Parked in a driveway somewhere, I sit in my car waiting for someone. A car pulls up next to mine. I get out, walk around the back of my car and over to the other car’s driver window. The window opens. Gunshots spurt from an Uzi, striking me in the chest.
I fall down, slowly feeling the life leave my body. Things are beginning to go dark. The car pulls away. I die. For a long time, I feel only darkness.
When I wake up, I am slow to realize that it was all just a dream. The images haunt me, though, and for a while all I can think of is what it feels like to die in a dream. I always thought people didn’t actually die in dreams. I wish it had been the first time, but my own death in dreams has become a theme in my nighttime world.
They say that Ambien can cause vivid and intense dreams, but I’ve been having these kinds of dreams way longer that I have taken the popular prescription sleeping pill. They also say Ambien is habit-forming.
It probably is habit-forming, but given the number of nights I’ve suffered without sleep in my life, I’ll take the addiction, bad dreams and all.
One night, I was on a plane that went down. The sensation of the plane falling to the ground seemed so real that when I woke up it took quite a while to convince myself that it wasn’t real.
The worst dreams I’ve ever had involved nuclear explosions. I’ve had three of them in the past year. If you’ve never experienced the sensation of being hit by a nuclear blast, it is like seeing a bright flash then feeling a burst of powerful, hot wind that destroys everything in its path.
Most of the Ambien dreams are ordinary ones, though incredibly detailed and lucid. They’re a lot like watching movies, and often I’m not even in them. They have distinct characters and story lines and I often become emotionally involved with what happens in them.
The dose of Ambien I am on is relatively strong, and it leaves a hangover-like grogginess to the following morning, sans the nausea. I don’t like having to take a pill for something that comes to most people naturally.
Ambien is better than tossing and turning hour after hour until I’m so frustrated I get out of bed and watch infomercials all night, or worse, Will & Grace.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Triggered Traffic Lights Leave Sacramento Timed Out
Sometimes technology overwhelms common sense. Such is the case with many of the Sacramento area’s traffic lights.
In Los Angeles, where I come from, there’s a saying that every destination is “twenty minutes” away. Of course this is not true, but it sure feels about right when you drive it. Around the Sacramento area, it’s really hard to judge how long it will take to get where you’re going.
In Sacramento, sometimes I can get to my local Target in a few minutes. Sometimes it takes forever because I have to stop at five consecutive traffic lights in less than a mile.
As the region grows and expands, so does the traffic situation. The solution that local authorities have chosen is to place sensors in the pavement to change signal lights based on traffic flow. And there must have been a sale on left turn arrows because this area is overflowing with them.
It all seems logical, at least on the surface. When the sensors detect vehicles at intersections, the traffic lights change accordingly. The problems with this system become very apparent very quickly.
One problem is that traffic signals stop all the vehicles on one road when a single car hits the sensors on a cross street. It may be nice for that one car to be able to proceed, but it’s not logical to halt the flow of all traffic for a single vehicle.
Another problem is reaching the sensors before the signal changes. This is especially frustrating with left turn arrows. As soon as the sensors detect no vehicles, the light changes. If you don’t hit the sensors, you’re forced to wait through an entire traffic light cycle before you can proceed.
The reason I find these triggered traffic signals frustrating comes from many years of driving the streets of Los Angeles. In L.A., just about all of the signals are timed and only major intersections have left turn arrows.
Timed signals mean that if traffic is able to flow at or about the speed limit, vehicles can get through multiple intersections without having to stop. I was often able to get through six or seven intersections on my way to and from work and not stop once.
Since relocating to the Sacramento area last year to finish college, I have noticed that my fuel consumption has decreased by about 3 miles per gallon. These triggered signals are forcing a stop-and-go pattern of traffic that’s sucking down the gas.
Considering the price of oil and concerns about the environment, it’s kind of surprising that the region has gotten carried away with a system of traffic signals that waste gas and cause a lot of stop-and-go traffic.
It’s not possible to compare traffic in L.A. with traffic in Sacramento, but in L.A. we share what I would describe as “mutual frustration.” That is, we all know traffic is a mess and we all know we’re stuck in it so we might as well work together to get through it.
