Contemplating Life – Episode 54 – “Oscar 2024: Grumpy Academics”

This week we kick off my second annual review of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars. The films this year seem to connect in pairs. This week we explore a category I call “Grumpy Academics” which consists of the films “The Holdovers” and “American Fiction.” Although you can listen to the podcast, I recommend the YouTube version to see the clips from the trailers that I have included.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, This is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 54 of Contemplating Life – Oscar edition.

It’s time to kick off my second annual review of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture Oscars.

Last year out of the 10 films nominated for Best Picture there were 3 that I didn’t care for at all and one that I could take or leave. One of the films that I disliked was the winner “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I understood what the movie was trying to do and I understood why some people liked it. In the end, I never cared for the characters as much as I should have. There were some emotional payoffs at the end of the movie but I didn’t think it was worth the wait. After reading my review, one friend of mine who agreed with me described the movie as a “hot mess.” That pretty much sums up my opinion of it.

I also didn’t care for the war movie “All Quiet on the Western Front” or the movie “Triangle of Sadness.” I understood why “The Banshees of Inisherin” was nominated and I thought it had some amazing performances but I was quite neutral on the film itself.

As I’m writing this, I’ve only seen 9 out of the 10 nominated films and I’m pleased to say that I feel 8 of them were very much Oscar-worthy. There was nothing wrong with the other one but I found it only marginally interesting. I’m not sure it’s Oscar-caliber. From what I’ve heard about the remaining film I’ve not yet seen, I have high hopes for it. I’m optimistic that I will get to see it before I finish all of these reviews. So, overall in my opinion it’s already a much better year than last year. I’m looking forward to sharing them with you.

Looking over these 10 films I’ve discovered that they could be grouped in pairs. There are two biopics of famous people. There are two films about grumpy, unlikable, intellectual academics who are trying to break out of their shell. We have two films that give us insights into cultures with which we may have little familiarity. There are two films about women who start as the fantasy ideals of men but who come into their own like a robot emerging into sentience to become fully self-actualized and independent beings.

Although two of the films were huge box office successes, we don’t have the typical popcorn-eating, big-budget, action films like we had last year with Avatar 2 and Top Gun 2. Incidentally, none of these films are sequels and only one has the potential to become part of a franchise which incidentally I hope it doesn’t..

Last year I jammed 10 films into three episodes making several of the episodes quite long. We have a tiny bit more room in the schedule this year so I’m thinking there will be at least four or perhaps five episodes. If I have time, we will include some brief looks at the nominated performances in films that did not earn Best Picture nominations. The Oscars will be awarded on Sunday, March 10, 2024.

Although my reviews tend to include fairly significant plot summaries, trust me, I will not spoil major plot twists. I will include box office numbers that are current as of my writing of the script as reported by IMDb. That website also lists nominations and wins of other awards but most of them are so obscure you never heard of them. I will point out major awards as appropriate.

In this episode, we are going to look at two films in a pairing I call “Grumpy Academics”.

First on our agenda is “The Holdovers”. Paul Giamatti stars as Paul Hunham. He is a history teacher at a boy’s boarding school somewhere in New England in 1970. All but five of the boys will be going home for Christmas break. These five holdovers have to stay behind because their parents are otherwise occupied and the boys cannot go home. Hunham is given the unenviable task of being their guardian for two weeks.

He teaches a class in ancient civilizations at the prestigious Barton Academy where he is equally hated by his students and faculty. That includes the headmaster who was once one of Hunham’s students at Barton. Hunham is also an alum. He is constantly trying to get everyone, his boss included, to live up to the high standards and principles of the Barton Academy as established by its founder his mentor the late Dr. Greene.

Hunham is constantly mocked by students and staff and given the nickname “walleye” because he does indeed have a wandering lazy eye.

He is forced into this babysitting task against his will not only because he is disliked by everyone but also because he recently refused to give an unearned passing grade to the son of a rich donor to the institution.

In addition to Hunham and the five boys, we are introduced to Mary Lamb the cafeteria manager who will stay behind to prepare meals for them. Mary is grieving the loss of her son who was recently killed in Vietnam. The son had attended Barton. Mary couldn’t afford to send him to college which would have earned him a potentially life-saving draft deferment. This dilemma was typical for many young men of modest means, especially African-Americans.

Although we are never told so, it’s easy to assume her son was only able to attend this expensive private school based on some sort of employee discount. We are left to our imagination as to what it was like for a poor African-American student to try to fit in at a prestigious private school which was mostly rich white kids.

Initially, there were only supposed to be four students holding over for the holiday but it was pretty obvious that one of the older students named Angus Tully would be held over as well. He bragged that he had big plans to go to St. Kits in the Caribbean with his mother and her new husband. The film spent too much time focusing on his character early on if he was going to disappear from the story along with hundreds of other students. So, it is no surprise to the audience when his mother calls at the last minute to tell him he will not be joining them. The vacation is going to be a honeymoon for her and his new stepdad.

This was just one of several plot points which come as no surprise. As we get to learn more about the five boys, they all seem to be thinly drawn stereotypes caught in a “Breakfast Club” remake. While there are a few other rather unoriginal tropes throughout the film, it is by far a much better story than it initially appears.

Here is a minor spoiler. After a few days of dealing with the five boys, one of them arranges to have his father’s staff pick him up in a helicopter and take him on a ski trip for the remainder of Christmas break. They obtain permission from the parents of three of the other younger boys to join him. Angus’ mother cannot be reached to obtain permission for him to join them because she is too busy enjoying her honeymoon. This leaves him as the only boy stranded with the old curmudgeon.

So, by about 20 minutes into the story, we realize it’s going to be a character exploration of Hunham, Angus, and Mary. There is a janitor on the premises but he doesn’t show up often or contribute significantly to the story.

These three diverse characters who are essentially castaways trapped in the empty institution are forced to get along with one another and to reveal themselves in ways they didn’t particularly care to. Mary attempts to work through her grief while trying to be a peacemaker between the boy and the crotchety old man.

To escape the drudgery of their existence, they take a trip into the nearby town for dinner where they discover that the headmaster’s secretary Miss Crane has a part-time job as a waitress in the pub. She helps them diffuse a confrontation with a townie who despises the Barton Boys. There are hints of chemistry between the waitress and the teacher yet he is too shy to pursue a relationship. Miss Crane invites all three of them to a Christmas Eve party but it does not go well.

Mary tries to suggest that the teacher do something nice for the boy on Christmas Day but his feeble attempts to do so fall flat. When he asks the boy what he really wants, the boy declares they should take a trip to Boston. Hunham is persuaded to agree on the premise that it falls under his prerogative to do so as an academic field trip. The three of them travel to Boston together where Mary visits her pregnant sister and the guys go on adventures together mostly in museums.

Again, this road trip which reveals deeper secrets held by the characters is not a very original idea for a story. But there are sufficient twists and turns that it is an enjoyable fresh take on an old trope.

This film is one of several this year in which the cinematography and style of the film is a re-creation or perhaps an homage to the time period in which the film is set. The trailer has the style typical of films of the early 1970s. It opens with an MPAA R-rating card identical to what you would have seen in a film of that era. This is followed by logos for Universal Studios, Focus Features, and Miramax which are throwbacks to the ones you would’ve seen in 1970. I viewed the film as a digital download but these opening logos featured film scratches as well as pops and crackles in the soundtrack typical of a well-worn print of a film.

Although the movie was shot using modern digital cameras, director Alexander Payne and cinematographer Elgil Bryld have gone to great pains to make it look as though it was shot on 35mm film in 1970. It even has a mono soundtrack with the high-end frequencies cut off at about 8kHz. Bryld said they were trying to make it look as though someone found some old film cans in a garage. These effects throughout the film are not as blatant as they are in the opening credits, but there is still much about the cinematography that evokes that era. Is a subtle psychological manipulation that helps the audience buy into the setting.

We will see the same phenomenon in another Oscar-nominated film later.

Giamatti gives a magnificent performance under the direction of Alexander Payne who had previously worked together on the film “Sideways.”

Giamatti has already won the Golden Globe for Best Lead Actor in a Musical or Comedy and is nominated for Best Actor Oscar both of which are well deserved. Note that the Golden Globes have separate categories for Drama versus Musical or Comedy so the competition is much tighter in an open Best Actor category at the Oscars. He doesn’t have a chance against stiff dramatic competition. He would be my third choice but don’t take that as a slight because I very much enjoyed the performance.

Mary is portrayed by Da’vine Joy Randolph who has already earned a Supporting Actress Golden Globe and is nominated for Supporting Actress Oscar again very much deserved. I also enjoy her performances as Detective Williams in the Hulu series “Only Murders in the Building” but she was otherwise unknown to me. Her credits include a Tony nomination in 2012 and she is also appearing as Mahalia Jackson in this year’s film “Rustin”. Right now I would list her as my second favorite supporting actress this year but I have not yet seen all of the other nominees. She has stiff competition.

Angus Tully is played by newcomer Dominic Sessa who holds his own against veteran actor Giamatti in his first film. Carrie Preston is quite charming as Miss Crane. You may recognize her from her role as quirky lawyer Elsbeth Tascioni in the TV series “The Good Wife” and its spinoff series “The Good Fight.” She also appeared as waitress Arlene in over 80 episodes of the HBO vampire series “True Blood.”

In addition to the Best Picture Nomination, David Hemingson is nominated for his Original Screenplay and is a close second for me in that category. It might seem strange that this was one of my favorite screenplays of the year given that I have been pointing out all the unoriginal or unsurprising aspects of the story. But it truly is an interesting and fresh take on some old ideas. There were plot points I didn’t see coming and I haven’t spoiled for you here. Giamatti’s dialogue is cleverly written and he is a richly drawn character as is Mary even if some of the minor characters are somewhat stereotypical.

The film is also nominated for Film Editing for which I have no opinion. I would’ve thought it might have gotten a cinematography nomination for creating its retro look from a digital source. But it wasn’t nominated in that category.

It doesn’t have a chance for Best Picture against very stiff competition but I would rank it as my fourth favorite of the 10 nominated films. It is well worth your time.

IMDb lists 195 award nominations and 107 wins so far. Again, they list a lot of obscure awards. Among them are nominations for Alexander Payne from the Directors Guild, SAG Nominations for Giamatti and Randolph as well as 7 BAFTA nominations.

I could not find an estimated budget for the film. Since its opening in late October ‘23, it has earned over $30 million worldwide and nearly 20 million in the US. Is still showing in some theaters and is currently streaming on Peacock as well as available for rent or purchase from Amazon Prime and YouTube.

* * *

Our second film this week is also the story of a somewhat sad intellectual academic who faces struggles and both his work and personal life.

“American Fiction” stars Jeffrey Wright as Thelonious Ellison who has had some success writing novels and is teaching a college literature course in the present day. He is struggling to sell his latest work because publishers claim that as an African-American author, his work isn’t “black enough”.

In the opening scene, he is teaching a course on American literature in the South. A white girl in his class was offended that they were studying a book with the N-word in the title. He declares to the girl, “I got over it. You can too.” She files a complaint against him which is apparently just the latest of many complaints. He is forced to take a sabbatical.

In an early scene in the film, he goes into a bookstore and asks a 20-something-year-old white salesclerk if they have any books by Thelonious Ellison. The young man looks at his tablet and then leads him to a bookshelf labeled “African-American Studies.” Ellison asks,

Ellison: Wait a minute. Why are these books here?

Clerk: Uh… I’m not sure. I would imagine that this author Ellison is – black.

Ellison: That’s me. Ellison… He is me. And he and I are black.

Clerk: Oh Bingo (smiling)

Ellison: No bingo Ned. These books have nothing to do with African-American Studies. They are just literature. The blackest thing about this one is the ink.

Clerk: (nervously) I don’t decide what section the books go in. No one here does. That’s how chain stores work.

Ellison then gathers up the dozen or so copies of his three books and proceeds to march them over to the general fiction section where they belong.

Thelonious, who goes by the nickname Monk, no doubt because of the famed jazz musician Thelonious Monk, is frustrated that his sympathetic agent cannot find a publisher for his latest work. Meanwhile, he is outraged over the success of a book written by an African-American academic woman named Sinatra Golden. Her bestseller titled “We’s Lives in Da Ghetto” is filled with stereotypes of poor black people who talk a kind of jive talk street language that is so exaggerated it is offensive to him.

Golden: (Speaking to a crowd at a book convention) What really struck me was that too few books were about my people. Where are our stories? Where is our representation?

Moderator: Would you give us the pleasure of reading an excerpt?

Golden: (Reading from the book as Ellison looks on from the back of the room) “Yo… Sharondan! Girl, you be pregnant again? If I is, Ray Ray gonna be a real father this time around.” (The convention audience cheers and gives a standing ovation.)

To retaliate, he writes a ghetto book about a drug dealer who grew up poor, murdered his father, and is an exaggerated stereotype of a ghetto black man. The working title of the book is “My Pafology” spelled P.A.F.O.L.G.O.Y. He writes under the pseudonym Stagg R. Leigh. He instructs his agent to submit it to publishers as a joke and much to their surprise a publisher snaps it up. His given a massive advance and a lucrative deal for the movie rights. When the publisher wants to meet the author, he has to create a new persona. He refuses to meet in person because he claims to be a wanted criminal. He only speaks to them over da phone.

In an attempt to get out of this farce, he does everything he can to try to ruin the deal including insisting that the title of the book be changed to the single word “Fuck”. Much to his surprise, his white publisher reluctantly agrees.

The satire of white people’s opinion of what black culture is all about makes it hysterically funny and ironic. It also is a stinging indictment of the publishing world which is anxious to prove its commitment to diversity while exploiting stereotypes.

However, that’s not the only story being told. It is a deeply personal and poignant exploration of a troubled soul. Monk struggles in his romantic relationships. He has a difficult relationship with his gay brother. His mother is declining with dementia. He suffers other personal losses I won’t spoil. He is frustrated that his own serious work is rejected but this piece of sellout trash he has created is a huge success. He is becoming everything he hates.

These two storylines are brilliantly woven together by writer-director Cord Jefferson. Jefferson has been nominated by the Directors Guild for an outstanding first film. There is one shot in the film that I thought was one of the most brilliant shot compositions I’ve seen in a long time. It’s a simple shot of someone’s feet that tells an entire story like an excellently crafted piece of flash fiction. You will know it when you see it. Jefferson’s screenplay, based on the novel by Percival Everett, is nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar.

In addition to the Best Picture Oscar nomination, it was also nominated for a Golden Globe in the Best Musical or Comedy. Jeffrey Wright, who is known for his typical supporting roles steps up to the challenge of portraying this complex lead character with a conflicted life. The performance has earned him a Best Actor Oscar nomination as well as a nomination for a Golden Globe Actor in a Musical or Comedy.

He is joined by a talented ensemble cast that includes Sterling K. Brown as his brother earning him a Supporting Actor Oscar Nomination. Also, Tracy Ellis Ross is his sister. Leslie Uggams as his mother, Erika Alexander as his girlfriend, Issa Rae as rival author Sinatra Goldman, and John Ortiz as his agent all turn in memorable performances. Even minor characters such as his mother’s caregiver and her boyfriend a town police officer add charm and wit to the effort.

Wright and Brown as well as the entire ensemble have earned SAG nominations.

IMDb lists 162 nominations and 52 wins. The film opened in December and has earned just over $12 million. It is currently available only in theaters.

Jeffrey Wright could be a long shot for Best Actor but probably will lose to Cillian Murphy in Oppenheimer or Bradley Cooper in Maestro.

I would put it in a tie for best screenplay with Anatomy of a Fall and would rank it about fifth place for my favorite movie of the year. I highly recommend it.

Next week, we will take a look at two foreign-language films. One of them I thought was just okay. The other one kept me glued to the screen wondering what was going to happen next. It featured one of my favorite screenplays of the year and some amazing performances. So, be sure to check that out.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although finances are tight, I don’t do this for the money. Still, every little bit helps.

As always my deepest thanks to my financial supporters. It expresses your support for what I’m doing. I will never be able to express how much that means to me.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

You can check out any of my back episodes which are all available where you found this episode. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me what you liked or did not like about these films.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

Contemplating Life – Episode 53 – “What Makes Movies Special”

This week we conclude a two-part special that traces my entire history as a movie fan. In this episode, we focus on my obsession with 3D, IMAX, and the evolution of special effects. I recommend you watch the YouTube version because I’ve included lots of movie clips.

Links of Interest

Films Mentioned in this Episode

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Coming soon

Contemplating Life – Episode 52 – “The First Picture Show”

This week we begin a two-part episode recounting my history as a movie buff. In this episode, we cover the drive-in movie era as well as early widescreen film formats such as Cinerama. Note there are lots of movie clips in the YouTube version of this week’s podcast so you might want to watch it on YouTube.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 52 of Contemplating Life.

I recently saw an interview with MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow talking about her new book titled “Prequel”. It’s about Nazi influence in the US government during World War II. Her colleague Chris Hayes asked her how she got into the topic. She said she had planned to do a book about present-day anti-Semitism but after researching its roots she ended up back in the late 1930s and 1940s. She said she suffers from a condition where every story she tells she wants to begin with, “An asteroid hit the earth and then the dinosaurs died, and then…”

I suffer from the same condition. When I tell a story, I always want to start at the beginning. For me, context is everything. You’ve already seen that in previous episodes. For example, I couldn’t tell my history of attending IUPUI without telling the history of IUPUI itself.

In last week’s episode, I talked about my ongoing struggles to be able to get out into a theater to see movies. It took everything I had to not start the story with, “The first movie I ever saw was…”

However, I can no longer resist the urge to scratch that itch. So rather than continue speculating about when I will see my last picture show, this week let’s go to the beginning and talk about the first picture show. This episode is about my history with the movies as far back as I can remember. My history as a movie buff is going to take more than one episode to cover in the kind of excruciating detail that I like to tell stories. So this is the first of a two-part story.

I will put my disclaimer up front this time. Last week I misremembered the order in which I’d seen some films over 40 years ago. Now we are going to go back 60+ years so I make no guarantees about the accuracy of this narrative.

