www.geekybob.com

The Paradox of Jimmy Kimmel, Charlie Kirk, and Freedom of Speech

01 October 2025 • by Bob • Politics, Opinion

Earlier today I saw an article from the New York Post titled Jimmy Kimmel’s short-lived ratings spike comes to screeching halt, and the article made me want to revisit some ideas that I had jotted down several days ago. At the time, I had neglected to post anything because a great deal had already been said about Disney/ABC infamously dropping Jimmy Kimmel after he behaved badly following the murder of Charlie Kirk, and still more has been said about Disney/ABC infamously reinstating Jimmy Kimmel.

Let me be honest about one thing right up front: I don't watch late night television, but I used to. At the risk of "Too Much Information," I grew up watching Johnny Carson on The Tonight Show in the 1970s. Carson was a gracious host who made his guests look like superstars, and a genuinely funny entertainer who largely kept his political views to himself. Two of my favorite comedians during Johnny Carson's reign as the undisputed king of late night were Steve Martin and David Letterman, both of whom were frequent guests on The Tonight Show. When the 1980s rolled around, I was thrilled when David Letterman was rumored to be taking over when Johnny Carson eventually retired. Of course, things didn't go according to plan: Jay Leno infamously took over The Tonight Show, and David Letterman eventually took The Late Show to another network. But sometime during late night television's tenure in the 1990s, a curious thing happened: late night ceased to be funny.

I still watched David Letterman occasionally after hours, but I didn't like Jay Leno's futile attempts at being a late night host - he simply wasn't funny enough. Sadly, things didn't improve when Conan O'Brien took over The Tonight Show from Jay Leno, nor did they improve when Jay Leno infamously stole The Tonight Show back from Conan O'Brien. But the problem with late night television's lack of humor wasn't limited to The Tonight Show and The Late Show; other late night programs like The Late Late Show, The Jon Stewart Show, Politically Incorrect, and a host of other utterly forgettable late night offerings tried and failed to capture the magic that was once late night. Of course, changes in audience preferences had something to do with that. Primetime television in the 1960s and and 1970s were plagued with a never-ending stream of "variety shows," which featured myriad performers getting their 15 minutes of fame. When those shows fell out of fashion around 1980, late night television picked up the slack as late night talk shows of the 1980s and 1990s featured myriad artists getting their 15 minutes of fame. However, the late night television hosts of the 1990s through today could never move past the formulaic monologue followed by guest interviews with the occasional sketch comedy to make things interesting. Of all the late night hosts to come and go - with hosts like Bill Maher, Arsenio Hall, Craig Kilborn, Samantha Bee, Seth Meyers, Craig Ferguson, to name a few - none of them strayed much from Johnny Carson's pattern, meaning that most of everything being aired during late night was redundant drivel. (Though to be fair, James Corden occasionally had some brilliant ideas.)

Jumping to today's late night television programming, the predominant hosts of their respective shows are Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Greg Gutfeld (with the highest-rated late night show), and - of course - Jimmy Kimmel. As I said earlier, however, late night talk shows are in a downward spiral, because none of these shows are funny. Each of those shows pander to their ever-dwindling audiences, and all of them fail to compete with content that's readily-available on YouTube, TikTok, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and a host of other streaming platforms. Audiences no longer need to wait until after hours to be entertained, their favorite content and artists are only a click away at any time of day or night.

Having sufficiently set the stage on the highs and lows of late night television, I will return to my discussion of Jimmy Kimmel. From what few excerpts I've seen that people have posted of Kimmel's whiny, pretentious, inane and unamusing drivel - I'm glad that I've never watched his show. Of all the late night hosts that I have seen - and trust me, I've seen a lot - Kimmel is the least interesting, by far. Not that my opinion means anything to him, of course. I am a relative nobody who isn't a member of one of his target demographics. But as I said before, Kimmel's audience has continued to shrink even within his target demographics. And, let's be honest: are we surprised by Kimmel's demise? Hardly. Kimmel is a pompous, self-aggrandizing  windbag who can neither take nor deliver a joke. Which is, ironically, a joke in itself.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder on September 10, 2025, liberals across the country were tripping over each other to post and re-post everything they'd come to loathe about Kirk, even though a lot (but not all) of what they were saying was demonstrably false. At first Kimmel seemed to chart a different course when he took to the airwaves to say the following:

This wasn't a bad offering, but it offered neither comfort nor olive branch. Kimmel followed his underwhelming opening statement with a plethora of Trump jokes, which to his credit were largely factual. Trump can be a genuine equine posterior at times. The Trump jokes were followed by several additional minutes of what were supposed to be jokes about politics and other things in the news, but none of it was actually funny, so I have a hard time referring to the words that were coming out of Kimmel's mouth as "jokes."