Unlike Sacramento, drivers in L.A. are generally more patient when allowing lane changes and navigating through freeway and surface street traffic. While the volume of traffic is greater in L.A., my frustration with traffic in the Sacramento area has convinced me that people up here just don’t know how to drive.
I’d also like to meet the Einstein who designed the Watt Avenue and Highway 50 interchange. To get on or off the freeway at Watt, vehicles have to cross over in shared lanes. Stupid. I can’t think of any way to describe it better than that.
In Los Angeles, where I come from, there’s a saying that every destination is “twenty minutes” away. Of course this is not true, but it sure feels about right when you drive it. Around the Sacramento area, it’s really hard to judge how long it will take to get where you’re going.
In Sacramento, sometimes I can get to my local Target in a few minutes. Sometimes it takes forever because I have to stop at five consecutive traffic lights in less than a mile.
As the region grows and expands, so does the traffic situation. The solution that local authorities have chosen is to place sensors in the pavement to change signal lights based on traffic flow. And there must have been a sale on left turn arrows because this area is overflowing with them.
It all seems logical, at least on the surface. When the sensors detect vehicles at intersections, the traffic lights change accordingly. The problems with this system become very apparent very quickly.
One problem is that traffic signals stop all the vehicles on one road when a single car hits the sensors on a cross street. It may be nice for that one car to be able to proceed, but it’s not logical to halt the flow of all traffic for a single vehicle.
Another problem is reaching the sensors before the signal changes. This is especially frustrating with left turn arrows. As soon as the sensors detect no vehicles, the light changes. If you don’t hit the sensors, you’re forced to wait through an entire traffic light cycle before you can proceed.
The reason I find these triggered traffic signals frustrating comes from many years of driving the streets of Los Angeles. In L.A., just about all of the signals are timed and only major intersections have left turn arrows.
Timed signals mean that if traffic is able to flow at or about the speed limit, vehicles can get through multiple intersections without having to stop. I was often able to get through six or seven intersections on my way to and from work and not stop once.
Since relocating to the Sacramento area last year to finish college, I have noticed that my fuel consumption has decreased by about 3 miles per gallon. These triggered signals are forcing a stop-and-go pattern of traffic that’s sucking down the gas.
Considering the price of oil and concerns about the environment, it’s kind of surprising that the region has gotten carried away with a system of traffic signals that waste gas and cause a lot of stop-and-go traffic.
It’s not possible to compare traffic in L.A. with traffic in Sacramento, but in L.A. we share what I would describe as “mutual frustration.” That is, we all know traffic is a mess and we all know we’re stuck in it so we might as well work together to get through it.
Unlike Sacramento, drivers in L.A. are generally more patient when allowing lane changes and navigating through freeway and surface street traffic. While the volume of traffic is greater in L.A., my frustration with traffic in the Sacramento area has convinced me that people up here just don’t know how to drive.
I’d also like to meet the Einstein who designed the Watt Avenue and Highway 50 interchange. To get on or off the freeway at Watt, vehicles have to cross over in shared lanes. Stupid. I can’t think of any way to describe it better than that.
Steve Harvey’s “Only In L.A.”
As your flight descend into any one of Southern California’s busy airports, you can’t help but look down in amazement at the tangled maze of streets, freeways and buildings that extend endlessly across the horizon. When you leave the airport and venture around this vast wasteland, you are in the second most populated area in the country.
Everyone has an opinion or preconceived notion about Southern California. The mystique of Hollywood. Surfer Dudes and Valley Girls everywhere. Terrible traffic. Gang fights, freeway shootings, and earthquakes all the time. Sure, these things do happen, but for most of the 13 million plus residents of the Southland, it’s life as usual in their neighborhoods.
There is one man who has managed to make the grand metropolis less vast and a little friendlier to live in. Columnist Steve Harvey writes and compiles a column called “Only In L.A.” for the “California/Local” section of the Los Angeles Times.
It is a charming column, part local history lesson, part crime blotter, and part reader contribution, almost always good for a chuckle or three. In addition to interesting tidbits about life in Southern California, Harvey frequently posts photographs with his column. The photos are typically of unusual and misleading signs, similar to Jay Leno’s funny headlines segments.