I don’t know what was the first movie I ever saw, but I’m confident it was at the Lafayette Road Drive-in Theater. The drive-in sat in a 19-acre triangular lot bounded by 38th St., Lafayette Road, and Georgetown Road. It opened in August 1953 before I was born in July ‘55. It closed in 1982 when it was demolished and a strip mall was constructed there.

My earliest memories of the venue date back to when I was perhaps 3 or 4 years old. In those days, W. 38th St. was just two lanes. There were no streetlights, fast food places, or shopping centers. Lafayette Square Mall just north and east of Lafayette Road wasn’t constructed until 1968. I also seem to recall that the 38th St. bridge over White River was not yet constructed in my early days of visiting the drive-in so 38th St. was not yet the major east-west thoroughfare that it is today.

The nearest homes were perhaps two blocks away with the rear of the homes facing the drive-in. There may have been a small wooded area blocking their view of the screen. But as the area became more developed and the trees were turned down, residents complained when the theater started showing R-rated movies. They said that their children could look out their bedroom windows and see naked women on the screen.

I remember there was a small playground in the front near the screen with swings and slides for the kids to play on before the feature started. One of the swings had a baby seat that had a backrest, armrests, a bar across the front, and a strap that would go between your legs to keep you from sliding out. On at least one occasion my mom was able to get me into the seat. It was the first and only time I was ever to play on a swing set. I also have a memory of going back a second time and insisting that I get to play on the swing but I had outgrown the seat and we could not get my legs underneath the crossbar in the front.

In my quest to recall the first movie I ever saw, I’ve racked my brain and I’ve done lots of research on IMDb. My most likely candidate is “The 7th Voyage of Sinbad” featuring stop-motion animation by legendary animator Ray Harryhausen. According to IMDb, Sinbad was released in December 1958. That would’ve made me three and a half years old.

My family moved into the Eagledale neighborhood just seven blocks south of the drive-in in May 1959. I always presumed we didn’t go to that drive-in before moving into the neighborhood. Then again, even at our previous home on West 34th St. near White River and the canal, the Lafayette Road Drive-In would have been the closest to our home.

I have very few memories of living in that old house on 34th St. but I suppose a cool movie like that would have made a sufficient impression on me that I remember it at that young age. I wondered if perhaps I was thinking of a different Ray Harryhausen classic such as “Jason and the Argonauts” which was released in 1963. We probably saw both of these films but I’m fairly certain we did see Sinbad because it featured a battle with the legendary monster Cyclops and I definitely remember seeing that film at the drive-in.

I’m not ready to claim that this was the absolute first film I ever saw because I also have a vague memory that perhaps we saw a trailer for that film and my dad said, “Wow, we definitely needed to come back to see that one.” Then again, I could be remembering a trailer for “Jason and the Argonauts.”

While we are talking about Harryhausen films I am absolutely positive we saw “The Valley of Gwangi” in the summer of 1969. That film featured a bunch of cowboys who discovered a lost valley filled with dinosaurs. They capture one, bring it back to civilization, and put it in a circus where it kills a circus elephant and several innocent people. We had my five-year-old sister Carol with us. She wasn’t scared of the dinosaur. Quite the contrary, when they killed the dinosaur in the end, she cried. We tried to explain to her he was a very bad dinosaur who killed lots of people. She didn’t care. They didn’t need to kill it. I recently asked her if she remembered the incident. She said she didn’t have any direct memory of the movie but she has heard us tell that story for many years so that’s how she knows the story.

I’m about 90% sure we also saw the 1959 Charlton Heston version of Ben-Hur at the drive-in. It seems strange however that that film was released in November and Sinbad was released in December. I find it a bit improbable that we would go to the drive-in in the middle of winter. I have a vague memory that we did go to the drive-in in cold weather and that they would provide you with a small electric space heater that you could plug into your cigarette lighter rather than run your motor with the heat on. Unsure of that memory, I posted a message on a Facebook group called “Grew up in Eagledale” to see if anyone else had more certain memories of the Lafayette Road Drive-in. One person confirmed that she remembered that they would provide you with a heater and another confirmed that the drive-in was open year-round. Furthermore, just because IMDb reports when the movie was released, it’s quite likely that it went to indoor theaters first and drive-ins might not have shown it until summer. So I really don’t know when I saw these films.

In 1960, my dad bought a 1959 Plymouth. He was able to make the down payment on the car because we won $1000 in a Knights of Columbus raffle that we used to put in $1 each week. It was one of those cars which were typical of the time period with huge fins on the rear fenders. It had a large sloping rear window. See the YouTube version of this podcast for a photo of a similar car.

When we would go to the drive-in it was typically a double feature. I would be allowed to watch the first movie but they would put me in the back of the car on a shelf above the rear seat underneath that large window. I was supposed to try to sleep during the second movie and many times I did. But mostly I would lie on that shelf underneath the glass dome and stare at the stars and wonder how they worked.

I have distinct memories of asking my dad, “If the stars are suns just like our sun only really far away, and if the sun and the stars are in outer space, how can they burn when there is no air up there?” He didn’t have an answer but I vowed to figure it out one day. It was the start of my fascination with science, especially astronomy, and I trace it all back to staring out the window of the 59 Plymouth at the Lafayette Road Drive-in.

I can’t remember all of the films I saw at the Lafayette Road Drive-in but there are three that I remember quite distinctly because I bootleged them. Of course, this was long before you could buy your own video camera. So, I couldn’t bootleg the film itself but I could bootleg the soundtrack. For my eighth birthday in July 1963, I got a small reel-to-reel tape recorder with 3-inch reels. This was before the widespread use of cassette recorders.

In June 1964, I took my tape recorder to the drive-in with me to see “Mary Poppins”. By this time, we had traded in the old Plymouth for a Chevy Corvair Greenbrier Van which allowed me to sit in my wheelchair. I had a lap tray that sat across the armrests of my wheelchair and I set the tape recorder on my tray. I put the microphone up near the drive-in movie speaker. The quality of the tape recorder, the cheap microphone, and the horrible sound quality of the drive-in movie speaker produced a really bad recording but I didn’t care. I had a free recording of every song in Mary Poppins. A friend of mine had the soundtrack album but I claimed that my recording was superior because it included sound effects that were not in his album. For example when Mary is singing “A Spoon Full of Sugar” she is magically putting away the children’s clothes and toys. In my recording, you could hear the dresser drawers opening and closing

A month later, I also recorded everything from the Beatles film “A Hard Days Night” as well as a year later when I recorded the soundtrack from the Beatles film “Help!”. These three tapes were my prize possessions at the time. I have no idea what ever happened to them. Sometime in the early 70s, I got my first cassette recorder with a built-in AM/FM radio. I would use it to bootleg the latest hit songs off of WNAP-FM. [Echo FX] “The Wrath of the Buzzard!”

Although it was just mono and not stereo, the quality of recording off of FM was pretty good. I don’t recall bootlegging the soundtrack of any other films except those three but then again there weren’t many musicals that interested me in those days.

I talked to my sister Carol about her earliest memories of the movies and she recalled seeing “The Sound of Music” at an indoor theater but I think she went with my grandmother as I never saw that film until it made it to TV and I’m not certain I’ve ever seen it all the way through.

The first movie I ever saw at an indoor theater was in early 1964. The Marion County Muscular Dystrophy Foundation hosted an event where all the families were invited to the Indiana Theater at 140 W. Washington St. downtown. We saw the film “How the West Was Won” in Cinerama format.

Cinerama was sort of the 1950s and 60s version of IMAX. It was shot using three separate 35mm cameras that slightly overlapped. The outer two cameras were crisscrossed such that the right-hand camera pointed left and the left-hand camera pointed right. It was also projected the same way using 3 standard 35mm projectors which projected onto a large curved screen with a 146° viewing angle. It also featured seven-channel surround sound with five speakers spread behind the screen and 2 speakers in the rear corners of the theater. The sound was recorded on magnetic tape rather than optically recorded as were most soundtracks of the day.

Although there were some areas at the far edges of the theater where there were no seats and you could sit in your wheelchair, it wasn’t a very good viewing angle especially considering the curvature of the screen. Rather than sit with the other kids in wheelchairs on the side of the theater, my dad lifted me out of my wheelchair and I sat in a regular theater seat between Mom and Dad in the middle of the theater for a good view.

Watching a film on such a huge screen indoors with high-quality surround sound was an amazing experience compared to what I was accustomed to at the drive-in. There was a dark red curtain in front of the screen when you entered the theater. When the lights went down, the curtain would open to reveal the gigantic curved Cinerama screen. The film began with an overture of music. IMDb reports the runtime was two hours 44 minutes which was huge in those days. So much so, that there was an intermission and more music to introduce the second half.

I remember intermission music included the Civil War-era song “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”. I was so enveloped by the surround sound I started singing along in that embarrassing way that one sings out loud with headphones on and you don’t realize people can hear you. My dad had to tell me to shut up and just listen to the music.

Especially memorable were the scenes of a raft going down the rapids of a river partially breaking apart as well as a buffalo stampede that goes right over the cameras. I think that initial experience with Cinerama planted a seed that makes me such a huge fan of IMAX today.

Like IMAX, the first films shot in Cinerama format were documentaries and 5 such films were made from 1952 through 1958. Only two regular feature films were ever shot in the three-strip Cinerama format: “The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm” and “How The West Was Won” both released in 1962.

Filmmakers discovered was difficult to compose a scene using the three-camera process because any objects close to the cameras would be distorted if they went across the seams where the cameras overlapped their field of view. Although they took steps to try to hide the overlap, it was still visible in films. Documentary three-strip Cinerama films were shot and projected at 26 frames per second but the feature films were shot at the standard 24 frames per second.

Cinerama had a camera aspect ratio of 2.59:1. That means that the width of the image was 2.59 times its height. However, when projected, they often slightly cropped the top and bottom of the image to hide some distortion anomalies giving a projected aspect ratio of 2.65:1. For comparison, HDTD today uses a 16 x 9 aspect ratio which comes out to 1.77:1.

The three-camera Cinerama format was later replaced with systems called Ultra Panavision 70 and Super Panavision 70 both of which were shot on 65mm film to produce 70mm prints. Some of these films were marketed as Cinerama even though they didn’t use the original three-camera process because they still used the curved Cinerama screen. The river raft scene in “How The West Was Won” was shot in the single-camera Ultra Panavision 70 and then transferred to three-strip Cinerama.

Ultra Panavision 70 has an aspect ratio of 2.76:1 which was wider than three-strip Cinerama. It used anamorphic lenses to compress the aspect ratio during filming and then uncompress it during projection. Among notable films shot in Ultra Panavision 70 but marketed as “shown in Cinerama” were: “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World” (1963) (which I saw at the drive-in), ”The Greatest Story Ever Told” (1965), and “Battle of the Bulge” (1965).

Probably the most famous and most effective use of the wide, wide screen of Ultra Panavision 70 was“Ben-Hur” (1959) with its iconic chariot race. It was never marketed as Cinerama. As previously mentioned, I saw it at the drive-in presumably from a 35mm print. The most recent Ultra Panavision 70 film was Quentin Tarantino’s 2015 film “The Hateful Eight”. He used 65mm film and cameras to produce 70mm prints. He paid extra to help theaters show the film in Ultra Panavision 70mm format wherever possible.

Several recent films have been shot using Ultra Panavision 70 lenses on digital cameras such as “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” (2016), “Avengers: Infinity War” (2018), and “Avengers: Endgame” (2019) all of which I saw in modern digital theaters.

Another similar format is Super Panavision 70. It uses spherical lenses to create an aspect ratio of 2.20:1. Down 20 as that Among notable films shot in Super Panavision 70 and marketed as Cinerama were “Grand Prix” (1966) (which I saw in the drive-in), “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), and “Ice Station Zebra” (1968). Many other notable films were shot in this format but were not marketed as Cinerama because they were projected onto flat screens.

When Ultra or Super Panavision films were shown in Cinerama theaters using a single projector, they had to use special optics on the projectors to get them to conform to the highly curved Cinerama screens.

I saw “Ice Station Zebra” with my parents at the Indiana Theater in Cinerama again as a guest of the Muscular Dystrophy Foundation. I begged my parents to take me to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” in Cinerama but from some things they had heard about it, I think they thought it was perhaps too adult for me. I didn’t see 2001 until it was shown on TV many years later. Then it was rereleased to theaters and I was able to see it in a small 2-screen theater in the Speedway shopping center. It was described as Super Panavision 70 format but my guess is it was probably a 35mm print. I was always disappointed I never got to see it on a huge screen but at least seeing that one version in the theater was better than the TV versions I had seen which used pan and scan to fit the widescreen image onto a 4:3 standard definition TV screen.

Years later when seeing these films on TV, I never could understand why you could see the vertical seams dividing the Cinerama image into three parts on “How The West Was Won” yet you cannot see the seams on “Ice Station Zebra” and “2001: A Space Odyssey”. It wasn’t until I began researching this episode that I learned that only 2 Cinerama feature films were actually shot in the three-strip format and the others were shot with a single camera and projected with a single projector onto the curved Cinerama screens. That finally explains a lifelong mystery of why there never were any seams in these other so-called Cinerama movies.

See the links in the description to Wikipedia articles on all of these formats and other similar formats of the era such as Todd-AO. These articles include more extensive lists of famous films which were shot and shown in these widescreen formats.

Before we leave the drive-in movie era completely, we have to talk about the 1969 film “Winning” starring Paul Newman, Joanne Woodward, and Robert Wagner. Newman and Wagner played racecar drivers who were rivals. Much of the film was shot on location at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway just a couple of miles south of the Lafayette Road Drive-in. My entire family has been lifelong fans of the Indy 500 so this was a must-see film. It included actual race footage of crashes from the 1966 Indy 500 and other races.

If that wasn’t enough to make the film important in my moviegoing history, it’s also the first film I ever saw that had a sex scene. Well… Sort of a sex scene. The film was rated “M” for mature audiences. Today probably it would rate PG-13 at worst and perhaps only PG. Newman and Woodward who were married in real life played a married couple. In the film, she has an affair with Wagner. There is a scene shot in the Speedway Motel where Newman walks in on Wagner in bed with Woodward.

Wagner was on top of Woodward in bed but they were under the covers and there was no nudity involved. Even though I was 14 years old I was still quite uneducated about such things and it prompted me to ask, “What were they doing?” I don’t quite recall what sort of evasive answer my parents gave me.

The last movie I ever saw at a drive-in was not at Lafayette Road but was at the Tibbs Drive-in which is the only drive-in movie still in operation in Indianapolis. I went with some of the guys in the neighborhood. It was the 1970 Roger Corman gangster film “Bloody Mama”. Corman is known as the King of B movies. The film starred Shelley Winters as real-life gangster Ma Barker and a then-unknown 27-year-old actor you might ever heard of. His name was… Robert De Niro. Do we know him? Yeah.

Not only was it a bloody gory gangster movie, but Ma Barker routinely had sex with her adult sons and their friends. The sons would argue over whose turn it was the spend the night with Mama. None of them wanted to do it.

I’ll never forget one line from the movie. When one of the Barker boys played by De Niro overdosed and died, mama was hysterical she shouted out to her son Herman who was out alligator hunting with a Tommy gun. “Your brother’s dead. It was that dope he put in his arm.” Herman Barker played by Don Stroud calmly replies, “Just bury him deep. There’s a lot of animals around here.” Typical Roger Corman B-movie fair. Some people consider it a cult classic.

This episode is getting quite long so I think this is a good place to split it. In the next week’s episode, I will recount more of my history of enjoying movies. We will focus on the evolution of special effects which have always fascinated me. Most of the times that I have purchased DVDs of films it was not typically because I planned to watch them over and over again but so I could see the “making of” features that explained how the special effects were created and this into the director’s commentary.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast. Tell me your stories about the first movies you ever saw or take a nostalgic look back at your driving experiences.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Contemplating Life – Episode 51 – “The Last Picture Show”

This week we explore the transitions I’ve had to go through in my life as it relates to my ability to get out into the world and do ordinary things like enjoying a movie with my friends. It’s based on an essay I wrote for my writing seminar. Note there are lots of movie clips in the YouTube version of this week’s podcast so you might want to watch it on YouTube.

Links of interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

NOTE: This video may be blocked in some countries because I used a tiny bit too much of a copyrighted film. It should be visible in the US so set your VPN accordingly or listen to the audio on any of my podcast platforms such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, etc.

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 51 of Contemplating Life.

I planned to get back to the stories about my college days at IUPUI. But this is movie awards season. The Golden Globes will have already been awarded by the time you see this. Oscar nominations come out January 27 (not the 17th as I said in the video) and the Oscars will be awarded March 10. I hope to be able to see all of the Best Picture-nominated films and review them here as I did last year. I’ve already started watching some of the contenders. To prepare for my Oscar reviews, I want to spend an episode or two talking about what movies mean to me.

Today’s episode is based on an essay I wrote for my writing seminar. We were told to write about a character in transition. I chose to write about the various transitions I’ve had to go through in dealing with my disability and the effect it has had on my independence and my ability to enjoy entertainment. My writing instructor, award-winning sci-fi author David Gerrold, had high praise for this essay and several of my fellow students had nice words about it so I hope you enjoy it as much as they did.

Recently, on the Friday between Christmas and New Year’s, I went to the movies with my friends Rich and Kathy Logan. We saw “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom”. It was pretty good but after a while, all of the superhero movies tend to feel alike. It was worth the trip to the theater and I really enjoyed the 3D but overall it probably wasn’t that great of a movie.

I guess that for most of you, going out to your local Cineplex and catching a film with your friends is something you take for granted. For me, I can’t do that. Every time I go to the movies, somewhere in the back of my mind is the idea that it might be my last time. I’m not talking about my own mortality here. Someday, we’ll all see our last picture show. We know not the day nor the hour when that will happen.

I’m talking about my ability to get out of the house and see a movie in a theater. There’s something special about seeing movies on the big screen with multi-channel digital surround sound, especially in IMAX or IMAX 3D. As the IMAX marketing phrase says, “Watch a movie or be a part of one.” Movies have the capability of transporting me to places, real or fantastic, that I could not go otherwise. It’s wonderful that we have access to so much entertainment via cable and streaming but nothing replaces the magic that happens when you see a film in a theater with a crowd of people. The reason that such an event is so precious to me is that on more than one occasion, it felt like it might be the last time I ever had that opportunity.

