And Another One...

Dukwe.com and its CEO seeks a very deligent, material obsessed copy editor, researcher and speech writer to join its team immediately. This will suit someone with a good background/degree in world history/journalism, a unique command of writting and an impeccable commitment to english language edits. This invaluable member of our team must have experience in speech writting and content research, teleprompter arrangement and setting, public speaking assistance to the CEO and available for countless international and national travels. Position will also cover running the publishing unit of the corporation, cordinating a forum and blogg sections, marketing materials and advertising copy creation and any and everything to do with words. Company is positioned to operate in 192 countries hence interest in translation of all materials, customization of materials to suit various world languages and cultures etc will be highly beneficial. Company is extremely pro-Christianity and pro-poverty alleviation. This position is for an experienced, creative, smart and deligent person ready to be an integral part of making a difference.
Please send resume and a cover letter that is specific to this post! NO Amateurs!!!!!
_____________
NOTE TO COMPANY: If you don't want amateurs, please learn how to spell.

How's This For A Bizarre Job Posting

Writer Wanted For Ex North Idaho Drug Kingpin: Looking for someone to write life story, unique story, unique Individual. Story consists of dealings with Colombians,Cubans, Mexican Federallies, 16 years in prison hanging out with mafia members from the Phildelphia Scarfo gang, Charlie Iannache, Anthony Pungitore, Gene Gotti-brother of John Gotti of the New York Mafia, being successful jail house lawyer. Story begins with the consequences for a boy with a gifted IQ who deals with uniagnosed ADHD and the path he takes in life through taking over the underbelly of the drug world,prison,self inflicted extrodinary rehabilitation efforts to his succesfull entrance back into society. This isnt some run of the mill drug dealer story! I SHOULD BE DEAD A HUNDRED TIMES OVER. GOD HAD HIS HAND ON MY SHOULDER TO GET THROUGH IT. ps: All Statue of Limitations are finished and all prison time completed. The story just needs to be told by a gifted writer. TO SEE 6 PAGE SYNOPSIS GO TO: http://bobbyconvict.blogspot.com If interested, please submit writing proposal/compensation plans. I would prefer to give the writer a portion of proceeds, but would pay the right writer to do the story. Follow up to the book would be self help videos/books for children-parents-educators-inmates to not go down the path I took, or to change an inmates life through education. please email me at: write4me87@yahoo.com

Movie Review: Last Holiday

This, the original 1950 British version, features recently established star Alec Guinness in the role of a George Bird, a mild-mannered, kind-hearted farm equipment salesman who cashes in his life savings, quits his monotonous job, and sets out on a trip with the intention of spending the last days of his life at a posh hotel in an exclusive resort town. Having been informed by a doctor that he has a terminal illness and that his demise is only a few weeks away, Bird aims to live lavishly for the first time in his life. However, upon arriving he finds that the particulars and ironies of wealth and privilege, especially evident in the form of his fellow hotel guests are far more complicated and thorny than he could have ever imagined. By the film's conclusion, Bird recognizes that the strict English class system still very much in force in those days hems everyone in, regardless of station, and is comprised of a variety of ridiculous unwritten rules that no one questions, though they frequently complain about its limitations. As an unintended man of mystery who reveals few details about himself up front, he quickly becomes gossip fodder among the guests who have nothing better to do than to idly speculate about his true identity. This fact is a wholly justified swipe at every person staying at the resort, regardless of class, and is meant as much for we, the viewers, as for they the players in the picture itself.

The film's screenwriter, J. B. Priestley, was an unapologetic Socialist who help found the progressive Common Wealth Party, and once was considered so far left that even liberal author George Orwell believed he was a clandestine Communist. In Last Holiday, the emphasis on class conflict and an unwavering sympathy towards the working classes clearly shows Priestley's hand. Furthermore, in a particularly interesting scene towards the end of the film, the hotel staff goes on strike, forcing the upper crust guests to perform each and every one of the menial chores that would have been otherwise performed by the workers. Based on prior conduct, the audience fully anticipates that many, if not all of these silver-spoon blue-bloods would stubbornly balk at the task before them, and while it is true that some express indignation at first, once engaged in the matter, they find an unexpected common purpose and unifying solidarity in the act itself. Bird spearheads the effort, and with his new found acceptance among the guests acquires full participation. This scene could scarcely be more idealistic and socialistic.