Except “writes” isn’t the correct word to describe Harvey’s Times column these days. Harvey was laid off by the Times in August of 2008, though he will occasionally contribute to the paper’s online edition. In an email sent to a colleague, Harvey simply states “...just wanted you to know that I've been laid off and the column is kaput.”
He was one of the most senior staff members at the Times. Harvey spent 16 years as a reporter and six years as a writer for the Opinion section until he became a columnist in 1990. He compiled a book in 1996, The Best of Only in L.A.: A Chronicle of the Amazing, Amusing and Absurd.
Harvey, a native Angelino, attended the University of Southern California, graduating with a degree in journalism in 1967. He worked for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner from 1964 until 1967. He also worked as a commentator for National Public Radio from 1981 until 1990.
The good news for fans of Harvey is that he has transplanted his “Only In L.A.” column to Blogspot and continues to satisfy his loyal readers with his musings and observations.
What I like most about Harvey is that he gives Southern California a small-town feeling. His columns are on the lighter side of the news. A typical column would discuss the sightings of the parrots living in the neighborhoods around the Budweiser plant in Van Nuys, how certain streets got their names, or the best way to get to LAX.
The reader is especially important to Harvey, and he often answers questions from the readers about local mysteries and goings-on. If Harvey doesn’t know, he knows someone who does. If he doesn’t know someone who does, he waits for another reader to provide an answer.
Most of all, Harvey’s column reminds the diverse millions of citizens of the Southland that we are not so diverse after all. Sometimes, we’re the same. We share the same experiences, we laugh at the same things, and a lot of us appreciate Harvey’s light style even if the Los Angeles Times doesn’t.
On The Net
http://harveysonlyinla.blogspot.com/
Everyone has an opinion or preconceived notion about Southern California. The mystique of Hollywood. Surfer Dudes and Valley Girls everywhere. Terrible traffic. Gang fights, freeway shootings, and earthquakes all the time. Sure, these things do happen, but for most of the 13 million plus residents of the Southland, it’s life as usual in their neighborhoods.
There is one man who has managed to make the grand metropolis less vast and a little friendlier to live in. Columnist Steve Harvey writes and compiles a column called “Only In L.A.” for the “California/Local” section of the Los Angeles Times.
It is a charming column, part local history lesson, part crime blotter, and part reader contribution, almost always good for a chuckle or three. In addition to interesting tidbits about life in Southern California, Harvey frequently posts photographs with his column. The photos are typically of unusual and misleading signs, similar to Jay Leno’s funny headlines segments.
Except “writes” isn’t the correct word to describe Harvey’s Times column these days. Harvey was laid off by the Times in August of 2008, though he will occasionally contribute to the paper’s online edition. In an email sent to a colleague, Harvey simply states “...just wanted you to know that I've been laid off and the column is kaput.”
He was one of the most senior staff members at the Times. Harvey spent 16 years as a reporter and six years as a writer for the Opinion section until he became a columnist in 1990. He compiled a book in 1996, The Best of Only in L.A.: A Chronicle of the Amazing, Amusing and Absurd.
Harvey, a native Angelino, attended the University of Southern California, graduating with a degree in journalism in 1967. He worked for the Los Angeles Herald Examiner from 1964 until 1967. He also worked as a commentator for National Public Radio from 1981 until 1990.
The good news for fans of Harvey is that he has transplanted his “Only In L.A.” column to Blogspot and continues to satisfy his loyal readers with his musings and observations.
What I like most about Harvey is that he gives Southern California a small-town feeling. His columns are on the lighter side of the news. A typical column would discuss the sightings of the parrots living in the neighborhoods around the Budweiser plant in Van Nuys, how certain streets got their names, or the best way to get to LAX.
The reader is especially important to Harvey, and he often answers questions from the readers about local mysteries and goings-on. If Harvey doesn’t know, he knows someone who does. If he doesn’t know someone who does, he waits for another reader to provide an answer.