I’ll never forget the day back in 1979 when I had such an experience.

It wasn’t the last movie I would ever see in my life, but it was the last movie I would ever see in a theater by myself. For such a significant milestone, it should have been something great and memorable. It wasn’t. It was the comedy farce “The In-Laws” starring Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.

I was about a month short of my 24th birthday. A few months prior, I had to quit my job as a computer programmer for the Indiana University Department of Medical Genetics. My disability had worsened to the point where I could no longer work a full-time job. After two weeks in the hospital recovering from congestive heart failure and several months home in bed I was finally getting out into the world again.

Going to the mall to see a movie on my own was something I’d done dozens of times since I was a teenager. My parents would drop me off, I would see the film, and they would pick me up when it was over. Getting out of the house to the movies was my celebration that things were finally getting back to normal.

In those days, they didn’t have stadium seating in movie theaters like we do today. The floor transitioned from a gentle slope near the front to a steeper slope at the back. There were no areas designed specifically for people in wheelchairs. I had to sit in the aisle which meant that people often ran into me in the dark. It was uncomfortable to sit on the sloping floor so I always sat near the front where the slope was less severe.

About halfway through the movie, I started to slump slightly in my wheelchair. I could feel myself getting more and more uncomfortable. I feared I would slump over sideways, my hand would slip off my wheelchair joystick controls, and I would be unable to get it back again. I would be stranded there. There were very few people in the theater and they were all sitting behind me. So, when the movie was over, no one would be walking by and I could easily get their attention and ask for help. They probably would all have left not knowing that I was stuck there. I didn’t look forward to the idea that I was going to have to yell for help when the movie was over.

I was filled with anger and frustration. I thought that after recovering from heart failure I was back to normal but this was in no way normal for me.

I had to try to get my wheelchair onto level ground. I was already sitting very near the front because the slope of the floor was less severe but it wasn’t enough. I turned my wheelchair around and drove up the steep slope of the theater aisle. It took everything I had to maintain control as the aisle steepened on the way up. There was a level area at the top near the door. I thought perhaps if I sat there, I would be safe.

It took everything I had to get up the steep slope without my hand slipping off of the joystick or my head flopping backwards but somehow I made it to level ground. At last, I would be able to watch the rest of the film.

But after a few minutes, I felt myself continuing to slump over. I finally gave up. I drove my wheelchair to the theater door, pushed it open with my footrest, and drove out to the lobby of the theater in the mall. There was still about a half-hour left in the movie but I didn’t care anymore.

I sat there quietly with tears streaming down my face until my dad arrived to pick me up. I was so weak I couldn’t drive my wheelchair anymore and he had to disengage the motors and push the wheelchair himself.

By the next day, I had recovered enough that I could continue to drive my wheelchair around the house but I knew that I would never be safe to be out in the world on my own again.

It wasn’t just the end of seeing movies by myself. It was the end of the most independent era of my life as a disabled person. I’d gone to college and had a full-time job. My dad would drop me off at work or school and I would be on my own all day long.

In my college years, during the summer I would drive my wheelchair all over the neighborhood in a routine that I dubbed “The Grand Tour.” I would travel about six blocks to the local branch library and check out the latest Scientific American or a sci-fi book. Then I would drive a half-mile down 34th St. to the Burger Chef for lunch. I would go across the street from there to the drugstore, pick up a magazine or comic book, maybe a candy bar, and return home.

Each year during May, mom would drop me off at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and I would spend the whole day at the track watching cars practice. I’d tour the garage area, and talk to mechanics and drivers.

All of these expressions of my independence came to a crashing halt at that stupid little movie that evening in late June 1979.

It wasn’t long after that that I lost the ability to feed myself. I could no longer type on my computer keyboard. Driving my wheelchair around my house even on level ground with no bumps became difficult.

I sank into a deep depression. I asked myself, “Where is that well-adjusted handicapped person I used to know named Chris Young?” The answer was obvious, he died when I lost the ability to use my arms effectively.

After sulking for many days, I did what I had always done… I found a way to adapt.

I discovered that if I propped my elbow up on the armrest of my wheelchair and stood up my computer keyboard on an easel so that the keys were facing me. I could use a long pencil or a wooden dowl rod to poke at the keys on the keyboard. We wired small pushbuttons into the Shift and Control keys on the keyboard. I would type with my right hand and work the buttons in my left hand.

I also discovered that if I held this typing stick in my mouth, and held the other end in my hand, it would steady my right hand on the wheelchair joystick. In some respects, I was using the mouth stick to push my hand which in turn pushed the joystick. That gave me the ability to get around the house or to go outside if it was on smooth ground. But I wasn’t able to go anywhere alone anymore.

Shortly after that last solo trip to the movies, Dad and I went to the movies together. We saw one of my favorite cheesy disaster films of all time “The Cassandra Crossing.” It featured an ensemble cast that included Sophia Loren, Richard Harris, Burt Lancaster, Lee Strasburg, Ava Gardner, Martin Sheen, and O.J. Simpson. A group of people on a European passenger train were infected with a deadly virus. Fearing that the infection would spread, no country would allow them to stop. Officials eventually routed the train onto a bridge over a deep gorge called the Cassondra Crossing where they planned to blow up the bridge and kill everyone on board. The special-effects miniatures of the train crashing into the canyon were spectacular. Dad and I both loved the movie.

Shortly after that Dad and I saw “Apocalypse Now”. Not only was I getting to season good cheesy action movies, I also got to see some quality filmmaking and it brought Dad and me even closer together to share these kinds of films.

I’m blessed by other friends and family who have taken me to see countless movies over the years and they still do so to this day.

Over the years, I’ve had to make more and more adjustments as my ability has diminished further. Eventually, I could no longer type on my computer at all. Fortunately, voice control software was developed that allows me to dictate into a computer and have complete control of all of its functions. If you’d asked me back in the 70s when I first began studying programming if computers would ever understand speech accurately, I would’ve said never in my lifetime. But for decades now voice recognition has been my only means of computer access.

Seven years ago I lost the ability to drive my wheelchair completely, but I got a new wheelchair with new controls. A tiny joystick is mounted on a collar that fits around my neck and I can push the controls with my lips. I also use that joystick as a mouse on my computer. I strap my head onto my headrest so that it stays firmly in place and I am much more mobile than I was when I was trying to control the joystick with my hand. I can now ride over bumpy ground safely. I still don’t go anywhere unaccompanied.

In December 2016 I had to have a trach installed in my throat. Periodically I need to have it suctioned. I don’t go anywhere without my suctioning machine. At first, I was reluctant to ask friends to go to the movies with me because they would have to operate the suction machine if I needed it. It wasn’t anything beyond their capability but I didn’t want them to have to be a nursemaid to me.

The first movie I saw after I had my trach was in March 2017 when I went with my friends Rich and Kathy Logan to see the Marvel Comics movie “Logan”. It featured Hugh Jackman in his last film in which he played Wolverine. I had a history of seeing Logan movies with the Logans. The first film we saw together was “Logan’s Run” back when we were at IUPUI together. More on that story another day. Anyway, for this movie we brought my dad along in case I needed to be suctioned. Rich, Kathy, and I enjoyed it but he hated the movie. Again, I worried that my moviegoing days were numbered. Trying to find a movie that my dad and my friends would all enjoy was going to be a challenge.

After that, I finally got the courage to ask my friends if they could do my suctioning. My most loyal friend Rich said, “We were wondering when you were going to get around to asking. Of course, we can do it. We’ve been adapting to your disability along with you for decades now. This is just the next phase.”

Because my stamina continues to fade gradually, I wasn’t certain I could ever go to a concert again but since I got my trach, I’ve seen some of my favorite acts including memorable concerts of Peter Frampton, The Trans-Siberian Orchestra, Steve Miller Band, The Who, and Sting thanks to my sister Carol who accompanies me. Carol and I also catch a couple of hockey games each year. Although, we try to go to afternoon games because I have a hard time staying up late.

These days, I’m still able to get out to the movies with friends and family but I pick and choose them carefully. I go for the big blockbusters in IMAX and/or 3D. If I’m willing to risk COVID, flu, RSV, and God knows what else being out in public as well as the strain on my ever-diminishing stamina, it had better be something big and spectacular. I have seen Dune, Avatar 2 twice, and Oppenheimer in 70 mm filmed IMAX. Rich, Kathy, and I have seen every Star Wars film together over the years in the theater sometimes multiple times as well as most of the major Marvel and DC movies. This latest visit to see Aquaman 2 was just the next in a long series of such films.

My life has been a constant struggle to keep up with my ever-changing ability. I’ve had to reinvent myself and my activities multiple times over the past 68 years. And I will keep adapting until I can adapt no more.

One of my good friends who went by the nickname Buz, who was a fellow Christian, once told me he couldn’t wait until we meet someday in heaven and I could run up to him and give him a big hug. I told him, “Buz, I don’t see myself walking in heaven. For me, heaven is a place where I’m disabled but it doesn’t matter anymore. To the extent that you, my other friends, and my family try to give me as normal a life as possible, you make Heaven on Earth for me.” Much to my surprise, I’ve outlived Buz. When I make that final transformation to the next phase of my existence, I’ll roll up to Buz in my heavenly wheelchair and give him a big “I told you so.”

And I’ll see my parents again and Dad and I will talk about how cool it was when that train crashed into the Cassandra Crossing that first time he took me back to the movies after I couldn’t go by myself anymore.

Until then, I have lots more movies to see. I’ve not yet seen my last picture show.

Okay, this is me about a week later after I originally recorded this. I’ve been working on editing all of the video clips of the movies into the YouTube version of the podcast. I realized something awful.

The whole thing is a lie.

Well, not the whole thing. Just the part about “The Cassandra Crossing”. When I looked up the trailer for the movie and looked it up on the IMDb website, I found out that “The Cassandra Crossing” was in 1976 three years before “The In-laws” in 1979. However, “Apocalypse Now” was indeed in 79, and now that I think about it, it really was the first film I with my dad after I quit going by myself. Dad and I did see “The Cassandra Crossing” in 76 and it was indeed one of our favorite films but it just wasn’t the first one after I quit going by myself. But as they said in the classic film “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” Dad and I watching that train wreck was legendary. So what if the timeline really doesn’t work out?

One more quick confession… I never have seen the 1971 Peter Bogdanovich film “The Last Picture Show”. So, certainly that part of the podcast is true I’ve not yet seen “The Last Picture Show” either figuratively or literally.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support, please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Contemplating Life – Episode 50 – “It’s Not Social Media’s Fault”

This week I go off on a political rant that was inspired by a Facebook post I saw recently. My basic thesis is don’t blame the messenger for the message.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 50 of Contemplating Life.

Happy New Year to all of you. It’s good to be back after my holiday break. We left off last year with a political rant on Christmas Eve and I have one more rant before we get back to our regularly scheduled topics.

I’ve been interacting with people online since before the Internet was invented. My life online dates back to CompuServe in 1981. I’ve been thrilled to see the explosion of the Internet since then and the way it has become such an integral part of nearly everyone’s life. I saw the potential for online interaction way back in the 80s. Even in those early days, it was the best of times and the worst of times. The opportunity for interaction with people around the world was phenomenal. I’ve made lifelong friends online some of whom I’ve never met in person. But I also have seen the worst of people come out protected by the semi-anonymity that comes with online interaction.

What we now call “social media” is merely a tool. It is a medium through which people interact. It has become a scapegoat for much of what’s wrong with public discourse these days. In the early days of the Internet, you had to be a computer geek to even get online in the first place. In those early days, someone wisely commented, “When the Internet is easy enough for any idiot to use then the Internet will be filled with idiots.” That prophecy has come true a thousandfold or more.

I’ve never felt that platforms like Twitter/X, Facebook, and others deserved so much of the blame for the evil that takes place online. I blame the users themselves. I blame the inability of huge numbers of people who are incapable of engaging in critical thinking. I blame a herd mentality that encourages its followers to mindlessly repost propaganda.

I blame our education system for failing to educate people on how to think critically. I blame them for not teaching social studies or civics as it was once called so that they understand how our government works and operates or at least how it was designed to operate. I blame science education for not giving people a basic understanding not of scientific facts but of an appreciation for how scientific exploration and scientific discourse work.

Blaming social media platforms is similar to blaming a road for a traffic accident. Now to be fair, some roads are poorly designed, and that leads to accidents. But it doesn’t account for every traffic accident. In the same way, there are design flaws in social media that are responsible in part for the evil that occurs. But there are many more “accidents” that are not attributable to design error whether it’s on the road or online.

I recently saw a post on my Facebook feed from a friend of a friend. It’s someone I barely know. I won’t identify them because I don’t want to single them out for ridicule. I cite this message merely as an example to illustrate how I believe social media is abused and the lack of responsibility shown by users who are too quick to repost a message without fully understanding the consequences of what they have done.

Here is the post exactly as I found it. I have not corrected any grammar or punctuation in my online transcript of this podcast. You can see the actual message with identifying portions redacted on the YouTube version of today’s podcast.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles. I believe we should be proud of our country. A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down.

“The news media should not be afraid to use the “Love of Christ” part. Why they state, “Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!” Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out. Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion. This man “Jesus,” God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who “believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!”

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste it to their status…“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” ~Ronald Reagan.

“*Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste.* It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says “what’s on your mind”, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch “paste”.

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Let me start by saying it took great willpower to not respond directly to that post. However, there is so much in it that is illustrative of what’s wrong with online media today that I cannot resist this comment podcast. Let’s take it one issue at a time. The opening paragraph states…

“Someone once told me you have to choose which hill you die on: Get ready to fill out your reports on me, ‘cause I’m going to vent here. Frankly I expect some “unfriending” to happen and that is fine too.”

That sounds like something I could write. If you’ve been following this podcast from the beginning, you’ve seen me take some rather controversial issues against the way the disability community fights ableism. Although I don’t particularly want to offend anyone, if someone is offended by the truth or by my expression of my opinions I’m not going to let that stop me. So the post starts off in a way that defends free speech and controversial opinions which is a topic that should resonate with most people. It’s drawing you in saying, “We believe in the same things.”

It goes on to say…

“I believe we all have the right to worship as we please, “

Again, a factual statement with which I hope most Americans would agree and embrace but that’s only the first half of the sentence. It continues…

“…but I also know that our country, the United States of America, was founded on Christian principles.”

Okay… If this was a court of law and I was a lawyer, I would object on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence.” That is an objection that I could make repeatedly throughout this analysis. If it is true that most if not all of our so-called Founding Fathers were indeed men of Christian backgrounds. Many such as George Washington believed that religion and morality go hand-in-hand and religious belief was a necessary component of moral decision-making. We can see some Christian values such as personal freedom, justice, and care for the common good embodied in our founding documents. But they are not exclusively Christian. Other religions believe in those same things.

However, I don’t recall any of our Founding Fathers specifically insisting on one particular set of beliefs. Quite the contrary. They did not intend the country to be a Christian theocracy. The First Amendment to the Constitution begins with the words “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This principle is commonly referred to as “Separation of Church and State.” So when some respects, to say that we are a Christian nation is unconstitutional and arguably un-American.

I always thought it interesting that the First of the Ten Commandments prohibits us from worshiping false gods and the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from being forced to worship other gods. Thus, freedom to worship or not worship as one chooses is fundamental to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and to our political beliefs. So I suppose in some respects, that argues that we are based upon religious principles but not necessarily a specific religion.

The post then continues with an inarguable agreeable sentence, “I believe we should be proud of our country.” If you suppose that you can be proud of your country even when it doesn’t always behave in ways you wished it would, there is nothing objectionable there. But here’s where things go off the rail. It says…

“A quote is a quote. It should not be amended or watered down. The news media should not be afraid to use the ‘Love of Christ’ part. Why they state, ‘Because, using the words Christ or God might offend someone!’ Well, now it’s my turn to be offended!”

Oh boy… There are so many things wrong with that paragraph it’s going to take us a while to break them all down. Apparently, the original author of this post is objecting to some statement they saw in “the media” that they believe was edited to remove religious content. They never state what it was that was quoted or how it was misquoted. Note these are not the words of the person who posted the message. This message has been cut and pasted God knows how many times. Perhaps it was in reply to some other message that gave it some context. Perhaps there was a link to an article that described some form of censorship or editing to which the original author objected. Because it is a mindless cut-and-paste statement, we have no idea what the person is actually talking about.

While our Pledge of Allegiance, unfortunately, includes the words “under God” (which were added later by the way, and not part of the original text), and our money states “in God we trust” all of which is arguably unconstitutional, I don’t know anywhere that the phrase “Love of Christ” is routinely used in any otherwise arguably secular context. So we never know exactly what it is that this original author was objecting to. Exactly where, when, and how did this unnamed media horrifically edit out the words “Love of Christ”? We don’t know. The result is, that you cannot create any counterarguments to such a nonspecific claim. Nor can you agree with the claim should you choose to do so because the claim is so vague.

At one point in my life, I was seriously agnostic if not downright atheist so I understand the atheist perspective reasonably well. I’ve heard many speeches and seen videos of people who were radically atheists and who were offended by the promotion of religion. My favorite atheist is political comedian Bill Maher. As radically anti-religion as he is, I don’t think he reaches the level where he wants all religion purged from public discourse. He thinks that faith in a supernatural deity is irrationally ridiculous but the mere mention of God doesn’t particularly offend him.

For the most part, people who are opposed to religion typically believe that you can believe whatever you want to under two conditions. First, do no harm. Second, don’t try to impose your beliefs on anyone. Beyond that, you can believe whatever bat shit crazy things you want to believe.

This post is a typical expression of the concept that there is a war against religion going on in our country. While there are many people highly critical of religion as practiced today, the idea that there is a huge conspiracy that is anti-religious or anti-Christmas or anti-Easter or other such claims is based on extremely weak evidence. The war against faith is pretty much the creation of the religious right for whatever agenda they have God only knows. I suppose it’s because they know that they can feed on people’s fears.