A few days later, however, Kimmel dropped the pretense of civility. Rather than moving away from the topic of Kirk's death, or to offer solace to any of his viewers who might have been emotionally wounded by recent events, Kimmel decided to follow the angry, liberal mob taking cheap shots at Charlie Kirk and his followers when he took to the airwaves with the following drivel:

Then the show cut to several scenes in which reporters asked Trump about Charlie Kirk, and in response Trump changed the subject to talk about the ballroom that's being built in Washington DC. Kimmel reacted to those scenes with the following observation about Trump:

The show cut away to several more scenes of Trump behaving like... well, Trump. He's a buffoon, and I make no attempts to justify his buffoonery. But the scenes that were shown were wrapped in a flurry of fatuous verbal diarrhea from Kimmel, for example when he waxed poetically about how Kash Patel was mishandling the investigation:

Kimmel was mocking the fact that the FBI had originally said that they had the shooting suspect in custody, but later corrected themselves to say that they hadn't. Later the news reported that someone had intentionally confessed to the shooting in the moment in order to distract authorities and let the actual killer escape. Kimmel - or his writers - should have known that, but they apparently lack the mental fortitude that is required to type the letters "G - O - O - G - L - E" into a web browser.

The rest of the Kimmel's monologue didn't get any better; he continued to spew vitriol at pretty much everyone whom he detests, and yet - as I've said many times - nothing he said was actually funny, but a lot of what he said was opportunistic and mean-spirited. Kimmel was clearly taking advantage of Charlie Kirk's murder to do the exact thing that he was supposedly upset about: Kimmel was desperately trying to characterize Charlie Kirk's murder as anything other than someone on his side of the political spectrum and doing everything he could to score political points from it.

So to sum up - Jimmy Kimmel was behaving like: an ass for being insensitive, an idiot for failing to look up anything that could easily be disproven, a liar for saying things that he knew to be false, and a hypocrite for acting in the same manner that he was mocking.

Kimmel's behavior was too much for a few of the companies that syndicate ABC/Disney, and they announced that they would be dropping Kimmel's show from their broadcast lineups. To their credit, ABC/Disney did the right thing by suspending Jimmy Kimmel and offering a path back that was very simple: apologize. When faced with the fact that syndicators were dropping his show, Kimmel didn't say he was sorry - he doubled down on his arrogance, and Disney/ABC famously suspended his show. However, the "Hollywood types" didn't take the news of Kimmel's suspension lying down. They were immediately up in arms defending Kimmel from the imaginary villains they perceived were violating Kimmel's "Freedom of Speech," which is a cheap soapbox that Hollywood types like to hide behind whenever anyone calls them out for being the pampered, selfish and vile narcissists that most of them are in real life (e.g. when they're not accepting the scores of self-congratulatory awards that they love to hand out to each other).

But here's the thing: no one was violating Kimmel's freedom of speech. Kimmel wasn't being arrested for the things he said, and unlike other areas of the world, Kimmel had no reason to fear being executed for the things he said. Kimmel's show was suspended, but he was still free to say whatever he wanted to say. Kimmel could have gone on any number of news programs, podcasts and talk shows and said literally whatever he wanted to say - even if it was untrue - about his predicament. And even if Kimmel had been fired, he was still free to offer his services to any competing network that would have him. After all the hoopla that he had caused, Kimmel probably would have had several job offers from sympathetic stooges within the week. The political comedian Bill Maher has spoken in the past about getting fired for something he said and being rehired later, and I am certain that Kimmel would have been able to do the same. In other words - Kimmel wasn't being censored, nor was his freedom of speech being infringed. On the contrary, Kimmel, said some stupid things, and society was holding him accountable.

However, the public pressure was too much for ABC/Disney, so to their discredit, they added insult to injury by doing the wrong thing and reinstating Jimmy Kimmel. No apologies necessary.