Most of all, Harvey’s column reminds the diverse millions of citizens of the Southland that we are not so diverse after all. Sometimes, we’re the same. We share the same experiences, we laugh at the same things, and a lot of us appreciate Harvey’s light style even if the Los Angeles Times doesn’t.
On The Net
http://harveysonlyinla.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Confessions Of A Former Coke Addict
It’s difficult for me to admit that I used to have a problem. I wasn’t in denial; I knew what I was doing was really bad for me but I did it anyway.
Coke had a hold over me. I never imagined I would be able to live without it. Then they came out with Coke Zero. Three letters: w-o-w. It tastes way better than regular Coke.
Coke Zero doesn’t contain sugar so it has no calories. It’s not as sweet as the real thing, which is what I like about it. I’ve been on Coke Zero for over a year, and now whenever I have regular Coke I don’t like it.
The Coke Zero brand is marketed to males ages 18 to 35. The visual appearance of the brand is a modern black, red and silver color scheme using a fat-to-skinny font for the word “Zero.” They’ve teamed up with the NFL this year as an official sponsor. Celebrities like Brad Pitt and Paris Hilton have been spotted with Coke Zero in hand. There have even been paid Coke Zero endorsements in video games.
The smartest thing Coca-Cola did with the Coke Zero brand was not label it a “diet” soda. The word “diet” does not appear anywhere on the can. It is simply called a “zero calorie cola.” For men, diet sodas have a certain stigma attached to them, mostly because they don’t want to be thought of as on a diet. Calling it something else, even when it is what it is, has turned out to be a wise marketing decision.
When I set out to acquire a case of Coke Zero, I notice that the stores are often short on supply. On more than one occasion I have walked out of the market with the last case. Once, I left empty handed and was forced to drive three miles to another store to get my fix.
Other Coke Zero fans have commented about my choice of soda when I drink it in public. There’s an old guy who works at my local In-N-Out restaurant who always comes up to me to express his love of Coke Zero when I bring one with me when I eat there. I have also confined myself to seeing movies at a theater in El Dorado Hills where Coke Zero is served on tap.
In recent years, the sugarless trend has produced some great tasting products. Likely due to the sharp rise in diabetes cases, sugarless products are everywhere. Chocolates, candies, ice cream and cookies can be made without sugar thanks to Splenda, a no-calorie sweetener that is inexplicably made from sugar and tastes like sugar.
It’s not all about the soda, though. I drink a lot of beverages. I love milk and fruit juice too, and I drink a lot of water. But when I am in the mood for soda, I turn to Coke Zero. Or Cherry Coke Zero.
Coke had a hold over me. I never imagined I would be able to live without it. Then they came out with Coke Zero. Three letters: w-o-w. It tastes way better than regular Coke.
Coke Zero doesn’t contain sugar so it has no calories. It’s not as sweet as the real thing, which is what I like about it. I’ve been on Coke Zero for over a year, and now whenever I have regular Coke I don’t like it.
The Coke Zero brand is marketed to males ages 18 to 35. The visual appearance of the brand is a modern black, red and silver color scheme using a fat-to-skinny font for the word “Zero.” They’ve teamed up with the NFL this year as an official sponsor. Celebrities like Brad Pitt and Paris Hilton have been spotted with Coke Zero in hand. There have even been paid Coke Zero endorsements in video games.
The smartest thing Coca-Cola did with the Coke Zero brand was not label it a “diet” soda. The word “diet” does not appear anywhere on the can. It is simply called a “zero calorie cola.” For men, diet sodas have a certain stigma attached to them, mostly because they don’t want to be thought of as on a diet. Calling it something else, even when it is what it is, has turned out to be a wise marketing decision.
When I set out to acquire a case of Coke Zero, I notice that the stores are often short on supply. On more than one occasion I have walked out of the market with the last case. Once, I left empty handed and was forced to drive three miles to another store to get my fix.
Other Coke Zero fans have commented about my choice of soda when I drink it in public. There’s an old guy who works at my local In-N-Out restaurant who always comes up to me to express his love of Coke Zero when I bring one with me when I eat there. I have also confined myself to seeing movies at a theater in El Dorado Hills where Coke Zero is served on tap.