There is a war against misinformation, denial of freedom, and against hypocrisy. When people of faith claim to be loving people who have concern for their fellow human beings but will espouse beliefs and policies that are harmful to others so as you do not respect their rights as human beings then we have a problem. If you do that in the name of religion, you’re going to get people bashing your religion. For me, I don’t care what your religious beliefs are. I care what you do to hurt other people in the name of religion.

One of the Ten Commandments says you should not use the name of the Lord in vain. While most people interpret that to mean a prohibition against swearing or using God as an expletive, for me it is always meant, “Don’t call yourself a Christian or a person of God and then behave otherwise.” Doing so harms the entire faith community and allows critics to say, “Well… if that’s what it means to be Christian or any other faith, then count me out.” Hypocrisy causes irreparable damage to the brand. There is no war against religion. There is a war against hypocrisy and the imposition of your will upon others in the name of religion.

Anyway, moving on what else does this crazy post have to say?

“I’m offended that the news media would edit it out.”

Yet again, we have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Who edited what? It continues…

“Offended that Christians are being asked to tread lightly, so as not to offend someone of another religion.”

Now we get somewhere. We are drawing the line between us and them. It’s not about suppressing religion in general. It’s really about my religion versus your religion. The author is complaining about religious intolerance. I could agree with that. That’s the seductive thing about such a post. You could agree with just about every other line. Pride in the country. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Religious tolerance. All things I could be on board with.

But in between those agreeable things are getting vague accusations of unfounded atrocities. Next, we get a statement of Christian belief. If one is Christian, there is nothing particularly objectionable about the following paragraph.

“This man ‘Jesus,’ God with us!! He loved us, loved the world, and gave his life for the sins of all people. Those who ‘believe in Him, and accept Him as their personal Savior, will have everlasting life!!!’”

It’s a valid expression of Christian theology and belief. Unless you are so religiously intolerant that someone would say such a thing or hold such a belief then there isn’t much to object to. There is an implication that anyone who is not Christian but is of some other faith is damned to hell so I suppose that could be objectionable.

Personally, I happen to believe salvation does come from the sacrifice of Christ but it is open to even those who do not believe assuming they live a decent, moral life. I think a lot of Christians are going to be surprised at the number of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and atheists who end up in heaven. To a certain extent, the Catholic Church agrees with me stating in the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 846 and following, that decent people who, through no fault of their own, have not accepted the Gospel can be saved. I tend to interpret the phrase “through no fault of their own” quite loosely. If you are turned off by the hypocrisy of people of faith that’s not on you it’s on us. It’s our failure as a faith community to not accurately present the Gospel in a way that is attractive to others.

The phrase “accept Him as their personal Savior” is decidedly a Protestant phrase that a Catholic would be unlikely to use even though they believe in Jesus. We could get into a theological debate of faith versus works as a distinction between Protestant and Catholic theology. For our purposes, we will just say that it reveals a Protestant bias that could be considered anti-Catholic but only to the most sensitive person.

Now we come to a fun one. The post continues…

“This Founding Principle is actually embedded in our Declaration of Independence: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’”

Oh boy… Here we go. They have accurately quoted the Declaration of Independence. While it is one of our most cherished founding documents, it is not the Constitution nor is it a law. My issue with using this statement as an argument that we are a Christian nation or rather founded on Christian principles is I don’t see the word Jesus anywhere in that sentence.

What if you are Muslim and believe that you are created by Allah? What if you are Jewish and believe that you were created by Yahweh? Okay, Allah is simply the Arabic name for what others might call “God the Father” as is Yahweh the Hebrew name for that same deity. In Trinitarian Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. I have heard it argued that when Muslims worship Allah and Jews worship Yahweh they are unbeknownst to them worshiping Jesus because Yahweh, Allah, and God the Father are just different names the same thing, and Jesus is united with the Father and the Holy Spirit. It’s not a bad theological argument. Probably offensive to Muslims and Jews but I get their point.

So even if you are calling your “Creator” by a different name, you could be talking about the same thing but that does not equate to this being a uniquely Christian statement. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of other non-Abrahamic faiths to see how the word “Creator” could or could not tie into the Christian concept of God the Father.

But let’s look at atheists. Ask an atheist, “Who is your Creator? Or how were you created?” On a personal level, the obvious answer is their fuckin’ parents – literally. But if we’re going to talk about the creation of the human race as a whole, then you get into abiogenesis, evolution, natural selection, and a whole bunch other of science regarding the origin of all life.

Regardless of the atheists’ definition of Creator, from a strictly secular, nonreligious perspective the phrase “endowed by their Creator with… rights” simply means that as a human being these rights are birthrights. They are inherent in the human condition regardless of who or what created you by what means you were created. The word “inalienable” means that it is not a right of citizenship of a particular nation but it is a right that is inherent in all people.

So the supposition that our country was founded on the principle that we have inalienable birthrights does not in any way shape or form prove that we are a Christian nation or founded upon uniquely Christian principles. Quite the contrary, the concept of inalienable rights is decidedly non-religious. Even if you could argue that Thomas Jefferson who wrote the first draft of the Declaration, or the committee that edited his draft, or the Continental Congress who amended and ratified that document were primarily Christian that doesn’t make us necessarily founded on Christian principles. And then there is little question of how Christian was Thomas Jefferson considering that he owned slaves and fathered children by them. The same could be said about other of our founding fathers who were slaveholders, misogynists, and not exactly bastions of social justice for all particularly Native Americans. That’s a different issue we won’t explore.

I have no problem with one’s religious beliefs being the basis of their morality or the use of religious principles in guiding one’s politics given the caveats that I mentioned previously in that: 1) it doesn’t harm anyone and 2) you don’t force those beliefs upon anyone. However, there is a big difference between being guided by your faith and creating a Christian theocracy.

In the November 8, 2023, Republican presidential debate, candidate Tim Scott talked about the need to restore faith in God. He mentioned that Abraham Lincoln quoted Scripture when he said, “A house divided used itself cannot stand.” He noted that Ronald Reagan described America as “the city on the hill.” which was also scriptural. But these quotes were using scriptural phrases in a way that was more philosophical than theological. There isn’t anything uniquely Christian about the idea that internal division leads to destruction or that being an example to the world of how to live is an ideal to which we should aspire. I have no problem with either of those quotes.

Scott then went on to say and this is a direct quote…

“It’s restoring faith, restoring our Christian values that will help this nation once again become the ‘City on the Hill’. When Ronald Reagan talked about the ‘City on the Hill’, he was quoting Matthew 5. When Pres. Lincoln talked about ‘a house divided’ that was Mark. Our founding documents speak to the importance of a faith foundation.

“You don’t have to be a Christian for America to work for you but America does not work without a faith-filled Judeo-Christian foundation. I would be the president helps us restore faith in God, faith in each other, and faith in our future.

“Without that focus, none of the issues, the policies matter. We have to get back to being a nation that is in fact the city on the hill.”

In other words, I’m building a theocracy regardless of issues and policies. Heathens are welcome to live here but Christians rule. In this context, “city on the hill” doesn’t just mean a beacon of democracy or freedom… it means a Christian nation. It means a theocracy in which nonbelievers are tolerated yet marginalized.

Fortunately, Tim Scott dropped out of the race the day after that debate. Businessman candidate Vivek Ramaswamy also made strong statements about faith-based governance that were quite alarming. I’ve linked a video of the debate in the description and it is queued up to Senator Scott’s comments so you can see them in their complete context.

Let’s get back to our original post. In the same paragraph where they quoted the Declaration of Independence, they concluded…

“Why would the left lopsided media continue to edit this truth?!”

Sigh… We still don’t know what the fuck this entire rant is referring to. We now know it’s an alleged left-leaning media but that’s relative. Sure it could be MSNBC which is decidedly left. What about NBC itself or CNN which I would consider fairly centrist and reasonably unbiased? These days, there are extreme alt-right media outlets these days that are trying to outdo Fox News now that Fox is occasionally critical of Trump. Relative to those media sources and websites, Fox News could be considered left-lopsided. Again, we still don’t know what was edited that the author found objectionable.

Next comes the most insidious part of the whole thing. The thing that makes such a post viral. Let’s talk for a minute about the word “viral”. A virus is a nonliving biological entity that depends upon a host to reproduce it and pass it along. It infects the host and damages it in the process. I think the word “viral” is especially appropriate in describing such a post. We get a call to copy and paste the text verbatim. Specifically, it says…

“I hope every Christian or every person that believes in God who is NOT OFFENDED will copy this and paste this to their status.”

Okay, file that under, “That doesn’t mean what you think it means.” Or at least it’s vague which is par for the course in this post. If you believe in God you should repost. That’s simple enough but then it qualifies it by saying “Who is not offended”. It says specifically it should be reposted by “every person who believes in God who is not offended.” You mean you’re not offended by talking about God or you are not offended by the alleged censorship. It should say, “If you believe in God and ARE offended by censorship then repost.” Or at least I think that’s what they are trying to say. Who knows?

They then offer a quote from Ronald Reagan. I looked it up. He really did say this at an ecumenical prayer breakfast in Dallas Texas in 1984.

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.”

I’ve linked a YouTube video of the speech in the description. He makes a reasonably well-researched case for the idea that we were founded by people who believed in God and that these men considered faith to be inextricably tied to morality and thus essential to moral governing. He is very specific however not preferring one faith over another. This is an ecumenical gathering of people from a variety of faiths and not necessarily exclusively Christian. He quite correctly accuses people who are adamant about religious tolerance of being intolerant themselves. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he had to say. He believed way back in 1984 that there was a war on religion. I still think it is a war against hypocrisy and against the imposition of beliefs on nonbelievers. I disagree with the idea that you cannot have morality without religion.

The author of the original post is so insistent that you repost this message verbatim that they give you explicit instructions on how to do so. It says…

“Before you say it, I already know that a lot of you will say I don’t know how to copy & paste. It’s easy… hold your finger on this post when the word copy appears, just touch it, then go to your home page and where it says ‘what’s on your mind’, touch it and hold your finger where you would start writing your comment and touch ‘paste’”.

Believe it or not, I have problems with that paragraph. It means that the author is specifically targeting people who are not technologically knowledgeable. It is exploiting people who are not tech-savvy and encouraging them to repost something without thinking about it too much. I don’t mean to imply that people who lack technical skills are necessarily ignorant or incapable of critical thought. I know some brilliant people who can’t operate a computer. But the converse might be true. If you are not skilled at critical thinking or logical arguments, it is more likely that you are not tech-savvy.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a Chris Young rant if we didn’t bring disability into the argument somewhere, right? The instructions on how to repost specifically presume you are using a touchscreen device and not using Facebook via a webpage. If I were physically capable of doing so, putting my finger on the screen of a non-touchscreen device does me no good whatsoever. It doesn’t tell me how to cut and paste using a mouse and keyboard. Many disabled people can’t operate a touchscreen device so the assumption that you’re using one and that you’re capable of putting your finger on one is inherently ablest!

Okay, I can’t say that with a straight face. I’m being nitpicky and accusing people of ableism where there probably isn’t any. I’m usually critical of that. But if I’m going to attack someone for an ignorant post, I’m going to give it to them with everything I’ve got in my arsenal… including ableism.

There are alternative ways to repost a message. You can click on “Share” and it will be posted to your timeline. But there’s a problem with that. That means that your readers can see the original author. It means that a reader could go back to that author and challenge their assertions or their sources. It would allow you to ask the author “What the fuck are you talking about?” By suggesting that you should cut and paste the message rather than simply share a link, it insulates the author from such feedback or criticism and it makes it look more like these are your words, not someone else’s.

In fact, unlike some such cut-and-paste requests, this one doesn’t say “I copied this from a friend and you should too.” It implies that the person I’m reading was the original author and they are asking me to cut and paste. If the original author really believes what they wrote, they shouldn’t be afraid to sign their name to it. They could still ask, “If you agree with me, Joe Smith, then feel free to forward this or quote me and give me credit for my brilliant statement with which you agree.” But that is not what happens. They want to remain anonymous and coerce you into cutting and pasting and making the words your own.

The final sentence is…

“If we continue to do nothing as not to offend anyone else, we will eventually be offended out of the constitution and out of a country!”

Again, I’m not sure if that sentence is completely clear or if it means what they think it means. It gets a little bit caught up in double negatives and questionable grammar.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that people are too easily offended these days. I was raised on the proverb, “Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.” An alternative version was, “Words can never hurt me.”

While I agree that words have power and that such power can do damage, in general, I think people are way too easily offended these days. If you lie about someone or try to discredit them or ruin their reputation or misrepresent their position in a way that is indeed harmful… that is something different. An excellent example of that is the election workers in Georgia who had their lives destroyed by lies that they rigged the election. Fortunately, a jury agreed that they had been harmed and awarded them $146 million in damages. But words that simply offend… such offense only has as much power as we allow it. If someone says something intended to offend me, I say, “Fuck ‘em. They don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m not going to waste my energy on them.”

I have no problems with social media. I follow people on Twitter/X who keep me up-to-date on space exploration. I follow a few of my favorite race drivers in both IndyCar and NASCAR. I’ve never engaged in political discourse on Twitter. I follow news sources that I trust on Twitter. I’ve never gotten a single argument.

I use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family around the world some of whom I’ve never met in person. Some who I’ve known for more than 50 years and I have been able to reconnect via Facebook when I thought they were lost to me. I belong to nearly a dozen disability-related groups where I interact with other disabled people and we support one another with information and encouragement. I belong to four Facebook groups related to assistive technology. I take an online writing seminar and interact with other writers through Facebook. I belong to a Facebook group about science fiction where we engage in civil and thoughtful discussion about the genre. I subscribe to over 100 YouTube channels that provide me with information and entertainment.

Social media is what you make of it. You don’t have to engage in rancid arguments. You don’t have to be friends with anyone whose opinions you find abhorrent. There are mechanisms to block people that you don’t care to read.

Social media is blamed for being a venue for hate speech and incitement to violence. Would you blame the mailman for delivering such things in the mail? Would you blame the street corner if someone stood there and shouted such things? People say that social media has a responsibility to police its content. It is estimated that there are 2.9 billion active Facebook users. That is 36.7% of the population of Earth. It is physically impossible to monitor all of that content.

Who do you want to decide what is or is not acceptable? Zuckerberg? Musk? Trump? Besos? I refuse to hold social media companies accountable for the content that they don’t create. But you say, “They created the algorithms that promote such horrible speech.” But what drives the algorithms? You do. The algorithms are designed to give you the content that you have demonstrated you want to see. Does that reinforce the fact that many people live inside a bubble and are not open to alternate opinions? Yes, it does. But they choose to live in those bubbles. They choose to get their news from only one source. They choose to reject any criticism of their preconceived notions. They refuse to engage in critical thinking or are incapable of doing so. I have my favorite news sources but I don’t believe everything they say. I insist that they back up their claims and make reasoned, logical arguments. It’s not Facebook’s fault that some people don’t do that. I have my favorite politicians whose views closely match my own but I’m not afraid of speaking out when I disagree with them.

If you agree with me don’t cut-and-paste the transcript from this podcast. Share the link. Give me both the credit and the blame for what I wrote. Include comments on the parts that you agree or disagree with. Include a reasoned argument about where I’m wrong. Post links to your source information. Engage in civil discourse and critical thinking. Don’t take my word for anything. Think for yourself.

Haha… That reminds me of this scene from Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”.

– – – – – – – –

Brian: No, no. Please. Please, please listen. I’ve got one or two things to say.

Crowd (in perfect unison during each sentence in the scene): Tell us! Tell us both of them!

Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody. You’ve got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all individuals!

Brian: You are all different.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all different!

Loan man in the crowd: I’m not.

Other man: Shhh.

Brian: You’ve all got to work in for yourselves.

Crowd in unison: Yes, we’ve got to work it out for ourselves!

Brian: Exactly.

Crowd in unison: Tell us more!

Brian: No! That’s the point! Don’t let anyone tell you what to do!

– – – –

Your creator, natural or supernatural, gave you a brain. Use it. You are capable of reason. You are capable of discerning truth from lies. And respect those who do the same. Speak out against hypocrisy and lies. Respect people of faith whether you have no faith or have a different faith. That is the American way.

As always, I like I say after one of my rants…

“Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

Next week we return to our regularly scheduled podcasts.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. I can’t tell you how much it means to me but it shows how much you care. That means more than I could ever express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience.

Don’t cut and paste! Share the link. Blame me for my message. Don’t take it as your own.

I just want more people to be able to hear my stories in my opinions.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out. Please leave comments, criticisms, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone.

Contemplating Life – Episode 49 – “You Have No Right to Vote for President”

Although I had planned to take a break until after the first of the year recent events have caused me to produce this episode which I will be releasing to both the public and my Patreon supporters simultaneously because it is quite timely and I believe very important. Check out this political rant that raises an issue that should be important to all Americans.

Links of Interest

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 49 of Contemplating Life.

I had planned to take a break after episode 48 to relax over the holidays and to get caught up on other items. But I was inspired to write this episode and I’m releasing it to both Patreon and the public on Christmas Day as my gift to you. Also, this episode must be timely. I’m still going to take a break and I will return after the first of the year with new episodes.

On December 21, 2023, I did something I had never done before. I’m embarrassed to admit that I have never done it. It was long overdue. It’s something that I recommend all Americans do if they care about their country. I’m embarrassed because I consider myself politically active, knowledgeable, and passionate especially about elections. I’ve served as a lobbyist in the Indiana General Assembly and helped to secure the passage of a bill that made it easier for disabled people to vote. So I was long overdue to do this. What did I do?

On December 21, 2023, I read the Constitution of the United States.

I’ve never done it before. I had probably read parts of it in various social studies classes in high school and college. I read parts of it for my own enlightenment and as research for blogs, Facebook posts, and other political rants.

This time, I read the whole thing front to back: The preamble, all 7 articles, and all 27 amendments.

I should have done it 23 years ago because I learned something disturbing in December 2020. Something that I knew on a subliminal level but never really sunk in until that moment.

In December 2020, the nation was in constitutional turmoil over the 2020 Presidential Election between Al Gore and George W. Bush. It came down to Florida. Whoever won Florida, would become the 43rd President of the United States. There were multiple recounts in various Florida counties and numerous lawsuits. I was glued to the TV for weeks watching NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and possibly other networks’ extensive coverage of the events.