Even so, the sainted working class doesn't come off looking flawless, either. Bird is frequently subject to a kind of sneering, condescending treatment at the hands of workers who assume automatically that since he has the money to stay at such a posh place that he must certainly share the snooty prejudices of wealthy people as well. Their loathing of all things bourgeois creates caustic treatment and resentful conversation. For example, Bird borrows an expensive car from a rich guest and, after cheerily proclaiming a hello to a lorry driver, draws a particularly scathing reply dripping with sour grapes and envy. Earlier in the film, when making the most innocuous of comments, he receives the same kind of reply from workers who are designing a room to reflect the exacting specifications of a selfish, greedy doctor. Though the film's loyalties are clearly with the toilers rather than the commanders, Last Holiday asserts firmly that unfounded and ill-placed anger, while perhaps understandable based on years of inequality, are often just as unfairly judgmental and unreasonable as the cultural elitism practiced by the upper class characters.

Yet, though the flaws of the so-called common people are at times unfair, they are nothing compared to the obnoxiously cold behavior of their social superiors. Bird quickly finds he has more in common with the lower class hired help and with a new money East Ender than any of the upper class society members. Paradoxically, though, Bird also is entranced by the overtures of fortune and employment dangled in front of him by those highest up the food chain. Assuming that he must certainly be one of them, they aim to drag him into their exclusive club which if fully devoid of social inferiors. The old adage, "it takes money to make money" might, in this film, be written into stone as a law unto itself. Of all the stinging criticisms of the moneyed elite, this is the most damning of all. Bird recognizes with deep frustration that in order to be an influential force, even for good, one must be born into luxury. When presumed to be a member of the Old Boy Network, lucrative business deals fall into his lap, politicians take his views seriously, appointments to high ranking government positions are offered, and suggestions to modify labor-saving farm inventions are acknowledged and eagerly agreed to be incorporated into subsequent models.

Upward mobility alone is no solution, a concept which is illustrated by the presence of the wealthy cockney and his wife, who though they are very rich, are still considered neither worthy nor fitting of a seat at the table. Much of this treatment results from the fact that the man and his wife make no pretenses to disguise their lowly roots, and particularly so because both refuse to change their accents or their mannerisms to sound and seem more dignified. Bird does, however, make a strong impact on at least one woman of high society, who through his kindness and generosity is given reason to question her earlier baseless, cavalier characterization of the vile nature of common folk. In this respect, his trip might be considered a huge success, though it needs to be acknowledged too that he only manages, purely in leading by example, to win over two or three influential fellow guests to a new mindset. Most of the smart set either refuse to contemplate their own complicit hand in the system or never really bother to contemplate the matter long enough to seriously want to change their long-established point of view on the matter.

As the film draws to its conclusion, it eventually becomes known to all of the gossipy guests, both rich and poor, of Bird's true station and his real reason for taking a holiday. At first, the rich celebrate his talents and ingenuity with wild enthusiasm. The poorer individuals, particularly the staff, appreciate his sincerity and abject refusal to act as though he was better than they. Yet, by the end of the movie, when it appears that Bird has committed a social slight by not showing up at a dinner party thrown in his honor, the upper class guests are the first to turn against him and demean his character, while those with working class backgrounds or status as commoners still hold him firmly in high esteem. This, the last of many scenes of a movie with a deliberate emphasis on class conflict and unabashed social commentary, might be the most important to ponder.

Quote of the Week

That is the truest sign of insanity - insane people are always sure that they are fine. It is only the sane people who are willing to admit that they are crazy."- Nora Ephron.

In Memory of Bonnie Tinker

Quakers are a relatively small faith group, so we frequently come in contact with the bigger names at conferences or events. Our modest numbers allow us the ability to often interact face to face with the most influential members. It is for this reason that so many Friends are saddened and shocked by the death of Bonnie Tinker. Her untimely demise was a gruesome end to the life of a woman who had been admired by many for her work on behalf of LGBT causes, anti-war demonstrations, and other activist causes for forty years or so. She had long lived openly as a lesbian with her long-time partner, and never felt any desire to hide the fact, which was much more of a liability thirty years ago than now. Her commitment to the Quaker Peace Testimony, which strongly emphasizes pacifism, led to her participation in Anti-War rallies, arrests, and even convictions in a court of law.