In recent years, the sugarless trend has produced some great tasting products. Likely due to the sharp rise in diabetes cases, sugarless products are everywhere. Chocolates, candies, ice cream and cookies can be made without sugar thanks to Splenda, a no-calorie sweetener that is inexplicably made from sugar and tastes like sugar.
It’s not all about the soda, though. I drink a lot of beverages. I love milk and fruit juice too, and I drink a lot of water. But when I am in the mood for soda, I turn to Coke Zero. Or Cherry Coke Zero.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Fight To The Finish
There’s nothing quite like watching a presidential debate with a roomful of journalism students.
Journalists are, of course, impartial observers and reporters of events. The experience was pretty much what I expected, except I was under the impression that Senator John McCain was running for president, not trying out a standup comedy routine.
The giggles and snickers directed at McCain were not unexpected. I have come to accept my role as a lone soldier in the battlefield of academia, but there just isn’t any reason to laugh, especially with the world the way it is today.
In a town hall setting at Belmont University in Nashville, McCain took on his rival, Democrat Senator Barack Obama in the second presidential debate. With four weeks left until the election and the candidates running an almost even race, many people are looking for answers to the issues that may help them decide who they are going to vote for.
Obama began as expected by taking a shot at President Bush, then mixing in the usual liberal pandering to the middle class by promising tax cuts. He blamed the free market for the financial troubles that have affected the economy, which simply makes no sense. Obama talks a lot, but he doesn’t say very much.
McCain countered Obama’s tax plans by emphasizing that all taxes should be lower, or at best not increased. He criticized the federal government’s excessive spending, and he emphasized his plans for the mortgage crisis. McCain also managed to work in the word “cronies” to describe some of Obama’s connections, a very apt description to be sure.
Democrats can always be counted on for favoring government involvement, and Obama promises that he will not deregulate the financial system. After all, a few statements earlier he blamed the free market. Obama continues to reference Bush and the “last eight years,” and everybody (almost everybody) gets a good laugh.
McCain makes a point of distancing himself from Bush, a well-deserved point. All is fair, but there really is no comparison. In fact, it has been said that McCain and Bush don’t even get along.
As he spoke, McCain had a noticeably softer tone than Obama. It was almost as if Obama felt he needed to talk louder and with more emphasis to be heard and understood. At times, Obama seemed a bit flustered and unsure of his words. At other times, he prattled on about subjects that weren’t even related.
Obama did not like to answer direct questions, and McCain made not one but several references to Obama’s inability to speak to the issues. When asked about Medicare and Social Security, Obama went off in a direction that I would need a map to follow. He ended up calling the system “not fair.”
Both candidates did agree on many issues, though each took turns saying pretty much the same general things about the environment and the dependence on foreign oil.
The best way I can summarize what I have seen in this political contest is that John McCain has the ability to be a statesman. Barack Obama does not come across as someone with the experience to be a world leader, let alone the leader of the strongest nation in the world.
Journalists are, of course, impartial observers and reporters of events. The experience was pretty much what I expected, except I was under the impression that Senator John McCain was running for president, not trying out a standup comedy routine.
The giggles and snickers directed at McCain were not unexpected. I have come to accept my role as a lone soldier in the battlefield of academia, but there just isn’t any reason to laugh, especially with the world the way it is today.
In a town hall setting at Belmont University in Nashville, McCain took on his rival, Democrat Senator Barack Obama in the second presidential debate. With four weeks left until the election and the candidates running an almost even race, many people are looking for answers to the issues that may help them decide who they are going to vote for.
Obama began as expected by taking a shot at President Bush, then mixing in the usual liberal pandering to the middle class by promising tax cuts. He blamed the free market for the financial troubles that have affected the economy, which simply makes no sense. Obama talks a lot, but he doesn’t say very much.
McCain countered Obama’s tax plans by emphasizing that all taxes should be lower, or at best not increased. He criticized the federal government’s excessive spending, and he emphasized his plans for the mortgage crisis. McCain also managed to work in the word “cronies” to describe some of Obama’s connections, a very apt description to be sure.
Democrats can always be counted on for favoring government involvement, and Obama promises that he will not deregulate the financial system. After all, a few statements earlier he blamed the free market. Obama continues to reference Bush and the “last eight years,” and everybody (almost everybody) gets a good laugh.