After returning to the air, Kimmel's opening monologue made a half-hearted and wholly insincere attempt at addressing what happened, which was liberally punctuated with alligator tears and a failed impression of someone being choked up with emotion. Kimmel came nowhere close to admitting that was wrong, of course. On the contrary, he intimated that he simply wanted to clarify that he wouldn't capitalize on someone's murder, although that is exactly what he had done. Of all the things that Kimmel said during his victory lap on his first night back, the following excerpt is the only attempt that Kimmel made with regard to addressing what he had said and done:

These few words from Kimmel stand in direct contradiction to what he said when he was suspended: he did make light of the situation, and he did blame a specific group, and the things he said weren't  the opposite of the point that he was trying to make, and his statements were ill-timed and clearly said, and he did point fingers. Nothing Kimmel asserted in this short quotation was factual, and none of it was anything close to an apology. What Kimmel said, in essence, was: perhaps you misunderstood me. In other words, Kimmel blamed everyone else for being upset with him. The rest of Kimmel's monologue was a rah-rah-rah continuation of the narcissistic blather that others in the media had been spewing about "protecting free speech", etc. All the while failing to take any semblance of ownership for his situation, and attempting with all his might to hide behind the First Amendment - even though it really didn't apply here. As I said before, Kimmel could have been fired and that wouldn't have been a violation of his First Amendment rights. Kimmel has the right to speak his mind, and ABC/Disney has the right to disagree and potentially reprimand him for the things he says - to include terminating his contract if they so desire.

While it is often ill-advised to speak on behalf of the deceased, Charlie Kirk was a big defender of freedom of speech, and in an interesting paradox, I honestly believe that Charlie Kirk would have defended Jimmy Kimmel's constitutionally-guaranteed right to be a jerk. Kirk knew that people who disagreed with him also frequently mocked him, and he showed on more than one occasion that he could take a joke and be a good sport about it. For example: Kirk famously said that he thought South Park's parody of him was a badge of honor. With that in mind, I honestly think that Kirk would have seen the attempts to punish Kimmel as unnecessary, but as I said - it is ill-advised to speak on behalf of the deceased, so I will drop the subject.

The sad part is, Kimmel is too much of a creatively-challenged cretin to step outside his tiny echo chamber long enough to realize that - long before he had said anything stupid - he could have taken advantage of this national tragedy to become the hero of his own saga. What Kimmel could have done (or perhaps should have done), was to use his platform to try to bring the country together, and speak out against the rampant string of politically-motivated violence. David Letterman famously did something like that after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and I sincerely believe that Johnny Carson would have done something similar. Imagine if Kimmel had said something like the following on the day that Charlie Kirk was murdered: "Earlier today, a tragic thing happened here in America: a young, father of two was shot and killed in front of a live audience. We currently do not know the assailant or what his or her motivation was, but this violence has to stop." An empathetic and reasoned approach like this example would have been great. It would have been impactful. It could have touched the hearts of Americans young and old. Instead, what Kimmel did was to try and pin the assassination on the people with whom he disagrees ("the MAGA gang"). After Kirk's killer was caught and his true motivations were revealed, Kimmel's poor choice of words and actions in days following Kirk's murder upped his status from insensitive jackass to blathering ignoramus.

An interesting twist to all this hysteria is that Kimmel's ratings have been in decline for some time, and Kimmel's public-facing faux pas might have been just the thing that ABC/Disney needed to unload Kimmel's show. On the other hand, Kimmel, rather than waiting for the inevitable, could have taken advantage of this situation to leave his show with a public display of feigned disgust and besmirched honor in order to save some modicum of image within the entertainment world. Instead of watching his show continue to crater, Kimmel could have left ABC/Disney while continuing to blather on about how his freedom of speech was being trampled, and then laughed all the way to the bank when a sympathetic network or cable channel offered him a more lucrative contract. It's like Metallica when Napster came along: Metallica didn't have to admit that their declining record sales were due to the fact that they'd ceased being relevant when they could simply blame Napster. (Sorry, Jimmy - when your show inevitably gets canned, you're going to have to come to terms with the uncomfortable truth that... well, it's your show that sucks, not everyone else.)

In the end, this entire affair came down to a staring contest between Jimmy Kimmel and Disney/ABC, and it was Disney/ABC that blinked. If you are someone on Disney/ABC's payroll and you've been chomping at the bit to say something awful, I'd say that now is your chance, because Disney/ABC have collectively proven that they lack the intestinal fortitude to stand their ground when challenged. But that being said, there are some lessons to be learned: just because you do something stupid and get to keep your job, that does not mean that you are free from the ramifications of your bad decisions. And sometimes, such as a situation like Jimmy Kimmel's, you get to keep your job because you're the circus sideshow freak of late night television rather than having any actual talent.

Charlie Kirk (1993 - 2025) - Christian, Husband, Father, Political Activist, and Martyr

10 September 2025 • by Bob • Opinion, Politics, Religion

Ah, I see that the "Coexist" people are alive and well and spreading their message of tolerance again.

