This Blanket Of Stars
I've no problem with the ancient art of Astrology being subject to critique by the Scientific Method. If people like James Randi and Carl Sagan poke enough holes in Astrology that I clearly see it as a fraud, more power to them. I have no deep-seated need for Astrology to be based in fact, just as I have no such need for there to be an all-powerful creator of the universe.
That said, I still find a consistency in Sun Sign behavior patterns among people I encounter. This is, at the least, an intriguing set of coincidences -- and if I'm "merely" projecting a pro-Astrology bias as I interpret these behavior patterns, how does that jibe with my lack of need for Astrology to be true?
It's not hard to realize that Sun Signs are an incomplete signifier of personality -- one look through a list of wildly different celebrities who have the same birth date will tell you that. But an individual's Astrological chart consists of more than just a Sun Sign. There are planets and houses, plus cusps and an ascendant, which can stand in contrast to whether a person is Gemini, Pisces or whatever.
Carl Sagan made the point that it's absurd to tie the celestial discoveries of Astronomy, which are subject to constant update and critique, with the relatively rigid declarations of Astrology. That makes sense, and certainly is enough to make me take any Astrology reading with a grain of salt. But the art of Astrological interpretation seems to embrace something beyond science: a mixture of the intuitive, creative and esoteric. Astronomical data is one more ingredient for an Astrologer to consider, and add to the mix as needed.
I greatly respect the world of science, but I'm not going to dismiss the potential powers of intuition, creativity and esoterica. Science, after all, is far from being able to explain everything.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
A Real Job
To the neocon "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" crowd, it's not quite enough to work hard -- one must also work smart. And that means, in most or all cases, to jump into a quest for financial gain with Steinbrenner-like fury. Not just to put on a suit, but to become the suit, and to live 24/7 as a souped-up Advertisement For Yourself and The Entrepreneural Way.
Of course, in the real world, it's absurd to think everyone could pull this off, and that those who could pull it off would all be guaranteed a place among the favored and wealthy "in crowd." Even under the best econonic conditions (which these certainly aren't), there are only so many fluid economic resources to go around, to create new wealth.
Some hard-drivin' workers, through bad luck or bad timing, are bound to come up short. But hey, the bootstrappers have an answer for that, too: for those tough times, there's always Christianity.
What a wonderfully diverse life the social Darwinists offer us. All roads lead to Sunday School and the Men's Wearhouse.
To the neocon "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" crowd, it's not quite enough to work hard -- one must also work smart. And that means, in most or all cases, to jump into a quest for financial gain with Steinbrenner-like fury. Not just to put on a suit, but to become the suit, and to live 24/7 as a souped-up Advertisement For Yourself and The Entrepreneural Way.
Of course, in the real world, it's absurd to think everyone could pull this off, and that those who could pull it off would all be guaranteed a place among the favored and wealthy "in crowd." Even under the best econonic conditions (which these certainly aren't), there are only so many fluid economic resources to go around, to create new wealth.
Some hard-drivin' workers, through bad luck or bad timing, are bound to come up short. But hey, the bootstrappers have an answer for that, too: for those tough times, there's always Christianity.
What a wonderfully diverse life the social Darwinists offer us. All roads lead to Sunday School and the Men's Wearhouse.
Welcome To The Working Week
Another dispatch from Chester Magpie, underground pundit:
"Howard Dean is my choice so far but god he's no Bill Clinton! I guess I'll just have to settle for his 'roll up yer sleeves' government...that's of course if George W. doesn't blow up another building and scare the living shit into a landslide.
I know Nemo doesn't think the U.S. had anything to do with 9/11 and that kinda talk is like Elvis Costello in the south. (Anyway, boy Get Happy!! is a great album.)
I'm just driving home half dead Mon. thru Fri. with a nightmare haircut in my head and all I can see in my rearview is that it's best to slow down for the sake of the kids."
Another dispatch from Chester Magpie, underground pundit:
"Howard Dean is my choice so far but god he's no Bill Clinton! I guess I'll just have to settle for his 'roll up yer sleeves' government...that's of course if George W. doesn't blow up another building and scare the living shit into a landslide.
I know Nemo doesn't think the U.S. had anything to do with 9/11 and that kinda talk is like Elvis Costello in the south. (Anyway, boy Get Happy!! is a great album.)
I'm just driving home half dead Mon. thru Fri. with a nightmare haircut in my head and all I can see in my rearview is that it's best to slow down for the sake of the kids."