I met Bonnie for the first time (and regrettably, the last) back in January when I was still living in DC. She arrived with a bunch of out-of-town guests who were there to attend the forthcoming Obama Inauguration. The influx of a large number of visiting Friends made First Hour's worship much richer than usual. I will never forget the words of her vocal ministry during the service because they moved and inspired me to such a degree that I deliberately sought her out at the conclusion of the service to ask her a few questions.

She and I talked at some length, then she vowed to help me with my own concerns regarding encouraging and growing Young Friend attendance at meeting. She suggested several people I might contact and avenues I might consider. And right before we parted ways, she opened her arms to give me a hug and I shyly complied with the gesture, not expecting it and caught a bit off guard. Now she has passed on, but I feel fortunate that I at least had the opportunity to meet her, even once.

With a relatively uncommon last name of Tinker and well aware of her activist roots, I remember wondering if perhaps she was related to the Tinkers whose decision to wear a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War resulted in suspension and a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969. As it turns out, she was the older sister of the four Iowa students involved in the case. She lived her life in much the same way as her younger siblings had back then: unapologetic, unashamed, and never afraid to push the envelope to advance a cause. This attitude won her both friends and enemies over the year, as well as tentative allies who sometimes felt like her tactics went too far. Even so, she was a tremendously influential person who believed that Civil Disobedience had a moral basis, one that need not be constrained by laws and restrictions.

Saturday Video

Wild man's world is cryin' in pain
What you going do when everybody's insane?
So afraid of one who's so afraid of you
What're you going to do?

And In The End...

It was all about Sarah.

My Final Thoughts on the Matter

An Open Letter to Meghan McCain

Dear Ms. McCain,

This is written in response to your latest post on The Daily Beast, entitled "Forgive Mark Sanford".

Allow me to speak frankly. Do understand that you are probably the only self-identified Republican I currently take seriously. In an era where your party is increasingly defined by the Evangelical Christian far-right, I find Progressive Republicans like you a refreshing alternative to the status quo. It is a comforting thought for unapologetic liberal Democrats like yours truly that the phrase "Progressive Republican" might not need be an oxymoron. Indeed, you make many interesting observations, some of which I even agree with, but at times you also come across like the slightly naive child of privilege that you are. In columns like the one posted above, one recognizes your ample potential while also noting your youth and inexperience.

If you wish to be taken seriously, (and I firmly believe that you do) then I recommend you take the time to make sure that the examples you cite in your column line up and directly reinforce your points.

For example, in the column referenced above you write,

France—home of my absolute favorite foreign first lady, Carla Bruni—perfected the laissez-faire attitude toward the sex lives of its public leaders. Not here. We hold our politicians to impossible standards. We elect them, put our hopes and dreams for a brighter future on that one person, and then expect sainthood. Republicans—and Democrats—should forgive these private sins and move on. Life happens. People—especially politicians—make mistakes.

Carla Bruni has been known to make some very controversial statements herself---statements that if they been uttered by the American First Lady would cause a scandal. In particular, Bruni has stated in times past that "I am monogamous from time to time, but I prefer polygamy and polyandry". Additionally, she has noted that she quickly grows "bored with monogamy" and that "love lasts a long time, but burning desire — two to three weeks". Not only that, naked pictures of Ms. Bruni, taken when she was a model, have surfaced and sold for high prices at auction. Any one of these things would likely be unforgivable matters in the eyes of the American public and in particular, the conservative press, who made an issue out of a relatively benign Michelle Obama comment made during her husband's Presidential campaign.

Furthermore, it is one thing to forgive politicians for their zipper problems but quite another thing to make reference to a woman whose on-the-record comments seem to speak against the existence of any and all marriage or, for that matter, sexual fidelity. In a day and age where same-sex marriage is a hotly debated matter, if one took Bruni's advice at face value, then there would be no need for the institution itself, regardless of whether it took place within a heterosexual or homosexual context. Thus, there would be no need for court fights, protests, and coordinated approaches to advance the cause of same-sex unions. At this point, I probably ought to mention that you yourself, breaking with many in your party, have spoken out in favor of same-sex marriage in the recent past.