I saw the following image when the news broke that Charlie Kirk had been shot by an assassin while speaking at a University in Utah, and as most people probably now know, Kirk has sadly succumbed to injuries. Kirk's untimely death at the age of 31 leaves a wife and two children, which is tragic enough by itself, but what I find reprehensible are the circumstances surrounding his death and some people's reactions to it.

Prior to his death, the majority of people in this country probably weren't aware of Charlie Kirk's existence. For their benefit, I should explain that Kirk made a name for himself by traveling around the country to visit college and university campuses and debate students across a broad spectrum of political and religious topics. One topic that he was particularly outspoken in favor of was our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and the ultimate irony of which was the number of people who tried to prevent Kirk from speaking at their college and university campuses. These bastions of higher learning were at one time the strongholds of free thought and expression, but they have devolved into close-minded, echo chambers where the mere possibility of a dissenting opinion is met with derision, or in many cases - outright violence, such as Charlie Kirk's assassination earlier today.

The prominent Democratic governor, ambassador, and former presidential candidate, Adlai Stevenson II, famously said two things that have always stuck with me: "My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular," and "All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions." I never met Charlie Kirk, but I would be willing to guess that he probably agreed with both of those sentiments.

Having framed that part of Charlie Kirk's professional history, that leads me to what I find far more tragic about his assassination: the imminent demise of free speech. There is no shortage of hate-filled people in this country who despised Charlie Kirk and others like him for expressing an opinion that is contrary to what the hate-filled people believe. But these hate-filled people do not understand that their misguided attempts to shut down free expression stand in direct opposition to what living in a "free society" actually means.

Over the past few years, I've had several conversations with Millennials and Gen Zers who have actually said that some people do not deserve free speech. I'd love to say that these Millennials and Gen Zers were speaking about racists or neo-Nazis, but they weren't. These Millennials and Gen Zers were talking about people with whom they simply disagreed. (Although in further irony, these Millennials and Gen Zers were predominantly opposed to capital punishment, with the exception of racists and neo-Nazis, whom the Millennials and Gen Zers felt didn't deserve to live - much less have freedom of speech. However, these same Millennials and Gen Zers often take the additional step of labeling people who disagree with them as racists or neo-Nazis, but I digress.)

This sort of thinking from Millennials and Gen Zers - that free speech shouldn't be a universal right for everyone - is especially dangerous, for it tears away at one of the core principles in the bedrock of our civilization. Here's a case in point: there are untold millions of people who despise our sitting president, but freedom of speech guarantees our citizens the right to speak out in opposition to our president. We are one of the few countries in the world where this form of political opposition is enshrined in our constitution and protected by law, and no one - certainly not Millennials and Gen Zers - should be afforded the opportunity to say who "deserves" to have free speech. To paraphrase former ambassador Stevenson again, everyone should feel safe enough to be unpopular.

Adding insult to injury, there are several people today who are actually happy that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. They detested what he had to say, they loathed him for his beliefs, and now they're rejoicing at the news of his death. At the end of the day, I think that's the greatest tragedy in all of this. I may disagree with others' opinions, sometimes vehemently, but no one should fear for their safety just because I think they're wrong about something. No one needs to die just because they've said something unpopular.

All this discussion brings me back to my opening statement, for it is the people who consistently preach messages of "coexistence" and "tolerance" whom I have usually found to be paradoxically the least tolerant and least interested in living peacefully with others and others' opinions.

In closing, if you disliked Charlie Kirk, I understand why, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. But Kirk didn't deserve to die for his opinions. And if you're one of the people who is glad that he was killed earlier today, then you should seriously reconsider your worldview, because Charlie Kirk wasn't the problem - you are.

Not Everyone Can Do The Job

02 September 2025 • by Bob • Military, Opinion

I saw the following image earlier today, and I have to admit - I felt this way during my tenure in the military.

To be blunt, there were some jobs within the military that not everyone could do.  But that had nothing to do with gender or race - it was a question of skills and abilities.

I didn't care if a man or a woman volunteered for any specific position within our armed services - as far as I was concerned, it only mattered if they could accomplish the mission. It didn't matter if ten people were needed for a mission and it took seven women and three men, or eight men and two women, or any mixture of white, black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. soldiers. What screwed things up was when I witnessed firsthand that DEI idiots were demanding that some roles needed to be "easier" so that a "more diverse population" could get in.

I saw a Warrant Officer argue against reducing the skills necessary to complete the Army's Air Assault program so that more women could pass the course. When he was accused of being a chauvinist he replied, "Combat isn't sexist. A bullet doesn't care if you're a man or a woman. The person standing next to you needs to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will be able to have their back when the time comes."