Monday, June 23, 2003
Beyond Bush-League Politics
For what it's worth, the current Conventional Wisdom among Beltway political pundits is that George W. Bush is practically a shoo-in for a second term as president, and that the likely template for Democratic opposition in the 2004 election will be McGovern in 1972 (landslide loss) or Mondale in 1984 (ditto).
This is CW that's myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. The actual outlook for 2004 is fluid enough that the final result for Dems could range anywhere from Dukakis in 1988 (a decisive loss, if not quite a landslide one) to Gore in 2000 (a narrow win -- albeit one blocked by political and judicial misconduct, in peculiar circumstances that may not be duplicated for a long while.)
There are three or perhaps four of the current Democratic presidential candidates who are capable of running a strong campaign against Bush, and keeping the race close enough where, provided there isn't a repeat of GOP chicanery from 2000, they would have a fighting chance.
With DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and his fellow Democratic operatives hopefully doing all they can to prevent occurences of voter fraud next year, the Dem nominee can get down to the business of making a strong case against George W. Bush, and an equally strong case for himself as an alternative.
Were it simply a matter of facts and figures, and Bush's record as president, this wouldn't be a particularly difficult task. One could argue that a stronger case can be made against Bush than against any president...well, ever. From his reckless and alienating foreign policy to his corrupt and radical right-wing domestic agenda, he's that bad.
The trouble is, his presidency is covered by a mainstream corporate media that in large part acts as his political enabler. Beltway media folk generally like him as a person, even if they don't agree with his policies; they also like how his rhetoric and actions have given them big story after big story to sell to viewers and readers. And, perhaps most importantly, they like how he takes care of the big-moneyed interests that control the media itself.
So they go relatively easy on him, in ways they would not for any other recent president, save perhaps Ronald Reagan. This advantage, plus a huge GOP money advantage over Democrats, would by itself give Bush a decent chance at a second term, even if a constitutional change allowed Bill Clinton to run again.
But Bush has even more than that in his pocket: he also has the 9/11 factor. Assisted by his skilled and shameless political handlers, plus a servile media, in the post-9/11 world he has exploited the emotional and intellectual vulnerabilities of many Americans, and sold himself as a strong protector figure against a constant terrorist threat -- a "daddy," if you will.
Voters will forgive Bush an awful lot next year, including a sluggish economy, as long as he continues to convince them that he's John Wayne fighting the guys with the black hats. The devolving situation in Iraq makes him more vulnerable, but with his money advantage and incumbency he still has plenty of time to turn things around.
The Dem nominee must poke holes in Bush's manipulative "protector" facade, while offering a compelling alternative on national security issues, one that'll change the minds of enough swing voters to tip the scales in the Dems' favor.
For what it's worth, the current Conventional Wisdom among Beltway political pundits is that George W. Bush is practically a shoo-in for a second term as president, and that the likely template for Democratic opposition in the 2004 election will be McGovern in 1972 (landslide loss) or Mondale in 1984 (ditto).
This is CW that's myopic at best and disingenuous at worst. The actual outlook for 2004 is fluid enough that the final result for Dems could range anywhere from Dukakis in 1988 (a decisive loss, if not quite a landslide one) to Gore in 2000 (a narrow win -- albeit one blocked by political and judicial misconduct, in peculiar circumstances that may not be duplicated for a long while.)
There are three or perhaps four of the current Democratic presidential candidates who are capable of running a strong campaign against Bush, and keeping the race close enough where, provided there isn't a repeat of GOP chicanery from 2000, they would have a fighting chance.
With DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and his fellow Democratic operatives hopefully doing all they can to prevent occurences of voter fraud next year, the Dem nominee can get down to the business of making a strong case against George W. Bush, and an equally strong case for himself as an alternative.
Were it simply a matter of facts and figures, and Bush's record as president, this wouldn't be a particularly difficult task. One could argue that a stronger case can be made against Bush than against any president...well, ever. From his reckless and alienating foreign policy to his corrupt and radical right-wing domestic agenda, he's that bad.
The trouble is, his presidency is covered by a mainstream corporate media that in large part acts as his political enabler. Beltway media folk generally like him as a person, even if they don't agree with his policies; they also like how his rhetoric and actions have given them big story after big story to sell to viewers and readers. And, perhaps most importantly, they like how he takes care of the big-moneyed interests that control the media itself.
So they go relatively easy on him, in ways they would not for any other recent president, save perhaps Ronald Reagan. This advantage, plus a huge GOP money advantage over Democrats, would by itself give Bush a decent chance at a second term, even if a constitutional change allowed Bill Clinton to run again.