During oral arguments in one of the court cases, I heard something that greatly upset me. I recollected that it was in the oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court but I found transcripts of the arguments in the famous Bush v. Gore case and the thing I remember is not in there. It must’ve been in one of the Florida state or county cases.

The statement was made, “There is no constitutional right to presidential suffrage.”

In case you are unfamiliar with the term, “suffrage“ has nothing to do with suffering, rather it means the right to cast a vote In a political election.

Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States does it guarantee that you get to vote for president nor do you have a constitutional right to have your vote counted if you do vote.

If you know anything about our presidential elections, you know that it is an indirect election. Although names such as Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Hillary Clinton appear on the ballot, you are actually voting for Electors to the Electoral College. I found a sample ballot from Indiana for the 2020 election. In the section for “President and Vice President of the United States,” it says, “A ballot cast for the named candidates for President and Vice President of the United States is considered a ballot cast for the slate of presidential electors and alternate presidential electors nominated by that political party or independent candidate.”

You are voting for a group of representatives to the Electoral College. You may vote on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but the actual election for president takes place but the electors choose the president on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The votes are then counted on January 6.

While these dates are established by law, the Electoral College system comes from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution. It states, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

You are voting for people you probably never heard of. You are trusting them to vote for the person who wins the majority of the votes in your state or district. Their names are nowhere on the ballot. You would have to look them up somewhere. I couldn’t tell you who were the electors from my state in any of the presidential elections in which I voted. I had to look them up on Wikipedia.

In 2020 Indiana went for Trump and I only recognized one out of the 11 names – Edwin Simcox who was a former Republican Indiana Secretary of State. Recall that you can’t be a current officeholder. Wait a minute… As I was editing this I noticed that other people on the list were current officeholders. Perhaps they were allowed because it was not a federal office. I don’t know. Simcox was also an Elector in 2016. In 2012, Indiana went for Republican Mitt Romney and I recognized the name of former governor Eric Holcomb. I thought if I went back to 2008 in which Indiana went for Obama I might recognize more names since I’m a Democrat but I didn’t recognize any of them.

The important part of that section of the Constitution is the phrase “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” That means that each state can choose its electors by any means it wants. Currently, Indiana awards all 11 of its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote in the state as do most states. But historically the method has varied greatly from state to state and to some extent it still does.

With the Constitution took effect in 1789, the at-large popular vote winner-take-all method began with Pennsylvania and Maryland. That same year, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Delaware used a district plan by popular vote. However, in five other states, the state legislatures chose their electors with no voter input. They were Connecticut, Georgia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Notably, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island did not participate in the election. New York’s legislature deadlocked and abstained. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not yet ratified the Constitution.

By 1800, Virginia and Rhode Island voted at large; Kentucky, Maryland, and North Carolina voted popularly by district; and eleven states voted by the state legislature.

Beginning in 1804 there was a definite trend towards the winner-take-all system for statewide popular vote.

By 1832, only South Carolina legislatively chose its electors and abandoned the method after 1860. Maryland was the only state using a district plan, and from 1836 district plans fell out of use until the 20th century, though Michigan used a district plan for 1892 only. States using popular vote by district have included ten states from all regions of the country. Since 1836, statewide winner-take-all popular voting for electors has been an almost universal practice.

Currently, Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996) use a district plan, with two at-large electors assigned to support the winner of the statewide popular vote.

I’ve always felt that the winner-take-all method of allocating electors was unfair because I’m a Democrat in a predominantly Republican state. Consider this… during my lifetime, my home state of Indiana has gone for 15 Republicans and only 2 Democrats. Since I was able to vote beginning in 1976 Indiana has voted for Republicans 11 times and Democrats only once.

Specifically, in my lifetime Indiana has voted for Eisenhower (1956), Nixon (1960), Johnson (1964), and Nixon (1968, 1972), Ford (1976), Reagan (1980, 1984), Bush 41 (1988, 1992), Dole (1996), Bush 43 (2000, 2004), Obama (2008), Romney (2012), and Trump (2016, 2020).

Indiana voted for the winners in 11 out of 17 presidential elections in my lifetime. Only in 2008 when Obama won did my vote actually contribute to the eventual winner.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral vote. The Supreme Court halted all of the recounts because they said that the varied recount methods used by different counties violated equal protection under the law. That’s a decision that even some conservative Republicans thought was poorly decided even though it handed the presidency to their guy.

At the time, many pundits said, “This shows you just how much every vote matters.” Bullshit! Nothing could’ve been further from the truth. If we had a direct election of the president, my votes for Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have contributed to their wins. But because I live in a predominantly Republican state, my vote has contributed to the eventual outcome only once.

I believed that after the 2000 election debacle, there would be a big push to amend the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College altogether but there was barely a whisper suggesting that should happen.

After Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the Electoral vote, I again expected Democrats to push to abolish the Electoral College. While there were some rumblings along those lines, there was no major movement to attempt to do that. Twice now, Democrat candidates in my lifetime who have won the popular vote have lost the electoral vote.

There have been multiple attempts to reform or repeal the electoral college system one of which is proposed by Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh who we talked about in a previous episode of this podcast. See the Wikipedia article I have linked which describes many of those efforts.

I think they are reluctant to change the system because it means you would have to campaign in all 50 states. With the current system, we have a certain number of states that are solidly blue Democrat and others that are solidly red Republican so you only have to focus on the so-called purple states that could go either way.

The bottom line is, here in Indiana, my vote doesn’t count. If you are Republican in a predominantly Democrat state such as New York, Massachusetts, or California your vote doesn’t count either.

But the most disturbing part is that the way the Constitution is written, your vote doesn’t have to count anytime anywhere regardless of which party you prefer or which party dominates your state.

You have no constitutional right to vote for president.

While each of the 50 states currently holds elections to determine who the electors will be, there is no guarantee that those electors will actually vote for who they said they were pledged to vote for. These are so-called “Faithless Electors”

According to Wikipedia, in 59 elections, 165 electors did not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those:

  • 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot. That’s understandable.
  • 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate.
  • 93 were changed typically by the elector’s personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake. For example, one elector wrote down John Edwards for president when he was running for vice president. He also misspelled Edwards’s name.

See the Wikipedia article on faithless electors linked in the description for details.

In 2016, some suggested that the responsible thing for the Republican electors to do was to ignore that Trump had secured enough electoral votes and that they should go rogue and pick a different candidate for the good of the country and the Republican Party. Of course, most of these suggestions were being made by Democrats.

Although that was a partisan suggestion, it wasn’t entirely out of line. The original idea behind the Electoral College was that the uneducated masses should not be trusted with such an important decision. Instead, you would choose learned men to make that decision for you. This would insulate us from a populist candidate who could persuade the average voter but who was otherwise unqualified to hold the office.

According to Wikipedia, as of 2020, 33 states and the District of Columbia have laws that require electors to vote for the candidates for whom they pledged to vote, though in half of these jurisdictions, there is no enforcement mechanism. In 14 states, votes contrary to the pledge are voided and the respective electors are replaced, and in two of these states they may also be fined. Three other states impose a penalty on faithless electors but still count their votes as cast.

In July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states could penalize faithless electors yet it did not outlaw faithless electors. It is constitutionally valid for any of the winning electors to vote for whomever they want for president or to abstain from voting altogether.

One of the reasons I bring up this entire topic is that many states are enacting laws that make it difficult for people to vote. Also, some proposals would allow states to throw out an entire election if it didn’t go in favor of the ruling state party’s candidate. If you live in a state with a Republican-controlled legislature and governor but somehow the Democrat candidate wins the popular vote in that state, they could throw out the election and appoint electors for the Republican candidate. And to be fair, the opposite can happen. If the Republican candidate wins a Democrat-controlled state, Theoretically they could throw out those results and submit Democrat electors. Honestly, that is much less likely to happen on the Democrat side than it is on the Republican side. Then again, if Trump wins in 2024, God only knows what Democrats might do to prevent him from returning to office.

Of particular importance are the state Secretaries of State who are typically in charge of elections. For example, Trump tried to persuade the Georgia Republican Secretary of State to “find him” more votes. The Republican official refused to cooperate or give in to that pressure. Trump is currently under indictment in Georgia for attempting to subvert the Georgia presidential election results.

One of the reasons I decided I should read the entire Constitution is that on the day before, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to be president because he participated in an insurrection against the United States culminating in the events of January 6, 2021. This is based on the 14th Amendment Section 3 which states…

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

This amendment was passed after the Civil War to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office.

The New York Times reports lawsuits in 16 states have been filed to attempt to stop Trump from being on the ballot based on the 14th Amendment prohibition against insurrectionists. I provided a link to a website that is tracking these cases.

Some of the cases have been dismissed because the 14th Amendment doesn’t specifically list the president. It mentions senators, representatives, electors, those who “hold any office, civil or military” and who have taken an oath as a member of Congress or as “an officer of the United States to support the Constitution.”

The lower court in Colorado had ruled that because the president was not specifically listed it did not apply to him. It specifically lists senators, representatives, and electors but it does list “officer of the United States”. The Colorado Supreme Court decision says that obviously, the president is an officer because the Constitution refers to the office of president 25 times. In contrast, Congresspersons are not officers, they are members. So that is why they, and electors who cannot be officers, are listed specifically.

The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the US Supreme Court. From what I hear, the Colorado decision was extremely well-crafted in a manner that the Conservative justices should appreciate. They have frequently argued that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted in a way that the words mean what they say and that you should use the meaning of the words as they were understood when the article was drafted. The Colorado decision does exactly that even citing dictionaries published at the time it was written post-Civil War. The decision also cites the various debates that went on during the adoption of the amendment in an attempt to understand the original intent of the amendment.

My guess as a nonexpert is that the Supreme Court decision will boil down to whether or not they believe Trump’s activities constituted “insurrection”. Yet the Colorado decision notes that when the amendment has been applied previously, it did not require that the subject actually be convicted of a crime. As to the question of whether or not his speech at the Ellipse rally constituted the incitement of a riot, the Colorado decision cites Trump’s refusal to call off his supporters as well as praising them for their actions as giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. His refusal to bring in the National Guard also constituted support to the insurrectionists. So even if he didn’t personally participate in the insurrection, his activities to organize the event and his inaction to stop the event count under the 14th Amendment according to the Colorado court.

Critics of the Colorado decision say an unelected judiciary is robbing the voters of their ability to vote for the candidate of their choice. The counterargument is that this ineligibility provision is no different than the requirement that the president must be at least 35 years of age and a natural-born citizen of the United States. The 14th Amendment was ratified by the elected Congress and the state legislatures at the time. It is as much of the Constitution as any other provision. We the people chose these rules. If you don’t like it, repeal the 14th Amendment.

Whatever happens in the weeks ahead or has happened by the time you hear this podcast, it is clear we are on the verge of a major constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen in our entire history.

The current system is inherently unfair. Many have argued that it was designed to give inordinate power to smaller states in an attempt to preserve slavery as an institution.

The bottom line is, that the Constitution does NOT guarantee your ability to vote for president and could be taken away from you at the whim of either party. At the drop of a hat, your state could decide to go back to the system where the state legislature appoints electors possibly even after the election had taken place. Such an action would be perfectly constitutional. Historically it was done before and it could be done again.

I’ve not heard any candidates from either party for any major office such as president, vice president, or Congress call for the repeal of the current Electoral College system. No matter what your political affiliation is, if you value your vote, you should speak up and demand that the Constitution be amended to allow for the direct election of the president.

That is a lengthy and difficult process. In the interim, you should be calling for your state to allocate its electors on a district-by-district basis. There is a historical precedent for that and it is within the state’s power to do so. Changing to a district-by-district allocation of electoral votes would mean that in a predominantly Democrat urban district in Indiana where I live in an otherwise Republican state, my vote would count. And that in a rural district of a mostly Democrat state, it is more likely that Republican votes would count. Allocating electoral votes based on districts is not as fair as a direct election but it is at least a step in the right direction. It’s a step that Maine and Nebraska have already taken.

By the way, while reading the Constitution, I found other interesting provisions of which I was unaware. Perhaps in a future episode, we will review some of those.

One final thought about the Constitution. Let’s consider the words of the preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It’s popular to complain about the government as if it were some separate entity. But the first three words of the preamble say at all. “We the people”. We are the government. We elect our representatives and we must hold them accountable to do what’s right for the country. If we don’t like it, vote them out. If we don’t like the Constitution, amend it. So consider the phrase “In order to form a more perfect union.” We have always recognized that our form of government is imperfect. However, a representative democracy is still the best form of government. While it might be nice to have a powerful leader group of leaders who had absolute authority to “fix everything” that would put us at their mercy. Democracy is the only form of government that can guarantee your rights because YOU are the government. No one rules you. That is unless you let them. You have to be politically aware, think critically, think for yourself, respect others, and join together to solve our problems. If the government doesn’t work. It’s our fault because the government is constituted by we the people.

After all of my political rants, I like to quote political comedian Dennis Miller as he used to include his weekly HBO program.

“Hey, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

You have a very Merry Christmas and a blessed and safe new year.

When I return after a break, I have one more political rant about social media and then we return to our regularly scheduled podcasts where I reminisce about my college days. I finally got deeper into computer programming classes and developed new friendships that have lasted for decades.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe everyone

Contemplating Life – Episode 48 – “You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away”

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days. We talk about my third semester at the downtown campus where I met a woman who was the first able-bodied woman I ever dated.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 48 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days especially my third semester at IUPUI and the first woman I ever dated who wasn’t in a wheelchair.

We left last week’s episode on a bit of a cliffhanger telling you about meeting a woman who was the first able woman I ever dated, the first person in college I dated, and a relationship that lasted for decades. If you haven’t seen that episode I suggest you go back and see it first. There are some things that I set up there that pay off in this episode.

I mentioned that we met in the Hideaway Cafeteria in the basement of the Blake Street Library. I would journey there every day after sociology class. I had no trouble getting someone to open the front door to the library or pushing the button on the elevator to get to the basement. The Hideaway was a real cafeteria with cafeteria trays in a food service line offering a variety of choices at a decent price. This was unlike the 38th St. K-building lunchroom with nothing but vending machines. I didn’t seem to have any difficulty finding someone who would grab a tray for me and walk through the line with me.

I think it was about the second or third week of the semester when I was assisted by a rather short full-figured woman with long black hair. Most people just carried the tray to a table for me and then went on their way. She offered to sit down with me for lunch and explained that we were in sociology class together. There were over 30 people in the class and I hadn’t noticed her. Of course, I wore the same color wheelchair every day so I was quite familiar to her.

I learned that her name was Ella Vinci (as in Leonardo da) but she went by Ellie. She was a couple of years older than me. Reasonably attractive but not as hot as some women Himat the downtown campus. From that day forward we had lunch together almost every day.

She was very outgoing and quite kind to me. We would have long discussions about the topics in our Social Problems class. She was quite liberal politically and a crusader for social justice and women’s rights issues. Being of Sicilian descent she was also Roman Catholic. Although I was drifting away from the church at the time, I had not yet left the Catholic Church. So I considered her faith a plus.

As a psychology major, it was obvious she cared about people and was very sensitive towards their feelings. In her spare time, she volunteered to answer a suicide prevention hotline. By helping me with my lunch tray each day, she made sure I got fries with that. It took everything I had not to jump to the conclusion that she was “the one” I’d been waiting for.

I can’t say that I actually fell in love with her but I was quite attracted to her I certainly felt that the relationship was off to a great start and had lots of potential.

Soon after we started hanging out for lunch, we were joined by another of our sociology classmates – a guy named Bill. I don’t recall his last name. He was a tall lanky fellow who was extremely socially awkward. He revealed that he struggled with epilepsy which he kept mostly under control with medication. Because of his condition, he couldn’t get a driver’s license. He talked about how difficult that was during high school. Nobody wants to date a guy who can’t drive and who has the potential to fall down in fits of convulsions at any moment. Naturally, he was teased and bullied throughout his life for his condition. I could commiserate with him about the inability to drive and the adverse effect it had on my high school social life.

One day when Bill wasn’t around, Ellie sat down with me visibly troubled. “I’ve got to talk to you about Bill. I don’t know what to do. He wants me to meet his parents.”

“Do you mean like just introduce you as ‘my friend from school’ or ‘MEET the Parents?’”

“He means ‘meet the parents’ as in he wants to introduce them to his future wife.”

She went on to explain that the entire extent of their relationship outside our usual three-person lunch date was that one day when it was raining, she took him home to his apartment rather than having him wait on the bus in the rain. They ordered some pizza and either watched TV or put on some music I don’t recall. They sat next to each other on his sofa and at one point he put his arm around her and tried to grab her breast. She rejected the advance and he apologized. From that lone encounter and our shared lunches, he was already making wedding plans.

I listened attentively and tried not to show what I was feeling inside. A single sentence was screaming inside my head. That sentence was the proverbial, “There but for the grace of God go I.”

When she concluded her story and asked my advice I began explaining to her that Bill’s epilepsy was a disability. The social effects of it were not significantly different from what I had experienced. I explained to her that it takes willpower and ambition to believe that you are lovable. You operate under the assumption that if anyone was going to take you seriously as a boyfriend it would be a very rare thing. So there is pressure to make the absolute most out of even the smallest opportunity.

I don’t think I had yet thought of the joke about falling in love because the girl at McDonald’s asked if you wanted fries but I explained the dynamics behind such a situation. I told her that she was probably the first girl in his entire life who had ever shown him ANY kindness whatsoever. And so he had to jump at the situation full force and push it to extreme expectations.

The entire time I was “speculating” about what was going on inside his head, I was in fact talking about myself. I just kept thinking over and over again how terrifyingly close I had been to making a fool of myself the way he had.

Let me be clear. I hadn’t yet fallen in love with her. However, I was actively pursuing a course of action in which I sincerely hoped that someday she would meet my parents in that way. So although I had been keeping a level head and an appropriate perspective about my relationship with Ellie, the similarities to Bill terrified me.

She was amazed at the depth of insight that I had into his personality and she better understood what had happened. She had no idea that those insights were mostly based on my own feelings.