When we reduce the qualifications of certain jobs in the name of "equal outcomes," we jeopardize everyone's safety.

Chocolate Break on a Warm Spanish Evening

28 August 2025 • by Bob • Guitar, Humor, Travel

I was perusing my collection of photos from my misadventure along the Camino de Santiago in Northern Spain from two years ago, and I stumbled across this gem from my stop in Burgos.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to why I chose this specific cafe to sample the local chocolate-dipped churros?

No, Kamala Harris Did Not Say She's Coming After Trump Supporters

23 August 2025 • by Bob • Politics, Humor

There is a meme floating around which claims that former presidential candidate Kamala Harris uttered the following warning on June 18, 2020:

First of all, no - Kamala Harris did not say that, and the source of this fictitious quote is a satire website. But these sorts of statements make me angry, because they're so easily refuted by the facts. For this specific example, see the articles Social Media Posts Treat Fictional Harris ‘Quote’ as Fact and No, Harris Never Said Trump's Supporters Would 'Feel the Vengeance of a Nation'. Whenever I see political tripe such as this show up on social media, all it does is reinforce the ignorance of the person who reposted it. Not just because the information these political dupes are posting is verifiably false, but also because it publicly demonstrates that these sycophantic suckers are incapable of both telling the difference between fact and fiction and being capable of simple searches that might uncover the truth. (Which is kind of frightening when you think about it.)

Don't get me wrong, Kamala has said a lot of stupid things, and that should have been a dead giveaway that this was fake. If Kamala had ACTUALLY wanted to say something like the original post, it would have been more like the following example:

Now, tell me the truth... you could hear that in your head in Kamala's voice as you read it, right? That's what Kamala Harris actually sounds like when she speaks, and that's why that original quote is easily outed as a hoax. Kamala simply doesn't have the speaking skills or presence of mind to deliver something as succinct as the original post - even with a teleprompter desperately trying to guide her.

POSTSCRIPT:

To be fair, Biden could have said something much like the original quotation 20 or 30 years ago before his brain had turned to cottage cheese. But if he had, his speech would have been stolen from a speech that someone else had given, since Biden was a career plagiarist - see https://tinyurl.com/yj2wdp7b - but I digress. 😉

More 511th History: Being Punished for Planning Ahead

19 July 2025 • by Bob • Military

Here's another in my long line of 511th-related stories that I documented at one time or another.

Obtaining necessary items from supply was critical to carrying out our mission, and over the years we had a modicum of success with getting the clerks in supply to do their jobs and order what we needed. Throughout my first two years I learned how to anticipate what I might need in advance, and I would frequently requisition items from supply several months before I might need them, which often paid off handsomely. One item in particular that I always made sure our squad had an ample supply of when the 511th deployed to the field was "D" sized batteries, which the EW teams needed to run the AN/TRQ-30 radios by night. (The TRQ-30s consumed 12 batteries at a time.) Of course, "D" sized batteries were also used for our flashlights, so it was nice to have lots of spares.

But that being said, I vividly recall a deployment when the rest of the 511th hadn't bothered to plan ahead. When the time came to head to the field, a bunch of people ran to the supply office, where they were promptly informed that supply wouldn't have any batteries for several weeks - long after the deployment was over. Of course, a lack of batteries was insufficient to prevent the 511th from heading out to the field.

After our squad had arrived on site, word somehow got back to CPT Quinn that "SGT McMurray had a huge stash of batteries that he wasn't willing to share." Armed with that knowledge, CPT Quinn personally dropped by our location to put an end to what he perceived as my "greediness." When he showed up, he asked me to produce every battery that I had brought with our squad. I pulled out a couple boxes of brand-new batteries that I had requisitioned through supply, then I pulled out a large box of loose batteries that I had personally spent an hour checking with a multimeter before the deployment.

I proceeded to explain that - unlike the other squads in the company - I was constantly preparing for our next deployment. I always requisitioned new batteries months in advance, and I personally inspected every battery after we returned to garrison after a deployment. (Any battery with 1.5 volts was good enough to keep, and anything less was tossed in the garbage.) I also explained that the EW squads needed more batteries because of the TRQ-30s' unrelenting appetite for batteries, and I pointed out that many of the squads who were complaining about their lack of batteries generally wanted batteries for their personal boomboxes, which had nothing to do with the mission.

