anyone with a free day to visit the city and explore.

I am back

After a long break from here devoting my attention to writing my various books and other pressing concerns, I am back here. I am going to maintain the effort to keep the blog up and keep communicating about what's going on as I see it to those few (or many?) who might be reading here. Keep your eyes peeled, I have a lot to discuss in these here parts...

The Pinnacle of Audacity

I recently finished a very interesting book by Timothy Johnson called A Gallant Little Army: The Mexico City Campaign about the campaign by the American of General Winfield Scott to end the Mexican War by capturing Mexico City and holding it to force the government into a surrender. The Mexican War was during the late 1840's and was quite a polarizing war in American contemporary opinion (in the same manner as Vietnam was and the current Iraq was is). There were many who felt that the United States was bullying Mexico into giving up land. There were many who felt that the Mexicans barely took advantage of the land in question (the current Southwest of the United States) and the settlers who were growing in numbers in the region and who had stronger ties with the United States rather than the Mexicans. The causes of the war, the details of the entire Mexican War and its consequences are covered in the excellent book, The Mexican War by K. Jack Bauer.

Anyway, A Gallant Little Army concentrates on the offensive by General Winfield Scott deep into the Mexican interior to capture Mexico City. I called this blogpost The Pinnacle of Audacity because it was an extremely audacious move to take a small army (around 10,000-12,000 men, give or take at various points in the campaign) in the days before armored vehicles and air support deep into the interior of a hostile country to fight much greater numbers. The fact that his army pulled off their objectives against the hostile army of General (and President) Santa Anna, against the attrition of disease and hostile bands of guerillas is one of the more amazing achievements in American military history. The book is rather short but tells its tale in an engrossing and informative manner. I would highly recommend it for anyone with an interest in history. It's published by the University of Kansas press, who are rapidly becoming one of my favorite publishers with many high quality, educational titles.

The fallout from Mayweather-Pacquiao and the state of boxing today

Even though it's now old news and this post is a few weeks old, I posted on a forum my views on the Mayweather-Pacquaio boxing matchup that was an extremely highly anticipated fight. Now that fight is officially off and both fighters are moving on to different fights, there has been that speculation that boxing is "dead" again so in this post, I responded to those views:

I don’t believe, as a prior post stated, that boxing is dead at all. Granted, it is in one of its overall slumps, and there have been many of those over the years, but there are still many good fights out there and in fighters like Manny Pacquiao there are still superstars. If there are not many superstars then there are at least many talents who can generate attention and also make mostly great or very good fights like Israel Vasquez, Shane Mosley, Edwin Valero, Juan Manuel Marquez and Arthur Abraham. On the other hand, boxing has major problems. The heavyweight division is in a major slump, given a lack of major talents and the top two fighters who are brothers and most likely are not going to fight each other. Also no one wants to watch another Valuev-Ruiz fight! I am sure not too many people are over enthused about a Holyfield-Botha fight in 2010! I’ve always felt that boxing was damaged by the lack of it on network TV. Now the major fights are either $55 pay-per-view extravaganzas or on one of the major pay cable networks. There is no more ABC’s Wide World Of Sports, which used to be a big deal to me as a kid. The necessity of having cable has cut into boxing’s potential audience. Despite that all, boxing is alive and, if not as well as in some of its eras, then at least functioning and still the only sport, besides to a lesser degree UFC, that I watch or pay any kind of attention to.That said, on to the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight, it would be a shame if this fight were not to take place. This would very likely even top the Mayweather-De La Hoya fight in terms of pay per views ordered and it is a very compelling matchup. I hear a lot of people saying that they think Pacquiao would destroy Mayweather. I especially heard those kinds of comments when I was at a bar to watch the Pacquiao-Cotto fight. I guess its within the realm of possibilities but I don’t agree with that assessment. I even slightly favor Mayweather in this fight. If I had seen Mayweather come in and fight Marquez with any sign of ring rust when they fought recently, I probably would have favored Pacquiao if and when they fought, but Mayweather fought a pretty much textbook perfect fight against a top level opponent, the only complaint that could be had is that he didn’t knock him out. Marquez was coming from a lower weight class but so has Pacquiao and he has done tremendously (I even thought that Pacquiao would have been better served to take a tune up fight at welterweight, rather than jump right into the De La Hoya fight but he proved that it wasn’t necessary). Yeah, Pacquiao has a much better “warrior’s mentality” and one has to have respect for the quality of opponents that he is fighting one after another but Mayweather has quite a few solid wins against tough opposition as well even though he would probably happier not risking his face and taking more tune up fights. Pacquiao has shown tremendous power at welterweight, knocking a solid welterweight like Cotto around, a great chin and has one of the best cornermen in Freddie Roach. Mayweather can fights at some uncanny angles and I think his footwork can throw Pacquiao’s plan to bludgeon him off. Remember, Pacquiao had a hard time catching Cotto after pretty much winning the fight in the first five rounds when Cotto decided to survive, not win. Floyd is a master at the backpedaling and using his opponents’ forward movement as a trap to get some shots in and then continuing to throw his opponent off balance. With his excellent defensive skills, he can do this all night and win enough rounds to give him the decision even if he pisses off the crowd. Floyd also has more power than people give him credit for so he might end up nailing Pacquiao with some good shots, even if I doubt he would be able to knock Pacquiao out. If there is a KO, the chances are much higher that Manny will score it but I seriously doubt a top notch Mayweather will give him the chance to. I’ve watched a lot of Floyd’s matches that I have on videotape and on youtube and I am extremely impressed with the manner that he uses footwork and angles. It will be intriguing if the two camps sort out their issues and this fight does happen to see how it ends up. Will Pacquaio be able to gain the leverage he needs to get inside and hurt Floyd and sap his ability to stay in the fight or will Floyd make Pacquiao look like an angry bull fighting an experienced matador? If the fight doesn’t end up happening there are still plenty of interesting fights coming up, Mosley-Berto, possibly Hopkins-Green or Dawson, the end results of Showtime’s Super Six Series for the unified Super Middleweight championship and maybe in the future the winner of the Mosley-Berto fight to battle either Pacquiao or Mayweather.