But Bush has even more than that in his pocket: he also has the 9/11 factor. Assisted by his skilled and shameless political handlers, plus a servile media, in the post-9/11 world he has exploited the emotional and intellectual vulnerabilities of many Americans, and sold himself as a strong protector figure against a constant terrorist threat -- a "daddy," if you will.
Voters will forgive Bush an awful lot next year, including a sluggish economy, as long as he continues to convince them that he's John Wayne fighting the guys with the black hats. The devolving situation in Iraq makes him more vulnerable, but with his money advantage and incumbency he still has plenty of time to turn things around.
The Dem nominee must poke holes in Bush's manipulative "protector" facade, while offering a compelling alternative on national security issues, one that'll change the minds of enough swing voters to tip the scales in the Dems' favor.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Donkey Kongs
With a little more than a year to go before a nominee is chosen at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, here's my take on the crop of Dem candidates:
HOWARD DEAN
In a close call over John Kerry, he's the strongest combo of ideas, momentum, potential and chutzpah. His aggressiveness has set the standard for the requisite Bush bashing among the candidates, and he's displayed a refreshing impishness that could catch fire among young voters. He is backed by an enthusiastic grassroots movement and his campaign is making promising financial progress. But it won't be easy wresting the nomination from Kerry, who still leads in the important New Hampshire race and who has more money and a higher level of name recognition. And, should he make it to the General Election, he'll need to at least somewhat bridge the poll gaps with Bush on national security and personal likability. While he's the most likely to vigorously attack Dubya, he's currently not the most likely to charm enough swing voters in the GE.
JOHN KERRY
Some say he has a patrician and hangdog look that will be offputting to swing voters; others say he looks like a cross between Jack Kennedy and Abe Lincoln and will energize a good portion of the electorate with that political mojo, particularly if he has a strong running mate. I tend to lean toward the latter, provided he can consistently show a level of energy that has thus far eluded him in the campaign. He's got the money, the gravitas and the political smarts, but so far he's been uneven at best, particularly since his prostate surgery earlier this year. One moment he seems full of vigor and promise, the next he appears listless and lost. Fortunately for him there's still plenty of time to right things, and he seems to be reaping the fruits of a strong organization in New Hampshire, which has become almost a must-win for him. Even a narrow loss to Dean there would be difficult to overcome later, because the press perception would be that Kerry squandered the front-runner status he had early on, and thus would be untrustworthy as the nominee.
JOHN EDWARDS
He's not making much progress in the polls, although his fundraising numbers have been fairly strong. And Edwards, more than any other candidate, is hurt by the relatively small amount of TV time he gets as part of a large field of candidates. I think the first impression many get from Edwards is that he looks too young and callow for the job of president, even though he's older than Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were when they were elected. The "callow" tag is probably an unfair one, as he's been both a capable U.S. senator and trial lawyer, and I think it's one he might be able to overcome were he able to get more air time and face time in the individual states. He's no Clinton, but of all the candidates he comes the closest of having a Clinton-esque charm, and that could make a difference. His daunting challenge will be to do well enough in the early primaries that he can make the final four or five in the race. At that point, he'd be my dark-horse pick for a late surge.
BOB GRAHAM
If it were just about the job one would do as president, then Graham or Kerry would get my vote, as they seem to exude the most gravitas and competence. But we all know that getting elected is about more than gravitas and competence, or else we'd be looking back on the Stevenson and Dukakis presidencies. He and Dean (and to a certain extent, Al Sharpton) have done the strongest Bush bashing of the campaign, and in a just world his accusations of Bush's incompetence on homeland security would be gaining more traction in the media. But getting past the pro-Bush biases of the corporate media's "Mighty Wurlitzer" takes more than just steadfast truth tellin'. It also takes an appealing messenger, and here I'm afraid Senator Graham falters. He's genial and earnest and articulate enough, but unless he's got an hitherto unseen knack for witty one-liners or physical showmanship, he's not going to have enough flash for the top of the ticket -- or maybe even the bottom of it, despite being from the important electoral state of Florida.
DICK GEPHARDT
Not to take away from his effective campaign operation, which has utilized his advantages with labor interests and in the important Iowa caucus, but he's shaping up to be the Dallas Mavericks of the 2004 campaign season -- a prime benefactor of the lucky break. Whereas the Mavs benefited from Scottie Pippen's injury in Round One and Chris Webber's in Round Two, so will Gephardt likely stay in the game for some time after Iowa, thanks to an early primary schedule that greatly plays to his regional strengths, to a large field that keeps the spotlight from shining too much on him, and to the inevitable New Hampshire mudslinging between Dean and Kerry, his two main rivals. But it's doubtful whether he could beat an increasingly poised Dean or a rejuvenated Kerry once it's just the three of them. As with Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman, his Achilles Heel of being Essentially Boring is bound to bite him in the ass at some point. Certainly it would do so in the General Election, were he to get that far.