Nevertheless, CPT Quinn did not applaud my resourcefulness, and he confiscated half the batteries that I had faithfully accumulated over the months prior to this deployment. I tried to protest and say that a few nights without a flashlight might teach the other squads to plan ahead in the future, but my words - as usual - fell on deaf ears.

In case I haven't mentioned it elsewhere, CPT Quinn was kind of a jerk about these sorts of things.

PS - My devotion to planning ahead for our next deployment was due to having served with LTC Lesser, who taught the 511th to remain combat loaded at all times and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. CPT Quinn, however, did not share LTC Lesser's foresight and devotion to the mission.

Using XSPF files with VLC to Specify Start and End Times Within a Media File

29 June 2025 • by Bob • VLC

I have a small confession to make: despite my posts about My Top Ten Favorite Rock Songs, My Favorite Guitar Solos, and My List of 20 Most Influential Albums, I am a huge fan of Classical Music. My wife and I used to be season ticket holders for the Seattle Symphony, and together we've traveled around the globe to see symphonies, concerti, operas, and other classical music performances in myriad venues. While that might seem counter-intuitive for a dyed-in-the-wool rock music fan such as myself, it really make sense when you consider that what I'm actually a fan of is superior musical skill, and you'll typically find far more musical talent in an orchestra than you'll find in the typical pop, rock, or hip-hop group. (Although Jazz is often in the same realm as Classical.)

One of the greatest recurring classical music events is the BBC Proms, which is an annual event that has been held for over a century (since 1895!). Way back in 2012, the BBC Proms featured a performance with the São Paulo Symphony Orchestra of Alberto Ginastera's suite of Four Dances from Estancia (Opus 8A), which is a series of excerpts from his larger Estancia ballet. Thankfully I had the presence of mind to download the video from YouTube, because it's no longer available. And with that in mind, here is the full-length video that I downloaded:

Sadly, this video isn't the best quality, but it was uploaded 13 years ago, and at the time creators weren't uploading a lot of high definition videos. Nevertheless, I'm glad to have this copy of the performance, because conductor Marin Alsop is an absolute joy to watch, and her interpretation of Ginastera's Estancia suite is particularly well done. (And meaning no disrespect, I prefer Aslop's interpretation over Gustavo Dudamel's version at the BBC Proms from a few years prior, but I digress.)

Of the four pieces in the Estancia suite, my favorite by far is the fourth, which is titled "Malambo." Somewhere around the 01:55 point in the fourth movement of the suite it takes off into a frenzied display of Latin American musical wizardry, and I love to listen to it when I'm writing code. Occasionally I only want to hear just the fourth movement from the suite, and it's always a little weird trying to skip ahead to find the correct place within the full-length video to start listening.

Many years ago, my primary video player was Windows Media Player, which was a built-in feature on Windows systems, and in its day it was a pretty good media player. One of its most-useful features for me was its support for its proprietary, XML-based Windows Media Metafiles, which allowed me to create custom files that specified the beginning and ending for specific sections within a larger media file. For example, the following ASX syntax allowed me to separate the video of the full Estancia suite that I shared earlier into each of the four movements:

<ASX VERSION="3.0">
  <TITLE>Ginastera - Estancia Suite</TITLE>
  <AUTHOR>Sao Paulo Symphony Orchestra</AUTHOR>
  <COPYRIGHT>BBC Proms</COPYRIGHT>
  <ENTRY>
    <TITLE>Estancia Suite - The Land Workers</TITLE>
    <REF HREF="BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4" />
    <DURATION VALUE="00:03:10.0" />
  </ENTRY>
  <ENTRY>
    <TITLE>Estancia Suite - Wheat Dance</TITLE>
    <REF HREF="BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4" />
    <STARTTIME VALUE="00:03:10.0" />
    <DURATION VALUE="00:03:02.0" />
  </ENTRY>
  <ENTRY>
    <TITLE>Estancia Suite - The Cattle Men</TITLE>
    <REF HREF="BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4" />
    <STARTTIME VALUE="00:06:12.0" />
    <DURATION VALUE="00:01:53.0" />
  </ENTRY>
  <ENTRY>
    <TITLE>Estancia Suite - Malambo</TITLE>
    <REF HREF="BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4" />
    <STARTTIME VALUE="00:08:05.0" />
  </ENTRY>
</ASX>

However, the syntax for Windows Media Metafiles is considerably limited. If you look through the Windows Media Metafile Elements Reference, you'll notice that there aren't a lot of options. Of particular note in my preceding ASX example was that I could only specify the start time and duration for each section, rather than the start time and end time, which was preferable (by far).