After our conversation, she spoke to Bill and made it clear to him she had zero interest. I don’t think the three of us were together again after that. I did see him once one-on-one and he explained he felt he had failed with Ellie because he had tried to put moves on her on his first date. I didn’t bother explaining to him that it wasn’t a date and furthermore, his issues went beyond that. If he wanted to believe that version of events, I wasn’t going to try to dissuade him from it.

Ellie later heard that Bill had a girlfriend. This one didn’t hesitate to take him to bed or so he claimed. The troubling thing was, that his new girlfriend was some sort of religious fanatic who didn’t believe in medicine and was persuading him to stop taking his anti-epilepsy drugs. That really concerned us both because, despite the issues, we liked the guy. We never learned what happened after that.

The consequence of this entire situation was it sealed my friendship with her. We grew much closer and eventually, I found the courage to ask her on a date. We went out at least three times and I think we got together at my house on at least one other occasion or I may just remember things we did after a date. We are talking about events 49 years ago.

Our first date was for dinner and we saw the movie “Jaws”. She had seen it before but wanted to see it again. The only time I was really scared during the movie was when Richard Dreyfus was inspecting the abandoned boat underwater and looked into the hole in the side of the boat. A dead guy’s head pops out of the hole with his eyeball hanging out. I flinched along with the entire audience but even more so because at that instant, she grabbed my arm. I said, “You did that just to scare me. You’ve seen the movie before. You knew what was going to happen.” She insisted that even though she knew what was coming, it made her jump, and grabbing me was a reflex. Yeah really.

We also went to dinner and then saw the movie version of the rock opera “Tommy” by the Who. Unfortunately, I had some bad chicken at dinner and was a bit nauseous by the end of the movie so we didn’t hang out long afterward.

We also went to see “The Godfather Part 2”. She said it was about her people because she was from a Sicilian background. Not that she had any mob connections. She was shocked at the scene when Kay told Michael that she didn’t have a miscarriage but it was an abortion. She said that was huge. Being Catholic myself and my mother being staunchly pro-life I knew actually what she meant but Ellie seemed to be especially affected by the scene.

I have distinct memories of sitting with her in my room listening to records. We speculated about the meaning of the lyrics to “Still… You Turn Me On” from the Emerson, Lake, and Palmer album “Brain Salad Surgery.” What did it mean when he said “Someone get me a ladder?” She thought perhaps, “so I can reach you.” I thought it was an interesting insight I never forgot.

Our most memorable date was when she invited me to my first hockey game. It was an Indianapolis Racers game at Market Square Arena. Now, I’ve already told you what a sweet and sensitive woman she was. But I have not said that she was soft-spoken as well. We had a very gentle personality. Except at a hockey game. At a hockey game, an entirely different personality emerged. It was quite common for a fistfight to break out at such a game. This was in the days before helmets were mandatory so the fights were particularly nasty. It was a minor league team though it seemed they allowed the fights to go on a little longer than perhaps the NHL would today. There’s an old joke, I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out. This was one of those games. She would scream and yell and cheer at the fights. She would also yell at the referees and didn’t hesitate to hurl expletives. I looked at her like, “Okay, who are you and what did you do with Ellie?”

I have often described her as the woman who taught me a deep appreciation of violence on ice.

She didn’t make it easy for me to keep my perspective on our relationship. At one point, she took a vacation to Puerto Rico with a girlfriend or a relative I don’t recall which. When she returned home she went on and on about how beautiful it was and speculated perhaps someday we would go there together. She seemed completely oblivious to the challenges that would involve. It’s one thing to accept me without regard to my disability but it was quite another thing to act as though there were no real obstacles between us. The statement was so unrealistic it was painful for me. I could have interpreted it to mean she would do absolutely anything necessary for us to be together. But fortunately, I recognized it for what it was. She really had no realistic concept of what day-to-day life would be with me under normal circumstances let alone taking an exotic vacation together.

I told my dad about the conversation and he was concerned I was developing unrealistic expectations. He said that I needed to keep my perspective. He said, “You can have a really nice time with her but you have to understand the challenges you face in a relationship.” I explained to him quite the contrary that I was not getting carried away because I was realizing how unrealistic she was about what life would be like with me. She was one who wasn’t keeping perspective. I went on to explain the struggle I faced because finding anyone who would take ANY interest in me would be extremely rare. I tried to explain to him the pressure I felt to make the very best of every opportunity because I didn’t think I would get a lot of chances. He then quoted the old adage, “Girls are like streetcars. If you miss one, another one comes along in a few minutes.”

“But dad… There are no more streetcars.”

“Okay, smart ass… Then buses. It’s just an old expression.”

“An expression I’ve heard before. But ask yourself, how many of those streetcars or buses are wheelchair accessible? That’s pretty rare. I feel like I have to catch every accessible bus I can. It’s just that this bus driver thinks she can take me to Puerto Rico and I know she can’t.”

When I said, “How many of the buses are wheelchair accessible?” Dad then understood what I was saying.

She brought me a souvenir from Puerto Rico – a small brown handmade bud vase. She had placed in the vase a small sprig of artificial Lily of the Valley flowers she had doused with her favorite perfume. I swear I could still smell that perfume on the plastic flowers years later. I don’t know what it was but it was distinctly her. I recall one day going into the library waiting on the elevator and I thought I smelled her perfume. I looked around the room and she was sitting at a table several feet away.

When I returned to the 38th St. campus for my fourth semester, we didn’t see much of each other anymore. I would occasionally see her downtown and I think she took one class at 38th St. We remained friends but didn’t go out anymore and didn’t see much of one another.

In 1976, Ellie took a bus trip to New Hampshire to campaign door-to-door for Indiana Senator Birch Bayh in his bid for the Democratic nomination for President. He was one of the most liberal politicians Indiana has ever seen. He was known for his work for equal rights, the ERA, the author of Title IX, and a whole host of other liberal causes. I encourage you to read the linked Wikipedia article about him. After finishing third in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts he dropped out of the race. Jimmy Carter became the Democrat nominee and the 39th president. Bayh continued to be an influential senator until he was defeated in 1980 by Dan Quayle who benefited from the Republican landslide that year.

On that trip to New Hampshire, Ellie met a guy, fell in love, and they were married. I was invited to the wedding and attended. At the reception afterward, she gave me a big hug and gave me a small sprig of the lily of the valley flowers from her wedding bouquet. I took it home and put it in the vase with the plastic flowers. It sat on a bookshelf in my bedroom for decades. I’m not sure what happened to it. It’s not there now.

She obtained a Master’s degree and went to work as a family counselor for an organization called Catholic Charities. She and her husband were extremely active in the church. I think perhaps they had become members of a secular Franciscan order. I think she had at least one perhaps two daughters.

I ran into her once or twice at archdiocesan events and we occasionally spoke by phone. Many years after we were in college together, I took the opportunity to tell her why I had so much insight into what Bill was feeling. I confessed it was because, to a much lesser degree, I was not different from him. I said I was grateful that I had not gotten out of control as had Bill. And I was grateful for the years of friendship that we had because I had been able to keep a proper perspective. I never did tell her how upset I had been when she suggested we could run off to Puerto Rico for a vacation together. It’s

One time I called her for advice when a friend of mine needed a family lawyer for a custody issue. I thought perhaps having worked in family counseling she could recommend someone. It was then that I learned she was divorced. That really surprised me considering how devoutly Catholic she was and how difficult it is to be a divorced Catholic.

Seven years ago just as I was recovering from getting my trach installed I discovered her on Facebook. She had just returned from a vacation in Rome with her daughters. We resumed our friendship online but she had radically changed since I had seen her last.

You won’t believe this but now she was a Trump supporter.

That’s why I want you to read the Wikipedia article about Senator Bayh. You could not find two people at farther opposite ends of the political spectrum than those two. I can only speculate that her staunch Catholicism led her to be radically antiabortion and thus Republican despite the conservative positions that were diametrically opposed to all of the social justice and feminist issues she supported in her college days.

I treated her kindly online and we reminisced about the good old days but I completely avoided any political discussions with her. I knew we could never be really close again. It’s not that I couldn’t love a conservative. But I can’t respect anyone who supports irrationality like a Trump supporter. I’m guessing it was about halfway through the Trump administration that she announced she was quitting Facebook. She couldn’t handle the toxicity. Perhaps she couldn’t deal with the reality that Trump was such an irrational, misguided, narcissistic, incompetent idiot. I don’t know.

She certainly wasn’t the woman I knew in college and I miss her, the original her, very much.

I had wasted my relationship with Rosie throughout high school because I constantly lamented that it wasn’t a romance and I never appreciated Rosie’s friendship the way I should have until it was too late. That lesson bore fruit in my relationship with Ellie in that I could enjoy our friendship even though it wasn’t a romance. And thanks to that sad guy Bill, I avoided making a fool of myself by pushing too hard to try to make something happen that wasn’t there. I learned not just to allow the friendship to happen but to be fulfilled completely by that friendship rather than seeing it solely as a stepping stone to something else. It was a lesson that served me well in every other relationship I’ve had with women for the rest of my life.

At age 68, with little or no social life beyond online friends, my chances of finding romance are smaller than ever. That doesn’t mean I’ve given up. I still see and enjoy friendships with women and cherish what I have while keeping my perspective on the difficulties that would be involved in a relationship.

As mentioned previously, I’m going to take a break for a few weeks to catch up on some other projects. In early January I will return with a political rant about Facebook and other social media. Then we will resume my look back at my college days. Look for Oscar movie reviews in February and March and then we will probably explore the first job I ever had.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Contemplating Life – Episode 47 – “Uptown Girls vs Downtown Girls”

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days specifically my third semester at IUPUI in which most of my classes were at the downtown campus which had notably better wheelchair accessibility and girl-watching opportunities.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 47 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days especially my third semester at IUPUI spent primarily at the downtown campus.

Before we get into this week’s episode I need to do some housekeeping. I planned to do one or two more episodes and then take a few weeks off for the holidays. I also have some assistive technology projects I want to work on and I just need to put my head down and pour myself into those projects for several days at a time. That doesn’t leave me time to write, research, proofread, rewrite, polish, record, edit, rerecord, re-edit, and upload a new episode every week. So I really need to take a break to work on other things.

When I finished this episode, it was almost twice my normal length. I went back and forth several times trying to decide if I should do it all at once or split it. Ultimately, I decided to split it and I added an extra couple of anecdotes to the first half to flesh it out.

By having two episodes already written, that will give me a further break. This episode is a bit of back story for next week’s episode which is a really good one. But I think you will also find a laugh or two this week. After next week, I will be taking a break until the first of the year. I will also be doing my annual Oscar movie reviews sometime in February or early March.

So… Let’s move along with today’s episode

For my third semester, I was stuck yet again without a computer programming course I could take so I decided to primarily focus on the downtown campus where I could pick up several liberal arts requirements and get them out of the way. I still took a calculus class in the evening at the 38th St. campus but everything else was downtown during the day.

The girl-watching at the downtown campus was far superior to that at the 38th Street campus. There was a joke that IU students told about Purdue. I think it was equally applicable between the two campuses in which downtown was mostly IU and 38th St. was mostly Purdue.

Question: “What do you call a good-looking woman at Purdue?”

Answer: “A visitor.”

Sadly the stereotype was based on reality. Purdue is an engineering and science school and its 38th St. campus was occupied by few women and the majority more closely resembled Amy Farrah Fowler than they did Penny Hofstadter. And the opposite was true of the downtown campus. Trivia question… What was Penny’s maiden name in “The Big Bang Theory” TV show? Answer at the end of the episode.

There was one particularly strange and unattractive gal in my physics class named Kat with a “K”. She always dressed quite bizarrely in lots of scarves and ponchos with dangling fringe. One day she sashayed by me as she entered the class and the fringe on her poncho got tangled up in the joystick on my wheelchair. The chair took off across the room and I crashed into a table at the front of the classroom.

I’m quite embarrassed to admit we said some very nasty things about her looks. Someone suggested she was so ugly… How ugly was she… That she shouldn’t have been named Kat – she should have been named dog. From that day forward she was referred to as Kat the Dog.

Even in those days at the horny young age of 19, I wasn’t so shallow that I felt that looks were everything. There were simply more women downtown in the liberal arts programs and especially nursing programs than there were in computers, science, and engineering programs at 38th St.

That’s not to say that there were no attractive women at 38th St. I had a lab partner in physics who was pretty easy on the eyes even though she was a little bit of a nerd. There was a guy who was a teaching assistant who came up to her and asked her out for coffee right in the middle of physics lab. She politely turned him down. One of the other girls in the class witnessed it and asked us, “Who was that guy?” We explained he was a teaching assistant. The other girl asked, “What does he do?” My lab partner who was the target of his advances replied, “Apparently anyone he can get his hands on.”Him

As for me, after chasing my first true love Rosie through junior high and high school as well as taking a freshman girl named Cheryl to the senior prom, I had sworn off dating any more women in wheelchairs. I concluded that the combination of 2 disabilities would make a long-term, happily ever after, relationship prohibitively difficult.

There were several smart, attractive women in wheelchairs at IUPUI and although I was friendly with them I never pursued a relationship with any of them. My friend Mike whom I spoke of last week dated a gal for several months who was the most attractive disabled gal I ever met.

I held out hope that once someone got to know me, I might have a chance at romance with an able woman. I knew that such a person would be very rare so I wouldn’t have the opportunity to… I guess you would say… shop around. A nursing student theoretically might offer a better chance at success. I think I was buying into that cliché that one of my Northwest High School classmates had proposed about wounded veterans falling in love with their nurses.

I had the attitude that if anyone showed any interest in me at all, I had to try to make the very best of the friendship in hopes that it might grow into something more. I had learned from my experience with Rosie not to discount the value of being “just friends”. So in the worst-case scenario, I would have good friendships with women and under the best-case scenario, one of those friendships would grow into something more.

The combination of my inexperience with the fairer sex and my desire to find a significant relationship tended to make me sense clues or signals that were not particularly real. I had to fight the urge to fall in love way too easily. Looking back on the situation years later I joked, “If I went into McDonald’s and a good-looking girl behind the counter said, ‘Do you want fries with that?’ I had to resist the temptation not to fall in love saying, ‘She must love me. She’s worried I’m not getting enough fries in my diet.’” Okay, it wasn’t quite that bad… But it’s closer than I’d like to admit.

Let’s talk about the downtown campus facilities. I previously described how difficult it was to get around the 38th St. campus but it was much easier at the downtown campus. In those days it consisted of just three buildings all of which were completed in 1971 when I was in high school. I’ve included various photos of these buildings in the YouTube version of the podcast and there is a campus map linked in the description.

First, we have Cavanaugh Hall, located just south of W. Michigan St. on University Boulevard, a five-story building that is the heart of the campus. It was the first academic building on the official IUPUI campus. It is named for Robert E. Cavanaugh, the former dean of IUPUI’s Indianapolis predecessor, the IU Extension Campus. It housed classrooms, department offices, and the campus bookstore.

Although there were four steps at the main entrance, off to each side there were standard code-compliant wheelchair ramps. Two publicly available elevators connected the five floors and the basement so there was no problem with getting around the building in a wheelchair. You didn’t need keys to use the elevators and there were plenty of people who could push buttons for you.

A few hundred feet southeast of Cavanaugh across a courtyard was a building known as the Blake Street Library. In the basement of the building was a cafeteria known as “The Hideaway.” The building is now known as Taylor Hall named after Joseph T. Taylor first Dean of the School of Arts but I don’t know when the name was changed. Blake Street no longer runs south of Michigan Street since the construction of the Business/SPEA building in 1981.

In 1994, a new University Library building was constructed east of that location. The Hideaway Cafeteria was closed in 2008 when the Campus Center was opened just west of Cavanaugh. The campus center is connected to Cavanaugh by a second-story enclosed bridge over University Boulevard. It houses food service, a bookstore, recreational facilities, and other student services.

The third and final building available when I was there was the Lecture Hall located across a courtyard due south of Cavanaugh. It contains four or five amphitheater-style classrooms of varying sizes positioned together in the center of the building like wedges of a pie. An outer concourse surrounds the entire cluster. Several ground-level entrances are completely accessible. No need for a ramp.

I would sit at the top row of the seating area with the stadium seating extending below me. The swivel seats were fastened to the floor in front of a small rail table that extended the length of the row. On the aisle, I could get up close enough to set a notebook on the table. I rarely if ever took notes but I needed something to write on during written tests. Photos of the facility today I found online have more modern theater seating with an armrest table that folds up. So I don’t have anything to show you how it looked in the early 70s.

A fourth building was constructed downtown while I was there but I never had any classes in it. It was originally called the “Science, Engineering, and Technology Building“ with the idea that all of the 38th Street programs would move into that building. By the time it was completed in 1975, the name was shortened to “Engineering and Technology.” The final move from 38th St. to downtown wasn’t completed until the early 90s.

My transcript reveals I took “Integral Calculus & Analytical Geometry 2 MATH 164” which I’m certain was at the 38th St. campus in the evenings. Downtown, in the morning I had “Sociology S163 Social Problems” in the Lecture Hall. I then went to lunch every day in the Hideaway Cafeteria. We already discussed my third-semester French class a few episodes ago. I also had “Psychology as a Social Science PSY B104”.

There was a companion course I took in my fourth semester “Psychology as a Biological Science PSY B105.” I didn’t care for the biology class much. We had to memorize lots of brain anatomy and physiology and I’m just not big on memorization. The only interesting thing that happened in that psych biology class was the instructor discovered he could create his handout materials printed on computer paper cheaper than he could with a copy machine. He would go to a computer terminal, and type his handouts using a primitive text editor called TECO. That was an acronym for Text Editor and Corrector. It was designed more for computer programming than general word processing. Remember this is the early 70s and there are no desktop computers or word-processing software. Anyway, he could print out as many copies as he wanted and the University only charged his account one penny per page. In contrast, he could type on a typewriter, use whiteout to correct mistakes, and take it to the copy room where they would charge him 10 cents per page. The end result was, that all of our class notes were in all uppercase printed on green bar computer paper. I got a “B” in the course.