McCain makes a point of distancing himself from Bush, a well-deserved point. All is fair, but there really is no comparison. In fact, it has been said that McCain and Bush don’t even get along.
As he spoke, McCain had a noticeably softer tone than Obama. It was almost as if Obama felt he needed to talk louder and with more emphasis to be heard and understood. At times, Obama seemed a bit flustered and unsure of his words. At other times, he prattled on about subjects that weren’t even related.
Obama did not like to answer direct questions, and McCain made not one but several references to Obama’s inability to speak to the issues. When asked about Medicare and Social Security, Obama went off in a direction that I would need a map to follow. He ended up calling the system “not fair.”
Both candidates did agree on many issues, though each took turns saying pretty much the same general things about the environment and the dependence on foreign oil.
The best way I can summarize what I have seen in this political contest is that John McCain has the ability to be a statesman. Barack Obama does not come across as someone with the experience to be a world leader, let alone the leader of the strongest nation in the world.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Sunday Night Is For “The Simpsons”
Watching television is supposed to be an escape from reality. You wouldn’t know it these days, what with all the cheap, half-baked, glorified game shows and insane celebrity docudramas that have left a once proud television nation’s streets cluttered with trash. Leave it to “The Simpsons” to remind us that life ‒ and television ‒ isn’t all bad, unless your name happens to be Milhouse.
With nearly two decades of precious, timeless ‒ and sometimes tasteless ‒ episodes in circulation, “The Simpsons” has to be doing at least a few things right. The nineteenth season picks right up where the previous eighteen left off, following the timeless adventures of Homer J. Simpson (the J. stands for Jay), his family, and the quirky goings-on of the residents of Springfield, U.S.A.
There aren’t any after-school special dramas or hard-hitting life lessons in the world that “The Simpsons” occupies. Everyone behaves in character, no matter how off that character might be. Signature catch phrases like Homer’s abrupt “D’oh,” Mr. Burns’ drawn out “Excellent,” and Marge’s disapproving “Mmmm” give the brain what it wants, candy and more candy.
There is no problem that can’t be solved with an amusing outcome in less than half an hour. While the show sometimes builds on the previous experiences of its characters, we are always reminded that they are in animation limbo. Nobody gets older, no matter how many Christmas episodes they do.
Perhaps this timeless quality is what so many viewers enjoy. So many things are uncertain in life, but when that theme song begins and the show jumps to life, it’s nice to take some time from the real world and trade it for something simple, entertaining, and worthy of being in cartoon form.
The time is coming when “The Simpsons” will end its historic run on broadcast television, possibly after its next season, for an even twenty years on the air. Fortunately, there is no end in sight for the show in reruns and on DVD.
With nearly two decades of precious, timeless ‒ and sometimes tasteless ‒ episodes in circulation, “The Simpsons” has to be doing at least a few things right. The nineteenth season picks right up where the previous eighteen left off, following the timeless adventures of Homer J. Simpson (the J. stands for Jay), his family, and the quirky goings-on of the residents of Springfield, U.S.A.
There aren’t any after-school special dramas or hard-hitting life lessons in the world that “The Simpsons” occupies. Everyone behaves in character, no matter how off that character might be. Signature catch phrases like Homer’s abrupt “D’oh,” Mr. Burns’ drawn out “Excellent,” and Marge’s disapproving “Mmmm” give the brain what it wants, candy and more candy.
There is no problem that can’t be solved with an amusing outcome in less than half an hour. While the show sometimes builds on the previous experiences of its characters, we are always reminded that they are in animation limbo. Nobody gets older, no matter how many Christmas episodes they do.
Perhaps this timeless quality is what so many viewers enjoy. So many things are uncertain in life, but when that theme song begins and the show jumps to life, it’s nice to take some time from the real world and trade it for something simple, entertaining, and worthy of being in cartoon form.
The time is coming when “The Simpsons” will end its historic run on broadcast television, possibly after its next season, for an even twenty years on the air. Fortunately, there is no end in sight for the show in reruns and on DVD.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)