Over time, I ceased using Windows Media Player in favor of the far superior VLC Media Player (otherwise known as the VideoLAN Client, or "VLC" for short). Among VLC's many improvments over Windows Media Player is its support for a different XML-based syntax, the XML Shareable Playlist Format (or "XSPF" for short, which is pronounced "spiff"). XSPF supports a far greater number of elements than Windows Media Metafiles, and through a series of VideoLAN's extensions it supports an even greater number of options that are specific to VLC.

Before I continue with some examples, I should share the reference links that I used when creating XSPF files for VLC:

I'll spare you the tales of trials and errors that I went through before arriving at the following XSPF example, which provided the same level of functionality that I had with the ASX sample that I provided earlier, albeit with some improvements that I will describe in a moment:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<playlist xmlns="http://xspf.org/ns/0/" xmlns:vlc="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/playlist/ns/0/" version="1">
  <title>Ginastera - Estancia Suite</title>
  <creator>Sao Paulo Symphony Orchestra</creator>
  <license>BBC Proms</license>
  <trackList>
    <track>
      <title>Estancia Suite - The Land Workers</title>
      <location>BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4</location>
      <extension application="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/playlist/0">
        <vlc:option>start-time=0</vlc:option>
        <vlc:option>stop-time=191</vlc:option>
      </extension>
    </track>
    <track>
      <title>Estancia Suite - Wheat Dance</title>
      <location>BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4</location>
      <extension application="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/playlist/0">
        <vlc:option>start-time=191</vlc:option>
        <vlc:option>stop-time=373</vlc:option>
      </extension>
    </track>
    <track>
      <title>Estancia Suite - The Cattle Men</title>
      <location>BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4</location>
      <extension application="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/playlist/0">
        <vlc:option>start-time=373</vlc:option>
        <vlc:option>stop-time=486</vlc:option>
      </extension>
    </track>
    <track>
      <title>Estancia Suite - Malambo</title>
      <location>BBC-Proms-Ginastera-Estancia-Suite-Sao-Paulo-Symphony-Orchestra.mp4</location>
      <extension application="http://www.videolan.org/vlc/playlist/0">
        <vlc:option>start-time=486</vlc:option>
      </extension>
    </track>
  </trackList>
</playlist>

As you can see, instead of the <STARTTIME> and <DURATION> elements from the ASX file, the XSPF file has <vlc:option>start-time</vlc:option> and <vlc:option>stop-time</vlc:option> elements that are defined within an <extension> element that is specific to VLC. The values for the new entries are offset in seconds from the start of the file, and the stop time is far easier to compute than the duration from the ASX file.

You can download this example XSPF file by clicking here.

One last note is that the "start-time" and "stop-time" options are from the VLC command-line help URL that I listed earlier. In short, the many options that can be specified on VLC's command line can be specified in <vlc:option> elements, which adds an enormous amount of flexibility when creating XSPF files. For example, instead of specifying the "stop-time" as I did in my example, you could specify the "run-time", which would allow you to specify the number of seconds for playback for a track rather than the offset in seconds from the beginning of the larger media file as I had done. There are lots of options to choose from, but they're outside the scope of this blog.

FOOTNOTE: I should mention that I first learned of Alberto Ginastera while listening to WRR FM in Dallas, TX, which is one of my favorite classical music stations on the planet. WRR plays a wide array of music from hundreds of composers - both classical and contemporary - from across the globe. I much prefer WRR over our local KUAT FM here in Tucson, AZ, which is a terrible classical music station that routinely slogs its way through dozens of utterly forgettable pieces of musical tripe that no one cares to listen to. KUAT FM seems to focus on broadcasting bizarre pieces of auditory garbage, which quite often feature long passages of discordant cacophony that scare my grandchildren. So if your goal is to hate classical music as a genre, then KUAT FM should be your "go to" station. But if you love classical music, then WRR FM is your best bet.

Why Rick Steves is Wrong about Weed

27 June 2025 • by Bob • Health, Opinion, Science

My wife and I are big fans of travel writer Rick Steves. Over the years we've watched his travel shows on PBS, we always use his guidebooks as we travel throughout Europe, and we've been on a couple of his European tours (which are worth every penny). Because of our fanboy status, I follow Rick Steves on Social Media, and I was both surprised and shocked when Rick posted the following on Facebook earlier today:

Rick's position is understandable: he's a cannabis user, and everyone who is behaving in a manner that others might perceive as wrong would love to see all restrictions lifted for their chosen vice. This mindset is what has led several states to overturn previous laws that criminalized marijuana use, but just because something has been made legal doesn't make it right. For example, adultery used to be illegal, now it's only viewed as immoral. In other words, adultery may be legal, but it's still regarded as unacceptable, because it hurts people. And it's the same thing with marijuana use; just because cannabis has been made legal in some areas doesn't mean that its harmful effects have been negated. On the contrary, numerous researchers in science and medical fields have published a wealth of peer-reviewed articles about the negative effects of recreational cannabis use, though this research falls on deaf ears because people want what they want, regardless of the consequences. (Which is why tobacco use has remained popular around the world despite overwhelming evidence that it's a highly addictive drug that kills millions of people per year.)