JOE LIEBERMAN
I'll say this for "Holy Joe," all those years of guesting on Imus have given him a knack for the snappy one-liner, which helps in a debate when you have to share the stage with eight other hopefuls. He's still basically riding on name recognition, from being Al Gore's running mate in 2000. But I think it would likely take a collapse of major proportions of Dean, Kerry and Gephardt's campaigns to allow Lieberman to remain a serious contender past Super Tuesday on March 2. Once voters get a closer look at the overly pious and politically compromised Senator Lieberman (a man who lost a VP debate to Dick effin' Cheney, remember), most of them will turn away.
AL SHARPTON, DENNIS KUCINICH and CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN
The bottom tier of the Dem candidates -- all with little or no chance, but all trying to make their marks on the political dialogue, with mixed results. Sharpton has drawn raves for the wit and chutzpah of his Bush bashing, but seems too thin-skinned and baggage-ridden to move up the list. Kucinich is so far left on some issues, it seems he'd more at home as a Green than a Dem, and he also is lacking in the charisma department, too often coming across as shrill and desperate. Moseley-Braun has sounded sensible and even statesmanlike at times, but she too has baggage, from her fairly embarrassing tenure as U.S. Senator.
With a little more than a year to go before a nominee is chosen at the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston, here's my take on the crop of Dem candidates:
HOWARD DEAN
In a close call over John Kerry, he's the strongest combo of ideas, momentum, potential and chutzpah. His aggressiveness has set the standard for the requisite Bush bashing among the candidates, and he's displayed a refreshing impishness that could catch fire among young voters. He is backed by an enthusiastic grassroots movement and his campaign is making promising financial progress. But it won't be easy wresting the nomination from Kerry, who still leads in the important New Hampshire race and who has more money and a higher level of name recognition. And, should he make it to the General Election, he'll need to at least somewhat bridge the poll gaps with Bush on national security and personal likability. While he's the most likely to vigorously attack Dubya, he's currently not the most likely to charm enough swing voters in the GE.
JOHN KERRY
Some say he has a patrician and hangdog look that will be offputting to swing voters; others say he looks like a cross between Jack Kennedy and Abe Lincoln and will energize a good portion of the electorate with that political mojo, particularly if he has a strong running mate. I tend to lean toward the latter, provided he can consistently show a level of energy that has thus far eluded him in the campaign. He's got the money, the gravitas and the political smarts, but so far he's been uneven at best, particularly since his prostate surgery earlier this year. One moment he seems full of vigor and promise, the next he appears listless and lost. Fortunately for him there's still plenty of time to right things, and he seems to be reaping the fruits of a strong organization in New Hampshire, which has become almost a must-win for him. Even a narrow loss to Dean there would be difficult to overcome later, because the press perception would be that Kerry squandered the front-runner status he had early on, and thus would be untrustworthy as the nominee.
JOHN EDWARDS
He's not making much progress in the polls, although his fundraising numbers have been fairly strong. And Edwards, more than any other candidate, is hurt by the relatively small amount of TV time he gets as part of a large field of candidates. I think the first impression many get from Edwards is that he looks too young and callow for the job of president, even though he's older than Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy were when they were elected. The "callow" tag is probably an unfair one, as he's been both a capable U.S. senator and trial lawyer, and I think it's one he might be able to overcome were he able to get more air time and face time in the individual states. He's no Clinton, but of all the candidates he comes the closest of having a Clinton-esque charm, and that could make a difference. His daunting challenge will be to do well enough in the early primaries that he can make the final four or five in the race. At that point, he'd be my dark-horse pick for a late surge.
BOB GRAHAM
If it were just about the job one would do as president, then Graham or Kerry would get my vote, as they seem to exude the most gravitas and competence. But we all know that getting elected is about more than gravitas and competence, or else we'd be looking back on the Stevenson and Dukakis presidencies. He and Dean (and to a certain extent, Al Sharpton) have done the strongest Bush bashing of the campaign, and in a just world his accusations of Bush's incompetence on homeland security would be gaining more traction in the media. But getting past the pro-Bush biases of the corporate media's "Mighty Wurlitzer" takes more than just steadfast truth tellin'. It also takes an appealing messenger, and here I'm afraid Senator Graham falters. He's genial and earnest and articulate enough, but unless he's got an hitherto unseen knack for witty one-liners or physical showmanship, he's not going to have enough flash for the top of the ticket -- or maybe even the bottom of it, despite being from the important electoral state of Florida.