The societal expectations between the United States and France are about as different as chalk and cheese. France is a country where the residence have long held a cynical view towards politicians. In their collective attitude, all elected officials are automatically chronic philanders and all of them are heavily corrupt. At times I think this sort of attitude might be liberating, but I'm not sure I want to assume that when I go into the voting booth that every vote I cast, regardless of office or position, is for someone who is a sleazeball by default. America, with its Puritan, WASP heritage, seems to take the opposite extreme. What you are right to point out, Ms. McCain, is that we do hold our leaders and public figures to impossible standards here, both in their personal lives and in their chosen occupation.

This is, however, not likely to change. Politicians take a dual role in American life. Those we respect we use to project our own best qualities, or the perceived qualities we would like to have ourselves. Those we dislike are our whipping boys, who serve as a way for us to vent our frustrations and hostilities in socially acceptable ways. This is the nature of being in the public eye as it exists. Everyone who chooses to run for high elected office knows both the risks and the great benefits that are the nature of the beast before going into it. I, for one, hope that we might find some middle ground between the American and French attitudes, but cultural mentalities are stubborn matters and do not evaporate overnight.

Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes

As longtime readers know, I deliberately try to keep my personal life off of here. I'm making an exception for right now because the matter at hand isn't simply an issue of interesting anecdotes, but instead is the springboard for a much broader issue I'd like to address. Or, in other words, what my family went through the past five months was a laborious, protracted nightmare that did not draw to a close until two days ago. I was advised not to write about anything about it or to mention it in any public forum until matters had been firmly settled once and for all. Thankfully, a emotionally taxing ordeal is over forever and I am thankful that I no longer need to worry about the outcome.

The issue in question is a fairly straightforward one. It is not only straightforward but it is agonizingly commonplace. In short, for several months my youngest sister was in a relationship with an abusive boyfriend. The last six months they were together, his drinking increased, his verbally abusive behavior towards her grew in frequency, and he began to border on threats of physical violence towards her. All of this came to a tipping point one evening, when, after having endured a particularly awful round of yelled threats and menacing violations of personal space, my sister became fearful enough for her physical safety that she hit him. It was a clear matter of simple self-defense. Yet, when the police arrived a few moment later and noticed that he had a black eye and chipped tooth while she herself had no visible marks, my sister was summarily arrested for Domestic Violence. She spent twelve lovely hours in a jail, the minimum amount of time one must spend according to the provisions of that flawed piece of legislation, and then was informed she'd be obligated to go through preliminary hearings and a trial before a judge.

The deepest irony among many in this situation was that the law under which she was charged had originally been designed to protect battered spouses/common-law-wives/girlfriends against abusive men. In this circumstance, the exceptionally strict parameters of the statute and the rigid way it was required to be enforced left the officer called to the scene no choice but to arrest her and charge her with a crime. So let me state this very firmly. I don't doubt the motives of those who pushed for this law. Neither do I doubt the sincerity and nobility of their intentions, but what was enacted into law was overkill. Who bears the blame in drafting the bill is not nearly as important to me as to the fact that no one bothered to take into account its potential drawbacks.

As for the resolution of the matter, after the family and my parents had expended much time, money, and energy into the matter, the charge was rightly thrown out of court by the judge. Yet again I saw how slowly the hands of justice work and how utterly flawed our court system can be. Had it not been for the skillful work of my sister's attorney, the District Attorney might have forced a jury trial. The plaintiff never showed up in court, at which point the pending charge or charges are supposed to be dismissed automatically. However, the D.A. made a motion to try to bring the arresting officer to the courtroom in place of the defendant, a maneuver technically against the rules, but thankfully the officer was unwilling to do so. After being informed of this, the judge summarily dismissed the case. I'm not sure how the arresting officer could have been of any help to the prosecution anyway, since he wasn't an eyewitness to what happened.

The details are important in that they underscore a real world example of how bad laws affect real people. The larger point I wish to make is that the times in which we live clamor for reform. Indeed, I and many of you have urged for significant change in every imaginable area. This is well and good. However, the lesson I have pulled from this circumstance is that we ought to make sure that the laws and statutes that are crafted and then get signed into law do not create new, unforeseen problems in spite of the best of intentions. Sometimes this is unavoidable due to changing circumstances and changing times, but sometimes sloppy logic and knee-jerk overcompensation is highly avoidable if the wording of the bill itself, well prior to being enacted, is sufficiently parsed and checked for both clarity and scope. In our desire to want a resolute fix for a larger societal ill, may we be cautious to not overplay our hand. If we do so, it does no one any good in the end.