With that in mind, I felt prompted to respond to Rick's post with the following comment:

I fully expected a wave of negative feedback from the pro-cannabis crowd in response to my comment, but that didn't happen. Instead, Rick promptly deleted my response. Apparently, Rick doesn't like people presenting a solid argument that disagrees with him.

C'est la vie.

Cognitive Offloading versus Learning a Language

10 April 2025 • by Bob • Linguistics

I belong to a group of former military linguists, and someone shared the following article earlier today: Man Alarmed as His Cognitive Skills Decay After Outsourcing Them to AI. That article referenced a source article on the Wall Street Journal's website at How I Realized AI Was Making Me Stupid - and What I Do Now. As I read both articles, I must admit - I hadn't encountered the term "cognitive offloading" before, but I can easily see where it's happening more and more, and it's an interesting phenomenon that the majority of people don't realize is happening in their daily lives, and in some cases it's not necessarily a bad thing.

For example: there was a time when we were all required to give people directions to some location that would typically involve statements like, "Get off Main Street at Brown Ave, then drive until you see a Circle K on the right (not the one on the left), then you'll need to make a half-turn on your left past the big Oak Tree in front of a green house, and drive until the road ends near the corn field, and then..." Those days have long passed, because now everyone is carrying a GPS that is usually (e.g. 99%) accurate to get someone where they're going, and we've "offloaded" the part of our brains that used to have to think through the problem of getting someone where they needed to go. Building on this idea, I recently bicycled 500 miles across Spain along the Camino de Santiago, and for the most part Google Maps managed to get me from Point A to Point B (with only a few minor episodes where Google Maps tried to kill me).

In the past, I would have needed to haul a map with me and spend far more time planning than I did. So from a navigation perspective, I fully realize that I had become lazier. (Which, in hindsight, could have been an issue had my phone died on me.)

However, the concept of "cognitive offloading" made me think about languages. As a former Russian linguist, and as someone who lived 6½ years in Germany and used to speak that language passably, during my trek across Spain I intentionally chose NOT to let Google Translate do all the work for me throughout my journey. To be sure, I used Google Translate now and again to look up a word here or there in the same way that I used to use one of those tiny Langenscheidt dictionaries in the past.

But for the most part, I conversed with all the locals the old-fashioned way: by memorizing vocabulary and phrases, and by simply being willing to make a ton of grammatical mistakes along the way. My efforts were rewarded through some genuinely great discussions with lots of locals as I pedaled my through the mountains and villages of northern Spain, though in particular I'd like to highlight the discussions I had with a fellow traveler whom I occasionally ran into a few times: he was from Italy, and he didn't speak any English, and I'm from Arizona, and I don't speak Italian, so the only language the two of us had in common was our mutual poor grasp of Spanish (and we had a lot of laughter at our respective lack of skills in that regard).

All this is to say, I can attest to "cognitive offloading" in my life - I think today's technology has made that unavoidable to a degree. However, I can also attest that life is better when you don't let technology take over everything that requires active thought - especially when it comes to learning languages. In other words: life's a journey, make sure you enjoy the ride by stopping now and again to talk to the locals.

The Unrest in Our Small Slice of the Forest

21 March 2025 • by Bob • Humor, Nature

In honor of March 21st being the International Day of Forests, I thought I'd share the following anecdote:

When my wife and I bought a house in Seattle many years ago, we had a single Maple tree in our backyard that was surrounded by towering Pine trees, which were, of course, blocking out the sun and clearly causing the lone Maple undo distress.

After a day of working in our yard to clear out some underbrush, my wife asked me how my labors were progressing, and I replied:

Oh, sure - any self-respecting Rush fan could probably see that joke coming a mile away, but still - how could I resist? (IYKYK)

PS - My wife, who is no fan of the Triumvirate from Toronto, responded, "That's from a Rush song, isn't it?"

Blog Navigation

You are on page 1 of 71 pages.