DICK GEPHARDT
Not to take away from his effective campaign operation, which has utilized his advantages with labor interests and in the important Iowa caucus, but he's shaping up to be the Dallas Mavericks of the 2004 campaign season -- a prime benefactor of the lucky break. Whereas the Mavs benefited from Scottie Pippen's injury in Round One and Chris Webber's in Round Two, so will Gephardt likely stay in the game for some time after Iowa, thanks to an early primary schedule that greatly plays to his regional strengths, to a large field that keeps the spotlight from shining too much on him, and to the inevitable New Hampshire mudslinging between Dean and Kerry, his two main rivals. But it's doubtful whether he could beat an increasingly poised Dean or a rejuvenated Kerry once it's just the three of them. As with Bob Graham and Joe Lieberman, his Achilles Heel of being Essentially Boring is bound to bite him in the ass at some point. Certainly it would do so in the General Election, were he to get that far.
JOE LIEBERMAN
I'll say this for "Holy Joe," all those years of guesting on Imus have given him a knack for the snappy one-liner, which helps in a debate when you have to share the stage with eight other hopefuls. He's still basically riding on name recognition, from being Al Gore's running mate in 2000. But I think it would likely take a collapse of major proportions of Dean, Kerry and Gephardt's campaigns to allow Lieberman to remain a serious contender past Super Tuesday on March 2. Once voters get a closer look at the overly pious and politically compromised Senator Lieberman (a man who lost a VP debate to Dick effin' Cheney, remember), most of them will turn away.
AL SHARPTON, DENNIS KUCINICH and CAROL MOSELEY-BRAUN
The bottom tier of the Dem candidates -- all with little or no chance, but all trying to make their marks on the political dialogue, with mixed results. Sharpton has drawn raves for the wit and chutzpah of his Bush bashing, but seems too thin-skinned and baggage-ridden to move up the list. Kucinich is so far left on some issues, it seems he'd more at home as a Green than a Dem, and he also is lacking in the charisma department, too often coming across as shrill and desperate. Moseley-Braun has sounded sensible and even statesmanlike at times, but she too has baggage, from her fairly embarrassing tenure as U.S. Senator.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Pump Up The Ear Candy
Today's earworm: "Stacy's Mom" - Fountains Of Wayne
In rotation with "All Kinds Of Time", "Mexican Wine" and a few other tracks from FOW's new CD, Welcome Interstate Managers. Nearly flawless power pop, with endearing lyrics that romanticize struggles of the common dude.
FOW's previous release, Utopia Highway (1999), quickly became one of my favorite albums ever, after I purchased it in late 2000. So far, I like it better than the new one, which seems to taper off a bit in the later tracks. I've been told their debut CD, Fountains Of Wayne (1996) is even stronger overall than "Utopia," so I look forward to getting that one as well.
I'm trying to gorge on the best of the new power pop: Fountains Of Wayne, New Pornographers, Go-Betweens (all three with new CDs released this year). As best I can, and without getting completely lost in the past glories of boomer music, I want to clear from my mind the overwrought R&B and post-grunge stylings that dominate the pop charts today.
Today's earworm: "Stacy's Mom" - Fountains Of Wayne
In rotation with "All Kinds Of Time", "Mexican Wine" and a few other tracks from FOW's new CD, Welcome Interstate Managers. Nearly flawless power pop, with endearing lyrics that romanticize struggles of the common dude.
FOW's previous release, Utopia Highway (1999), quickly became one of my favorite albums ever, after I purchased it in late 2000. So far, I like it better than the new one, which seems to taper off a bit in the later tracks. I've been told their debut CD, Fountains Of Wayne (1996) is even stronger overall than "Utopia," so I look forward to getting that one as well.
I'm trying to gorge on the best of the new power pop: Fountains Of Wayne, New Pornographers, Go-Betweens (all three with new CDs released this year). As best I can, and without getting completely lost in the past glories of boomer music, I want to clear from my mind the overwrought R&B and post-grunge stylings that dominate the pop charts today.
Monday, June 16, 2003
Close To Home
I remember watching director Gus Van Sant's excellent film Drugstore Cowboy for the first time, in early 1990, and being stunned by a scene that showcased the exterior of a Northwest Portland apartment building I lived in during the mid-'80s. Surreal, that.