I enjoyed the psychology as a social science class more. On the first day, the teacher wanted us to get acquainted with one another and had everyone introduce themselves to the people next to them. She said, “Try to remember them and don’t go by what they’re wearing because tomorrow they will be wearing something different.” I chimed in, “Yeah I’m sure if I came in tomorrow in a blue wheelchair instead of a red one people wouldn’t recognize me.” They didn’t know whether to laugh or not so when I laughed then they did.

The teacher told one of my favorite stories I heard in college. When she was an undergrad studying psychology, there were various research programs you could sign up for extra credit or to earn a few dollars. Normally they were boring things like watching for the light to turn from red to blue and pushing the button as quickly as you can. Then she saw one posted on the bulletin board that said “Psychology Majors Only.” She thought that might be more interesting so she signed up.

In the experiment, they showed her a series of drawings and you are supposed to describe what was going on. For example, a young boy was sitting on a park bench with his head down feeling sad. A man sat next to him patting him on the back.

She knew if she said that none of the other boys would play with him and his dad was consoling him, it meant that she had trouble relating to others and feared rejection. If she said the boy struck out playing baseball it meant she had a fear of failure. Other possible descriptions would reveal something about her relationship with her father. No matter what description she came up with for the scene, she knew what the psychological conclusion was going to be and she didn’t want to reveal anything about her personality. She finally picked what she thought was the least troublesome description of each scene.

When the experiment was over, they revealed to her its true purpose. They didn’t care what she wrote. They were videotaping her to study facial expressions during stress. They knew that if they gave the test to a psychology major they would do just what she did which is to second-guess and psychoanalyze every possible answer. The test was merely an instrument to induce stress. They showed her the videotape of herself and she made her sorts of weird facial expressions. She chewed on the pencil. She tapped on the table. She flipped her hair back repeatedly. They got plenty of stress-induced reactions out of her.

As I said, I enjoyed the class and was awarded an “A”. I didn’t realize at the time that years later I would be studying personality and psychology through a series of self-help seminars on the Enneagram Personality Typology. I’ll probably do a whole series on that in future episodes.

It was during the third semester that I befriended a psychology major but I didn’t meet her in psychology class. We were both in the sociology class I had before lunch but I didn’t meet her there either. We met Perhaps one fateful day in the Hideaway Cafeteria.

She was the first woman I ever dated who was not disabled. It resulted in a friendship that lasted for decades. The details of that story will have to wait for next week.

Oh… What about the trivia question? No one knows Penny’s maiden name. In 279 episodes from 2007 through 2019 they never revealed her name. See the link in the description for more details.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Contemplating Life – Episode 46 – “My First Computers”

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days specifically my second semester at IUPUI and my first-ever programming class.

Links of Interest

https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 46 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue my nostalgic look back at my college days specifically my second semester at IUPUI and my first-ever programming class. We’ll also recount the history of the first computers I ever used.

As reported in previous episodes, I can handle logic problems, story problems, geometry, trigonometry, and algebra with little difficulty. But if you give me a column of numbers, I can add it up three times and get three different answers. I attribute this problem to my beloved third-grade teacher Miss Holmes. She determined I was a gifted student and didn’t want to burden me with so-called “busywork” like mindless repetitive math and spelling drills. As a result, I’m terrible at basic arithmetic and I can’t spell the save my soul.

Given these academic shortcomings, getting into computers was natural for me because it required my logical thinking and I let the computer do the grunt work of arithmetic and years later things like spellchecking.

I thought I would trace my early history with computers from the beginning. Somewhere along the way I’m guessing about age 6 or 7, I was given a toy abacus. I believe it had about six or seven columns of beads. The lower portion had 5 beads in each column and above that were 2 beads. The lower beads were worth 1 each and the upper ones worth 5 each. When the lower section filled up to 5 then you would throw one of the upper beads. When both upper beads were thrown you would push them back and carry the one.

It didn’t take me very long to realize you really only needed 4 beads on the bottom and 1 bead at the top. Moving that fifth bead up and then only to immediately clearing it and pushing the 5-level bead was a wasted motion. Similarly having both 5 valued beads thrown only to reset them immediately and carry the one was a waste. I later learned that some abacuses are indeed built with only one upper bead and 4 lower beads.

I linked a couple of YouTube videos about abacus use. In one of them, a Chinese gentleman demonstrates a 2-5 Chinese abacus but you will notice he is only using four of the lower beads in one of the upper beads. I learned that the 1-4 style is Japanese and is called a soroban. I never knew what they were called I just played with it as a toy.

In high school, I took a bookkeeping class and we were allowed to use an adding machine but I didn’t have the physical strength to operate one. Of course, there were no pocket calculators in the early 1970s. I think the original pocket calculator the Bowmar Brain came out in my senior year of high school. It was a simple four-function calculator with a red LED display. It retailed for $240. One of my classmates in high school physics had one and we were all jealous.

In my high school senior physics class, I learned how to use a slide rule. That ability alone was enough to brand you as the ultimate nerd. All I would have needed was a pocket protector and a piece of tape holding together broken glasses to complete the picture. Fortunately, I didn’t have either of them.

My mom had a device that was a mechanical pocket-sized calculator called an Addiator. I have linked YouTube videos demonstrating one of these. The one I had was a little taller and narrower than the one in the video but it worked exactly the same. It was made out of metal perhaps aluminum or tin. It had several sliding pieces that you would slide up and down with a metal stylus. You would put the stylus in a notch corresponding to your number. If that notch was shiny silver you would drag it down. If it was tinted red, you would drag it up and over a hook to carry the one. There was a sliding lever at the top that you could pull out to reset all of the slides to zero. I barely had sufficient strength to operate it and if you didn’t get the stylus in the right hole and slide it as far as it was supposed to go, you wouldn’t get the right answer. If the stylus slipped out of the hole, you would get totally lost and have to start over. It didn’t help my bookkeeping grades very much because it was too hard to use.

The first digital computer I owned was a toy called DigiComp. It was mostly plastic with a few metal pieces. There were some springs that would wear out and I replaced them with rubber bands. I still have the device stashed away in a box in my room but I would have to do some restoration on it to get it working so I didn’t bother getting it out for this video. Fortunately, I found a YouTube video demonstrating it. As always, the link is in the description.

Essentially it was a programmable three-bit machine. It would teach you binary logic functions such as AND, OR, NOT, and XOR. You would program it by placing short half-inch or 1-inch lengths of plastic drinking straws onto little plastic pegs. There was a plastic tab hanging out the right side of the device and you would cycle it by pushing it in and out. It was labeled “the clock” and it stimulated one clock cycle of a CPU.

You could program it to do binary arithmetic but the most interesting thing it would do is it would count from zero through seven in binary and then recycle to zero. There were little 0/1 stickers placed on it that would appear in a little window as various pieces slid back and forth. The sliding pieces were appropriately called “flip-flops” because they flipped and flopped back and forth on each cycle of the clock. What I did not know until years later was that these were emulating an electronic circuit which is also called a flip-flop and is an essential component of computer electronics.

I already described my first encounter with a real computer when my friend Dennis carried the teletype machine downstairs at Northwest High School for me to log in to a Honeywell timesharing computer located in the Indianapolis Public Schools administration headquarters.

In recent episodes, we talked about tinkering around with the University’s DEC-System-10 computer via teletypes. However, my first programming class did not use that system. There were two other computers in the 38th St. computer center in the A-Building. The machine I used in my first programming class was an IBM System/360 Model 44. It was sold from 1965 through 1973. It was a specialized version of the IBM System/360 architecture especially designed for scientific computing, real-time computing, process control, and numerical control. I wasn’t aware it was such a strange variant. I just remember the model number and only learned of its specialized capabilities when researching this episode. I doubt that we ever used any of the advanced features.

We did not have direct access to the 360. You would type your programs on punch cards and put them in a deck. There were specialized cards already punched for you called JCL cards. That stood for “Job Control Language”. You would put a few JCL cards on the top of your deck, then the cards from your program that you had written, and then add a specialized card at the end to tell that you are done and what to do with it. You would wrap it in a rubber band and hand it to the computer operator through a window. I think you got some sort of a receipt with the job number on it so you could claim your output later. They would give you an estimate of how long you had to wait to get your output depending on how many jobs were in the queue ahead of you. You would come back in perhaps 30 minutes and they would hand you your output in the form of a double-wide green bar printout. They must’ve given you some sort of job number or something so you could claim your output but I don’t recall that exact mechanism.

You would unfold several pages of fan-folded computer printout only to find out that you made some small typographical error. You would have to re-punch that particular card and repeat the entire process.

Many of my listeners may have no idea what I mean by an IBM punch card. Let me tell you the history as I learned it with a little help from Wikipedia. It may not be 100% accurate.

1880 US Census took eight years to compile the data. Estimates were that would take as long as 12 years to compile the 1890 census at which point they would be two years behind at the time of the 1900 census. An inventor named Herman Hollerith who worked for the Census office came up with a system of recording data by punching holes in card stock. It was originally inspired by punchcards used in the Jacquard loom system for making fancy patterns in woven cloth.

Hollerith developed automatic machines that would count or sort cards depending on whether or not a whole was punched in a particular location. The census data was encoded in this manner. The original cards were the size of a dollar bill at the time because there was existing machinery available for handling paper that size. The 1890 census, although much larger than the previous, took only six years to tabulate using his machines.

He eventually formed a company called The Tabulating Machine Company. That company later merged with three other companies to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company. In 1927 it was renamed International Business Machines or IBM.

The famous IBM cards used in early computers were first introduced in 1928 and quickly became the standard for all punchcard data processing. They used a smooth lightweight card stock 0.007 inches thick. They measured 7-3/8 inches by 3-1/4 inches. Vertically oriented rectangular holes could be punished in any of 12 rows by 80 columns. When we would type a computer program, each line of the program would be punished onto one card.

There were 2 types of keypunch machines the 026 and the newer 029 machines. I don’t recall the technical differences between the two. We had two or three of each of them and either one would serve our purposes. After looking at photos of the machines I found online, I remembered that I preferred 026 because its keyboard was on a short cable and you could move it around a bit. The 029 keyboard was not as flexible and harder for me to reach

The rows of holes were numbered with 12 at the top sometimes called the X row followed by 11 sometimes called the Y row followed by rows 0-9 with 9 at the bottom edge of the card. When you would load your deck of cards into a computer as we did with the IBM 1620, the rule was you put your deck face down, nine edge first. That phrase was drilled into our heads repeatedly.

I remember we had a humorous poem about a programmer who had to pull an all-night shift desperately trying to get the software to run before the deadline. All I remember of the poem was the final 2 lines…

He died of the console of hunger and thirst.

Was buried the next day, facedown, nine edge first.

I took three classes in my second semester. We already discussed my second-semester French class a couple of episodes ago. I also took ”Integral Calculus and Analytical Geometry MATH163”. It was my first calculus class I was awarded a “B”. I don’t remember much about it except that I never really understood calculus until I had to put it to use in physics class.

The programming class I took my second semester was called “Introduction to Algorithmic Proc” CSCI 220 and was taught by Dr. Larry Hunter. We learned fundamental programming techniques using the computer language FORTRAN IV which was very popular for science and engineering programming. We would write our programs in that language, punch them on cards, and run them on the 360.

I think Dr. Hunter had secret unfulfilled aspirations to be a standup comedian. He was a tall thin man whose mannerisms mirrored that of Johnny Carson during a Tonight Show monologue. He held his posture very straight with his shoulders back in one hand in his pocket. He would gesture with his right hand while lecturing. When he would turn to write on the blackboard it looked exactly like Carson turning to say something to Ed McMahon. There were plenty of jokes scattered throughout his lessons.

In addition to learning FORTRAN programming, part of the lesson was about how the hardware of a computer works. We studied the details of Boolean logic and how it was emulated using circuits in the computer. Complex layers of multiple Boolean operations are illustrated in something called a Karnaugh map. We learned how to create and read such maps.

He talked about how computer architecture was laid out. You can’t interconnect every piece of the computer to every other piece of the computer because it would be too complicated. Instead, computers used a system of parallel lines for transmitting data called a data bus. Each component would connect to the bus and communicate through it. He explained that the introduction of integrated circuits made this a necessity.

Knowing what a sense of humor he had, after class one day I told him I had come up with a pair of jokes based on his topics and told him he would be free to use them in future lectures.

I noted that some of having a data bus was necessary once computers were made out of integrated circuits instead of individual transistors. Could this be referred to as “busing to achieve integration?”

Okay for those of you too young to know, in the 1970s, district courts had ordered that children had to be bussed from predominantly white schools into predominantly black schools and vice versa to achieve racial diversity. That was busing to achieve integration

For my second joke, I wondered if Karnaugh maps would be on the final exam. If so, he was going to test our Karnaugh knowledge. If you don’t get that joke, I can’t help you.

He really liked both jokes. He said that we were getting away from using Karnaugh maps and he was considering dropping that section from the curriculum. But now that he had a good joke to go with it, he would have to keep it around a little longer.

He told both jokes in class a day or two later and gave me credit for writing them.

Can’t say that I learned a lot in that class that I couldn’t have taught myself from reading a book on FORTRAN. But that concept would be exploited in a later semester where the teacher would hand us the book and say, “Go teach yourself this course.” Much more on that situation in later episodes.

There was another computer in the A-Building that I did not use for press. It was an ancient IBM 1620. This machine was first introduced in 1959 and was popular throughout the early 60s. It was discontinued in 1970. You’ve probably seen one in old sci-fi movies. When they became obsolete, many were sold to Hollywood as props. They have a large array of blinking lights on the front console and lots of switches. It established in the 1960s media what a computer looked like to the common man. I’ve provided some photos in the YouTube version of this episode and articles linked in the description.

It was not a very powerful computer. The Fortran compiler on it was only for Fortran II and my class was using Fortran IV. We did spend some time learning the differences between the two versions of Fortran but we were never assigned any programs written in Fortran II.

The hardware used a strange format called Binary Coded Decimal. In computers today, a string of zeros and ones 32, 64, or more bits long using base two arithmetic. So for example a 32-bit memory location can store a number from 0-65535 or from -32757 to +32767. Floating-point numbers are stored in a binary format in scientific notation with the significant digits and the exponents stored separately.

The IBM 1620 used decimal arithmetic. It would use 4 bits of data to encode the numbers 0-9. Other combinations of bits were used as data separators or record separators. So in traditional computers, a 32-bit integer is limited to a maximum of 65535 but in BCD you can have a string of decimal digits as long as the entire computer memory. The length of a number was delimited by a data separator value. In theory, you could take two numbers each of which was a string of digits slightly less than half of the entire computer memory. Leave room for one instruction to add them together and it would do so.

Strangely, the computer could not do arithmetic. It would add digits by looking up the answer in a table. It also stored a multiplication table and would look up answers in that table rather than do the actual mathematics.

Because it was outdated and most people were using either the IBM 360 or the remotely located DEC-10. The machine didn’t get much use. Mostly we played around with it.

There was a program you could run on that machine that would put it into a tight loop of a particular duration. If you set an AM radio on the console and tuned it to a particular frequency, you would hear a buzzing noise. Someone had written a program to vary the frequency of that buzz and you could play music. They had several songs already programmed. There was no documentation available but I easily reverse-engineered the system they had for encoding the notes and I encoded a different song. I don’t recall what it was I think it might’ve been a Christmas Carol but I’m not sure.

Attached to the machine was a line printer that would print out your program for you or any other output. We had collections of decks that would print so-called ASCII art. That’s where you use different characters to vary the darkness of a particular square on the page. In some forms, you can overprint large characters to make them darker such as printing an “M” on top of an “X” or a “W” to make dark areas and use periods or commas to make light areas. We had all of the traditional computer images of the time including a Mona Lisa and a naked woman. See the links in the description for examples of ASCII art.

The only students who used this old 1620 for actual classwork were freshman engineering students taking “Engineering 109.” It was a course in FORTRAN II taught by an engineering professor who apparently didn’t know crap about how to teach programming. The computer science students like myself would get inundated with questions from the engineering students.

After living through this for several semesters, I developed a plan. At the start of a new semester, when one of these engineering students asked me a question, I told him, “Come back tomorrow at 2 PM and bring one or two of your classmates. I’m going to teach you computer programming. At the appointed time we found a corner of the computer center and in about 90 minutes I taught them the basics of FORTRAN programming. The universal reaction was, “Why the hell didn’t the professor just explain it that way?”

I told them they had to pay it forward. From now on they had to help other students in the class and leave the rest of us alone.

It worked beautifully. I did that for two or three of my last semesters.

Fast forward nearly 50 years later I met a young lady named Jenica who has the same disability as I have – Spinal Muscular Atrophy. I met her and her mother in a Facebook group on assistive technology. She taking electrical engineering classes at a Purdue extension campus in southern Indiana. They were teaching her C++ programming on Arduino microcontrollers the kind of which I use for developing assistive technology. She was struggling with the class. For me was déjà vu all over again. Here was an engineering student learning programming from an engineering professor who didn’t know how to teach the subject.

I spent perhaps three or four sessions with her via video chat on Facebook Messenger doing for her what I had done for those Engineering E109 students nearly 50 years ago. At one point, everything fell into place and she got it. Although I checked in with her several times, she insisted she now understood what she was doing and similarly, she was paying it forward by teaching the other students in the class.

Although it’s a bit off-topic, I have to tell you that Jenica is my hero because of a story she told me. In high school, she took an electronics course where she was the only girl among about 30 boys. When it came time to learn soldering, the teacher was concerned and asked her if she could handle a soldering iron. She said, “I got this” and had no difficulty. Meanwhile, there were boys in the class who were a bit squeamish about wielding a device that heats up to 400°. Her teacher pointed out that Jenica was having no difficulty with the device. They were embarrassed not only that they were being shown up by a girl but moreover a girl in a wheelchair. They had to grow a pair really quickly. I laughed so hard I cried and told her what is amazing person she is.

Back to my story… the next course in the curriculum was CSCI 300 Assembly Language Programming. The problem was, it is only offered in the spring semester I couldn’t take it in the fall during my third semester. That’s how they screwed me up by not allowing me to take CSCI 220 my first semester. It got me out of sync with the way the classes are offered.