I didn't know it at the time, but my future wife had narrowly missed getting a small role in the film, as either a waitress with 'tude, or a front desk clerk with 'tude. What a difference it might've made in her life, had she landed that part.
Fast forward a couple years, and I'm watching Van Sant's okay followup to "Drugstore," My Own Private Idaho. A longtime acquaintance, the late Portland poet "Bad George" Conner, had a prominent speaking role in the movie, and as with Drugstore there are familiar Portland hangouts all over the film.
Again, there were connections to my future wife: her friend played the mother of River Phoenix's character; and Keanu Reeves, while in town filming the movie, jumped into a taxi that her and my future stepdaughter were waiting for, essentially stealing it from them.
Those films, in addition to Van Sant's first movie Mala Noche, gave Gus a national and international reputation that over the next several years allowed him to make Hollywood studio films with sizable budgets and big-time actors like Sean Connery, Robin Williams and Nicole Kidman.
He didn't make another film in Portland for some time, until recently. It was the hit of this year's Cannes Film Festival...and it was filmed at my old high school building, not long after the local school district announced plans to demolish the abandoned facility.
My high school, which had a turbulent run as a liberal and experimental "alternative school", lasted from 1969-81. A middle school moved in after that, and occupied the building until 2001.
I anticipate some sense of nostalgia and deja vu when I see Elephant later this year, either on DVD or in a theatre, and the camera winds through those familiar rooms and hallways I roamed from 1977-80. But the movie itself is set in the current day, as a Columbine-like situation unfolds, and so there will be a juggling act in my head, while I simultaneously take in the old and new.
I remember watching director Gus Van Sant's excellent film Drugstore Cowboy for the first time, in early 1990, and being stunned by a scene that showcased the exterior of a Northwest Portland apartment building I lived in during the mid-'80s. Surreal, that.
I didn't know it at the time, but my future wife had narrowly missed getting a small role in the film, as either a waitress with 'tude, or a front desk clerk with 'tude. What a difference it might've made in her life, had she landed that part.
Fast forward a couple years, and I'm watching Van Sant's okay followup to "Drugstore," My Own Private Idaho. A longtime acquaintance, the late Portland poet "Bad George" Conner, had a prominent speaking role in the movie, and as with Drugstore there are familiar Portland hangouts all over the film.
Again, there were connections to my future wife: her friend played the mother of River Phoenix's character; and Keanu Reeves, while in town filming the movie, jumped into a taxi that her and my future stepdaughter were waiting for, essentially stealing it from them.
Those films, in addition to Van Sant's first movie Mala Noche, gave Gus a national and international reputation that over the next several years allowed him to make Hollywood studio films with sizable budgets and big-time actors like Sean Connery, Robin Williams and Nicole Kidman.
He didn't make another film in Portland for some time, until recently. It was the hit of this year's Cannes Film Festival...and it was filmed at my old high school building, not long after the local school district announced plans to demolish the abandoned facility.
My high school, which had a turbulent run as a liberal and experimental "alternative school", lasted from 1969-81. A middle school moved in after that, and occupied the building until 2001.
I anticipate some sense of nostalgia and deja vu when I see Elephant later this year, either on DVD or in a theatre, and the camera winds through those familiar rooms and hallways I roamed from 1977-80. But the movie itself is set in the current day, as a Columbine-like situation unfolds, and so there will be a juggling act in my head, while I simultaneously take in the old and new.
Monday, June 09, 2003
"Work the room, hold stories"
I had a recurring dream the other night, one that has become as much a perennial as not having my assignments done by the end of a college term. Or walking up to an attractive co-worker and kissing her, with no resistance on her part.
"The seminar dream," I'll call it.
From 1984-88 I was involved with a seminar organization commonly known as "est" (short for "Erhard Seminars Training"), although by the time I got there it had begun to morph into a post-est existence as "Werner Erhard and Associates." After Erhard's involvement with the group ended in 1991, it became known as Landmark Education.
My involvement with est did a whammy number on my brain that lingers to this day. In those four years, there was hardly a moment in an est course that I wasn't at least somewhat conflicted and desperate. I ended my participation in a state of utter frustration and bewilderment, and more than a little resentment. I think the fact that I held on for so long is a testament to how pathetic my life was at the time.
That was awhile ago now. I've moved on, graduated college, kept writing, gotten married, raised kids. Achieved some sort of social respectability, fragile though it may be.
But the seminar dream keeps recurring. In it, I'm visiting an est/Landmark seminar, intrigued by the goings on, drawn in by the enthusiasm and discipline that accompany the group's trademark brand of personalized philosophical inquiry. And, by the promise of a victorious "transformation," in which the outside world seems powerfully affected by one's commitments and languaging.
Thing is, in the dream I'm always there as an anonymous bystander. Seen and not seen. Taking it all in until...the "hard sell" begins. When the group gauntlet comes down, and one gets the message that transformation isn't primarily reflected in philosophical epiphanies or personal accomplishments outside the seminar. It is, rather, a matter of being able to successfully "enroll" others into the est/Landmark courses. All transformation, in essence, flows from supporting the established enrollment strategies, which typically are aggressive and even confrontational, not to mention very white collar-centric.
(In my recent dream, I happened upon a personal memo to the seminar leader from someone higher up in the organization. The first sentence read: "Work the room, hold stories.")
It's at the "hard sell" point of the seminar dream that I typically start to bail -- which is something easier said than done in a real-life seminar, where they'll go the extra mile trying to coax or shame you into staying. Sometimes I'll fly or float away; other times I will sneak out the door. And just about always, there's a tinge of regret as I leave, that I've been wishy-washy and duplicitous.
Bottom line is, the est organization, for whatever upside it may've had, wasn't worthy of being aggressively pushed on my friends and family. It was too insular and cult-like, too banal and mean-spirited, to generate that kind of enthusiasm in me.
By the arrogant standards of the group, this meant I was "a jerk," "on it," "disempowered by my conversation," and/or "psychologically weak." In no way did it indicate that hey, you know, maybe the seminars shouldn't be sold in such a fanatical and overbearing manner.
I had a recurring dream the other night, one that has become as much a perennial as not having my assignments done by the end of a college term. Or walking up to an attractive co-worker and kissing her, with no resistance on her part.
"The seminar dream," I'll call it.
From 1984-88 I was involved with a seminar organization commonly known as "est" (short for "Erhard Seminars Training"), although by the time I got there it had begun to morph into a post-est existence as "Werner Erhard and Associates." After Erhard's involvement with the group ended in 1991, it became known as Landmark Education.
My involvement with est did a whammy number on my brain that lingers to this day. In those four years, there was hardly a moment in an est course that I wasn't at least somewhat conflicted and desperate. I ended my participation in a state of utter frustration and bewilderment, and more than a little resentment. I think the fact that I held on for so long is a testament to how pathetic my life was at the time.
That was awhile ago now. I've moved on, graduated college, kept writing, gotten married, raised kids. Achieved some sort of social respectability, fragile though it may be.
But the seminar dream keeps recurring. In it, I'm visiting an est/Landmark seminar, intrigued by the goings on, drawn in by the enthusiasm and discipline that accompany the group's trademark brand of personalized philosophical inquiry. And, by the promise of a victorious "transformation," in which the outside world seems powerfully affected by one's commitments and languaging.
Thing is, in the dream I'm always there as an anonymous bystander. Seen and not seen. Taking it all in until...the "hard sell" begins. When the group gauntlet comes down, and one gets the message that transformation isn't primarily reflected in philosophical epiphanies or personal accomplishments outside the seminar. It is, rather, a matter of being able to successfully "enroll" others into the est/Landmark courses. All transformation, in essence, flows from supporting the established enrollment strategies, which typically are aggressive and even confrontational, not to mention very white collar-centric.
(In my recent dream, I happened upon a personal memo to the seminar leader from someone higher up in the organization. The first sentence read: "Work the room, hold stories.")
It's at the "hard sell" point of the seminar dream that I typically start to bail -- which is something easier said than done in a real-life seminar, where they'll go the extra mile trying to coax or shame you into staying. Sometimes I'll fly or float away; other times I will sneak out the door. And just about always, there's a tinge of regret as I leave, that I've been wishy-washy and duplicitous.
Bottom line is, the est organization, for whatever upside it may've had, wasn't worthy of being aggressively pushed on my friends and family. It was too insular and cult-like, too banal and mean-spirited, to generate that kind of enthusiasm in me.
By the arrogant standards of the group, this meant I was "a jerk," "on it," "disempowered by my conversation," and/or "psychologically weak." In no way did it indicate that hey, you know, maybe the seminars shouldn't be sold in such a fanatical and overbearing manner.
Tuesday, June 03, 2003
Read All About It
I earned a journalism degree from the University of Oregon in 1989, and have clippings of my newspaper articles spanning from 1979 to 2002. I edited my high school paper, wrote sports articles for the Portland Oregonian, worked for the student paper and the news bureau at the U. of Oregon, wrote press releases for local nightclubs, and wrote/edited for a corporate newsletter.