I decided to primarily spend my time at the downtown campus picking up several liberal arts classes to fulfill those requirements. Next week we will talk about my third semester and the adventures I had at the downtown campus.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.

Contemplating Life – Episode 45 – “Earning a BS Degree”

In this episode, I continue reminiscing about my college days at IUPUI. We pay tribute to one of my dearest college friends, the late great Mike Gregory.

Links of Interest

Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/contemplatinglife
Where to listen to this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contemplatinglife
YouTube playlist of this and all other episodes: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFRYfZfNjHL8bFCmGDOBvEiRbzUiiHpq

YouTube Version

Shooting Script

Hi, this is Chris Young. Welcome to episode 45 of Contemplating Life.

This week we continue my series of reminiscences of my college days. Today’s topic is my dear late friend Mike Gregory.

If you had asked me a few weeks ago where and when I met Mike, I would have said it was in my physics classes because my fondest memories with him are from that class. My transcript says I didn’t take physics until my fourth semester.

According to my transcript, the first-semester class I have not yet described was “Principles of Sociology SOC S161”. One of the main sections of the course was describing how cities evolved. I distinctly remember Mike and I having a conversation with the professor about the 1972 sci-fi novel “The World Inside” by Robert Silverberg. The story is set in the year 2381. People live in 1000-story tall buildings 3 km high. Buildings are divided into separate cities over groups of floors and there is a sort of caste system in which the rich and powerful live on the upper floors and the lower classes live further down.

Mike and I had both been fans of the book and thought it explored some interesting concepts. We discussed those with the professor. For our purposes today, I just tell it because it verifies that I met Mike in that first-semester sociology class.

Mike had a huge personality. He was very outgoing and the kind of person that could easily be described as the life of the party. He had a big hearty laugh that could fill the room. Mike was a few years older than me. Out of high school, he did a few years of duty in the Navy and traveled the world. He was an avid photographer. One time we got together and he showed me slideshows of all the places he had been.

Mike was a consummate BS artist at his core. He loved telling a story about how he got to be a communications operator in the Navy. Military messages were transmitted by teletype between bases and even ships at sea. In order to qualify for the position in communications he had to take a typing test.

A teletype machine is basically an electric typewriter connected over phone lines. It used an ordinary typewriter ribbon. Rather than having hammers like a typewriter, there was a cylinder that would move up and down and spin around similar to the ball on the old IBM Selectric typewriter. You didn’t put individual sheets of paper into the machine. There was a continuous roll of paper mounted on the back that would feed into the machine. Typically it was very cheap paper that was sort of a cream-colored newsprint.

In order to pass the typing test, he had to be able to type 30 words per minute for an entire page with no more than two mistakes. That’s a pretty liberal standard. They gave them the text that they were going to type in advance so they could practice typing the exact words that would be on the test. He went into the room the night before the test, rolled a bunch of paper through the machine, and then carefully typed the assignment on the roll. He then rolled the paper backward onto the roll where it was hidden.

When it came time for the test, he rigged the typewriter ribbon so that it didn’t print. The instructor started the test and he began randomly banging on the keyboard. The print head moved across the page making lots of teletype noise and he had to hit the return at the end of the line. He wasn’t really typing anything but the bell would ring so he knew when to hit return. But it wasn’t printing anything. It was just making noise. When the test was over, he cranked the page up revealing his pre-typed assignment. He had deliberately included one mistake so that it wouldn’t look obvious. He passed the test. Of course, eventually had to learn to type well enough to do the job but he got his foot in the door for a noncombat position during the Vietnam War.

I previously spoke about the lunchroom at the K-building at the 38th St. campus. Mike was one of a group of about a dozen people who hung out together anytime we were not in class. A euchre game would start up sometime in the morning and would often last well past dinner. When you had to go to class, there was always someone there who would take your seat and the game would continue.

After playing for hours, someone would say, “I guess I better go do some homework or go to class.” Then after about 10 minutes, they would say, “Am I at class yet?”

“No, you are still sitting here playing cards,” we would reply. Eventually, we had to go to class or study but the euchre game was a tough place to get away from.

At one point, Mike and I developed signals to let each other know what suit we wanted to be called. If you put your knuckle down on the table, it meant you wanted clubs. I would tap my ring on the table for diamonds. I don’t recall what the other signals were. We finally got caught and had to discontinue the practice.

My fondest memories with Mike were in physics class. We were in at least three perhaps four physics classes together. I spoke previously in Episode 15 about Mike in those classes when I talked about my kindergarten girlfriend who had no arms. She grew up to have a very well-endowed chest and I talked about the principles of physics where normally when one walks you swing your arms to counterbalance your rotational energy from the swinging hips. Mike and I figured out that because she had no arms to swing, the rotational inertia was absorbed by her bouncy boobs. Mike referred to them as coupled harmonic oscillators– a term we used in physics class to describe two objects connected by a spring. I linked that episode in the description in case you missed it.

In one of our physics classes, the professor would call the role and take attendance every day. You would answer by telling him how many of the homework problems you had been able to work on the night before. Typically we had three or four problems. One day just before class began, I turned to Mike and asked, “How many problems were we supposed to do last night?”

“You didn’t do the homework?” he asked. “We had three problems.”

I replied, “I guess I must have gotten two of them right.” In the same way that he had deliberately made a mistake on his typing test so as not to raise suspicion, I didn’t want to brag saying I could do all three problems so I dialed that back one and claimed I had done two.

The professor must have decided to call the roll in reverse alphabetical order that day because I was the first one he asked. I proudly answered, “I got two of them right.”

“Very good Mr. Young,” and he continued to call the roll. Much to my surprise and distress, it seemed like the average answer among my classmates was only one problem, and several of them admitted they were unable to work any of the problems even though they had tried. Apparently, the homework that day was especially difficult.

He then chose one of the problems for someone to work in front of the class. When he called on me, I said, “That was the one I missed.”

Someone else went to the blackboard and worked the problem. When they finished, the professor turned to me and asked, “Do you understand it now Mr. Young?”

“Yes sir.”

Mike could hardly keep from laughing. He leaned over and whispered to me, “You know Chris, a few years when they hand you that diploma with the letters BS on it, you are really going to have earned it.”

“Hey… I learned to BS from the master Mr. I Can Type 30 Words Per Minute.”

Mike and I enjoyed nerdy physics humor. In order to understand these jokes, I need to dig into some pretty obscure physics principles. So bear with me.

In electromagnetic waves such as radio waves or light waves, the frequency of the energy is denoted by the Greek letter nu. The formula for computing frequency is c divided by lambda or more commonly read as c over lambda. In this formula “c” is the speed of light and lambda is the wavelength.

Whenever I would greet Mike I would ask, “What’s new?”

To which he would reply, “c over lambda.”

The other physics joke question we enjoyed was, “What’s a Joule per second?”

The answer is, “True”. The joke is that it’s not “What” W.H.A.T. rather it’s the unit of energy a “Watt” W.A.T.T. You have probably seen your electric bill measured in kilowatts. A “Watt” can be defined as one joule of energy per second. Literally, a watt is a joule per second.

Watt’s a joule per second… True.

This next one is even more obscure… so bear with me again. In mathematics, you cannot take the square root of a negative number. That is because when you multiply 2 negative numbers you always get a positive number and if you multiply two positive numbers you get a positive number. But mathematicians and engineers have found the need to deal with square roots of negatives so they invented an entirely new system of numbers appropriately called “imaginary numbers”. While mathematicians generally refer to the square root of -1 with the letter “i”, engineers and sometimes physicists use the letter “j”. Don’t ask me why. I have no idea. If you take the square of that imaginary number whether you call it “i” or “j” the answer is -1. J squared is -1.

Mike seemed fascinated with the letter “j” in this context. Whenever someone was doing something the opposite of what would be expected, he referred to it as “j-squared” thinking or perhaps a “j-squared” way of doing things. The rest of us not so geeky inclined would just say something like he is doing it “bass akwards”. But for Mike, it was always “j squared” this or “j squared” that.

So… I told you that story so I can tell you this one.

One summer, Mike was visiting me and my family at our lakeside cabin in southern Indiana on Cordry Lake. We had a boat dock with an upper platform that was about 10 feet off the water. Those who dared enjoyed jumping off the upper level of the dock. That particular weekend, one of my sisters had a bunch of her friends visiting or it might have been friends from neighboring cabins, I don’t recall. They were all horsing around chasing each other around the upper dock platform and trying to push one another into the water. Occasionally, Mike would get into it, grab one of them, and toss them in the water.

I was sitting in the water in my floating lawn chair about 10 feet away from the dock enjoying the show. While Mike was sitting on the edge of the dock, one of the kids tried to sneak up behind him and dump him over the edge. Although the kid signaled me to keep quiet, I wasn’t going to cooperate. I said, “Oh Michael…” I never called him that. It was always Mike.

“Yes my good sir,” he replied mimicking my formality.

“J squared you,” I said.

Without turning around, he immediately reached behind him, grabbed the kid who was sneaking up on him, and tossed him in the water. The kid came out of the water looking at me wondering, “What the hell did you say that he knew to look behind him?”

Mike understood exactly what I was saying. In his own private parlance, j squared meant backward or behind. Saying, “J squared you” was code for “Look out behind you.” It’s not like we had this code prearranged. We would just talk to each other in geek speak and we knew what the other was saying.

Mike took a variety of jobs around campus to support himself. At one point, he was working in the basement with one of the physics professors as a lab assistant. They had built something I had never heard of. It was a gadget called Magnetic Resonance Imaging or an MRI machine. They were using it to scan lab animals. Mike told me that someday MRI machines would replace or at least supplement X-rays to help doctors look inside your body. I don’t know that the work they did produced any major breakthroughs but they were working on the technology way before it was the commonplace thing that it is today.

One day I was hanging out with him in the lab where he worked and he had just unpacked a bunch of supplies wrapped in bubble wrap. We all know how addictive it can be to pop bubble wrap. When you squeeze the bubbles in your hand they make a nice satisfying little popping sound. He had a strip of it about 8 inches wide and perhaps 6-8 feet long. I had him lay it out on the floor and aimed my wheelchair so that my left side wheels lined up perfectly with it. I took a running charge at it in my wheelchair. The heavy weight of my chair on the tile and concrete floor made a horrendous popping sound easily as loud as firecrackers. I got about 4 feet into the run and stopped quickly because it was making so much racket.

Then I had to figure out how to turn and get off of it sideways without making much more noise. We closed the door and I slowly maneuvered off of it trying to minimize the sound. We expected that people would come running any minute to see what the hell had happened. Or perhaps panic and call the police to report gunfire. Fortunately, in the early 70s, active shooters on college campuses were not a thing. Had we done it today, I’m sure it would’ve caused a panic. By the way, for four and a half years of attending IUPUI, I don’t think I ever saw any campus security. There might’ve been some at the downtown campus handing out parking tickets to people who didn’t have the proper stickers. I may have seen other officers but they were probably just Indianapolis police taking criminal justice classes and not actual school security.

Mike dropped out of IUPUI before completing his degree. I never knew if he ran out of money or if his grades weren’t good enough. He continued to work for a few months at some research institute that was housed in the A-Building on 38th St. It was mindless grunt work xeroxing the abstracts of scientific articles out of journals and then cutting them up and pasting them into notebooks. Of course, there were no searchable computer databases in those days for looking up articles.

Eventually, he found another job in Baltimore and moved there. His background in communication in the Navy landed him a job with NASA or one of its affiliate agencies. He would sit at a console and type commands to a satellite known as the High Energy Astronomy Observatory or HEAO. Scientists would bring him the coordinates of what they wanted to observe in the sky. He would prepare the commands to uplink to the satellite when it passed over a ground station approximately every 90 minutes. When the satellite would go over, he would initiate commands to download the previous data and then he would upload new commands.

That only took about 15 minutes coming and going. For the rest of the 90 minutes, he had nothing to do. He was able to make unlimited long-distance phone calls from the office so he would call me up and we would just talk for nearly an hour. Then he would say, “Well… I’ve got another satellite pass coming up. I’d better go.”

Eventually, we lost touch. Sometimes he would come back to Indy to visit family we would have a little reunion with him and a few other friends from IUPUI such as Rich, Kathy, and Frank.

At one visit, he told us he was being interviewed for a new government job in satellite communication. We wished him luck. A couple of weeks later, there was a knock at my door. A 40-something-year-old guy in a gray suit flipped open his ID to show me FBI credentials. He said he was doing a background check on a guy named Michael Leeland. Gregory. He wanted to know did we attend IUPUI together. He said he was just verifying his education and that Mike had used me as a reference. I told the guy a lot of nice things about Mike. I told him he was a standup guy and I trusted Mike with my life which was true. One day when the elevator went out in the K-Building, Mike, Rich, and a couple of other guys had to carry me down a flight and a half of stairs.

I mentioned to the FBI guy that I had just seen Mike a few weeks ago when he was in town. The man suspiciously replied, “Oh… I did not know he had been here “

Okay, that was creepy.

After he left, I called Mike to tell him about it. I said, “I never told him all the dirt I have on you such as certain typing tests you allegedly passed. I could have ruined your security clearance and said something like ‘Yeah, I knew Mike from our days in the chemistry lab making napalm for the local Communist Party’ Whoops, hey FBI… If you are wiretapping us, that was just a joke.“ We both laughed hard. Neither of us ever took chemistry.

Mike had used me as a reference when applying for the job but when I told him about the guy suspiciously saying, “I didn’t know he was here in Indy.” Mike was similarly suspicious. He wondered if the guy was legitimate. I certainly couldn’t tell from a brief look whether or not someone’s FBI credentials were real. Hell, I don’t know if I could tell if they were real from a long look. What the hell do I know about FBI credentials? Mike had just broken up with a girlfriend or a wife I forget which and he thought perhaps the guy might have been a private investigator hired by his ex to check up on him. We never did find out. Mike did get the job.

I don’t know if it was the particular job that this FBI agent was clearing him for but eventually, Mike moved to Florida working for a NASA contractor. He claimed that he had actually spent time crawling around in the lower deck and the nose of the space shuttle swapping out equipment. While Mike was indeed a BS artist and it would not have surprised me if he had fast-talked his way into such a job, I don’t believe he would have lied to me and exaggerated about that particular experience.

We lost touch for many years. He ended up back in the DC area married to a wonderful woman named Ravel. We reconnected several years ago via Facebook and exchanged regular emails and occasional video chat.

He was still an avid photographer and one year as a Christmas present he mailed out customized calendars featuring his own photographs. They were really amazing.

He also was an astronomy buff and had a very nice telescope. He was going to purchase an accessory case to hold lens filters. He discovered that the case he was going to purchase online was 3D printed. He asked if I could 3D print one for him. He sent me the dimensions and I was going to design and build it but then he got to thinking about all the other things he could do with a 3D printer and decided to get one himself. He first bought a cheap Chinese kit, put it together, and couldn’t get it to work. He gave it to a friend who eventually got it working. That kind of pissed him off. In the interim, he ordered an Ultamaker 3 which was about a $4000 3D printer at the time. I was jealous. I had a clunky old Printrbot at the time. I got him into the hobby and now he was running a better machine than I had.

I don’t know if he ever built that filter case but he got into another major 3D printed project. He built an open-source 3D-printed humanoid robot known as the InMoov robot. It consisted of a torso, two arms, and a head. It had cameras computer vision, sound, and pressure sensors. It would respond to spoken commands or commands sent via a webpage. He sent me a YouTube short of the robot where he asked it, “How do you feel?” The robot starts singing, “New York, New York” and it gestures with its arms in time with the music. I have included a link in the description.

When Mike and I first reconnected on Facebook, he was getting a new job working for the Navy writing technical documentation for some sort of Navy project. But after he got the job, he said they really didn’t have anything for him to do. I don’t know how long he stayed in that job but eventually quit because he had health problems.

Mike developed multiple myeloma brain tumors. It was kept under control for several years through medications. He would go in about every few weeks to get some sort of chemotherapy or medication that he said would make him half-goofy for several days. Of course, I replied, “Only half goofy as opposed to the totally goofy you normally are?”

“Okay, smart ass… Goofier than usual.”

We didn’t correspond a lot. It wasn’t unusual that we would not message each other for a couple of months at a time. He wasn’t an avid Facebook user.

I look back over the course of 2020 and 2021 I sent him several Facebook messenger messages saying, “I haven’t heard from you in a long time. I hope everything is okay.” They went unanswered which didn’t worry me too much because as I said, he didn’t use Facebook that much.

In July 2022 he still wasn’t answering messages. I found his wife on Facebook and sent her a private message asking about him. She replied, “Chris, I’m so sorry. I thought I had contacted you earlier. Mike passed away on January 3 (that would be 2022), after being in the hospital with pneumonia and C Difficile. He then came home to Hospice, and died at home. He fought the good fight, but the multiple myeloma was stronger.”

Interviewer James Lipton famously asked his guests, “If heaven exists, what would you say to God when you get there.” I will probably answer the Lipton questionnaire some other time but let me say today that if heaven exists, I know what I’m going to say to Mike. I will ask as always, “What’s new?” Presuming that the equations of physics still apply in heaven, I can’t wait to hear him answer, “c over lambda.”

For now, all I can do is quote Mr. Spock and say that Mike has been and always will be my friend. Rest in peace, my friend.

In the next week’s episode, I finally get to take a programming class in my second semester at IUPUI.

If you find this podcast educational, entertaining, enlightening, or even inspiring, consider sponsoring me on Patreon for just $5 per month. You will get early access to the podcast and other exclusive content. Although I have some financial struggles, I’m not really in this for money. Still, every little bit helps.

Many thanks to my financial supporters. Your support pays for the writing seminar I attend and other things. But most of all it shows how much you care and appreciate what I’m doing. Your support means more to me than words can express.

Even if you cannot provide financial support. Please, please, please post the links and share this podcast on social media so that I can grow my audience. I just want more people to be able to hear my stories.

All of my back episodes are available and I encourage you to check them out if you’re new to this podcast. If you have any comments, questions, or other feedback please feel free to comment on any of the platforms where you find this podcast.

I will see you next week as we continue contemplating life. Until then, fly safe.