My latest journalistic gig, three years writing part-time for a group of small newspapers here in Oregon, ended in January 2002. I was laid off, told by my editor that my job was another victim of the post-9/11 economy. (Isn't it special how "9/11" often gets more blame for the bad economy than "Mr. Tax Cut" George W. Bush? But that's another story.)
Never say never, but I think that was probably my last job in print journalism. I've found that the opening pay for full-time writing positions at small-town newspapers is less than what I'm currently making, and with a family and lots of bills I'm not prepared to take a pay cut. Also, any "itch" I have for writing is usually scratched by adding to this blog, and contributing to Internet forums.
Even if the money was there, I'd have to consider that I've grown sour on American journalism in general. In my view it has simply become, on the whole, a dishonorable profession -- one that is doing more harm than good.
Many journalists, most through little fault of their own, are stymied by a world where "news" is processed as an economic and political tool. Data is manipulated to serve the interests of the media owners, and only secondly (if at all) is it used to adequately inform the public.
The majority of journalists take what they produce with a grain of salt, figuring that the partial truth exposed is better than none at all. Others who form an increasing minority not only are aware of the lies and half-truths, but also actively encourage them, in order to curry favor with their bosses. In a third category are those who fall for the "We are the sacred scribes" hype that surrounds the media, and thus overestimate both their information sources and their journalistic acumen.
The Internet has opened up wide vistas of new sources, yet too many journalists are still somewhat stuck in the old "I'll call my source at City Hall" paradigm. They figure that if their trusted source in the White House, Pentagon or whatever didn't hear about it, chances are it didn't happen.
The result of all this is, sadly, a grossly underinformed populace. I'd rather not be part of the business process allowing that to occur.
I earned a journalism degree from the University of Oregon in 1989, and have clippings of my newspaper articles spanning from 1979 to 2002. I edited my high school paper, wrote sports articles for the Portland Oregonian, worked for the student paper and the news bureau at the U. of Oregon, wrote press releases for local nightclubs, and wrote/edited for a corporate newsletter.
My latest journalistic gig, three years writing part-time for a group of small newspapers here in Oregon, ended in January 2002. I was laid off, told by my editor that my job was another victim of the post-9/11 economy. (Isn't it special how "9/11" often gets more blame for the bad economy than "Mr. Tax Cut" George W. Bush? But that's another story.)
Never say never, but I think that was probably my last job in print journalism. I've found that the opening pay for full-time writing positions at small-town newspapers is less than what I'm currently making, and with a family and lots of bills I'm not prepared to take a pay cut. Also, any "itch" I have for writing is usually scratched by adding to this blog, and contributing to Internet forums.
Even if the money was there, I'd have to consider that I've grown sour on American journalism in general. In my view it has simply become, on the whole, a dishonorable profession -- one that is doing more harm than good.
Many journalists, most through little fault of their own, are stymied by a world where "news" is processed as an economic and political tool. Data is manipulated to serve the interests of the media owners, and only secondly (if at all) is it used to adequately inform the public.
The majority of journalists take what they produce with a grain of salt, figuring that the partial truth exposed is better than none at all. Others who form an increasing minority not only are aware of the lies and half-truths, but also actively encourage them, in order to curry favor with their bosses. In a third category are those who fall for the "We are the sacred scribes" hype that surrounds the media, and thus overestimate both their information sources and their journalistic acumen.
The Internet has opened up wide vistas of new sources, yet too many journalists are still somewhat stuck in the old "I'll call my source at City Hall" paradigm. They figure that if their trusted source in the White House, Pentagon or whatever didn't hear about it, chances are it didn't happen.
The result of all this is, sadly, a grossly underinformed populace. I'd rather not be part of the business process allowing that to occur.
Gemini Comrades
People who were born on this day include: Chuck Barris, Allen Ginsberg, John Dykstra, Curtis Mayfield, Paulette Goddard, Boots Randolph, Tony Curtis, Hale Irwin, Deniece Williams, Colleen Dewhurst, Dan Hill, Gordon Sinclair, Suzi Quatro, Ellen Corby, King George V, Edward Winter...and Greg T. Hough, born 6-3-62.
People who were born on this day include: Chuck Barris, Allen Ginsberg, John Dykstra, Curtis Mayfield, Paulette Goddard, Boots Randolph, Tony Curtis, Hale Irwin, Deniece Williams, Colleen Dewhurst, Dan Hill, Gordon Sinclair, Suzi Quatro, Ellen Corby, King George V, Edward Winter...and Greg T. Hough, born 6-3-62.