Sonnet

My friend and me
Looking through her red box of memories

Faded I'm sure
But love seems to stick in the things you know

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like a sonnet, my lord

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord

My lord

Why can't you see
That nature has its way of warning me?

Eyes open wide
Looking at the heavens with a tear in my eye

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord

Yes, there's love if you want it
Don't sound like no sonnet, my lord
My lord

Sinking fast within a boat without a hull
My lord

Dreaming about the day
when I can see you there

My side
By my side

Here we go again and
my head is gone, my lord

I stop to say hello
'Cause I think you should know by now

By now
By now

By now
By now

By now
Oh, by now
Oh, by now

Oh, by now
Oh, by now

Movie Review: Pierrot Le Fou

French director Jean-Luc Godard's was the most literal adherent to the auteur theory of film making popular in the Fifties and Sixties. Auteur theory holds that a sole creative force in the person of the director should dictate every element in his or her work, including the dialogue of every character. Godard's films, Pierrot Le Fou being one of them, tread perilously close to autobiography or self-parody at times and this is frequently what some critics find objectionable and presumptuous. In particular, this work is best understood as a contemplative summing up of Godard's marriage to Danish actress and muse Anna Karina, one which had begun with great promise four years before and was now spiraling downward to divorce. Karina in many ways is playing herself through Godard's perspective and she must have been aware of this during filming, since the dialogue spoken by her character was at times identical to things that she said in real life. Two years earlier, Godard used the same device in the film Contempt, instead using female lead Brigitte Bardot as a stand in for Karina and even requesting that Bardot mimic as closely as she could the acting style of his then-wife.

Godard employs Jean-Paul Belmondo once more in the character of Ferdinand Griffon, an intellectual and disgruntled artist who is quite unsurprisingly Godard's personal mouthpiece. Belmondo played a crucial role in much the same capacity for the director's acclaimed debut film, Breathless, filmed five years earlier, and adopts here the same general devil-may-care cocky swagger that served him so well in the prior effort. Griffon, largely out of sheer boredom, leaves his wife and children to engage in an affair with the babysitter, Marianne Renoir, played here by Karina. As the movie unfolds, Karina turns out to be a femme fatale of the worst sort: one who kills people without remorse, flaunts her connection with underworld figures, and ensnares Griffon into adopting a role as accomplice to her crimes and her own fickle nature.

The best features of a Godard film, of course, are the witty one-liners, editing experiments that disregard conventional narrative altogether, and vicious swipes at American consumerism. In the first part of the film Renoir decides to ditch the car they've been driving for the past several hours to throw the cops off of their trail, but not before issuing a command to Griffon that they ought to make it look realistic, because, after all, this isn't a movie. Later in the film an Algerian gun runner sports an omnipresent over-sized bottle of Coca-Cola. The effect is made even more prominent by the fact that the hoodlum is a midget and quite literally seems to be in danger of being overwhelmed by the size of the bottle in proportion to his slight size. In addition, characters periodically, and very deliberately break the fourth wall, speaking directly to the camera. Godard's leftist political side shows plainly when Belmondo and Karina stage a slightly over-the-top theatrical caricature of America's barbaric, inhumane treatment of the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War, which was by then heating up to a boiling point. Subsequent films would be entirely political in nature, so Pierrot Le Fou represents the end of the French director's first period.

Godard, ever the consummate literary and film aesthete, filled his works full of cerebral allusions to favorite books, influential works of art, and movies he admired. At times he took it too far, which is evident if ones reads a published interview with the director, whereby in every paragraph he alludes to esoteric writers, filmmakers, and artists with a weary kind of incredulous disdain that pondered why more people didn't take the time to absorb as many influences as he had. At times, the behavior comes across like name-dropping. Similarly, Pierrot Le Fou is often criticized by film scholars and reviewers alike for daring to be presumptuous enough to take this attitude a step farther and include many direct allusions to his own prior films, not merely those of others.

Self-referential scenes might be more acceptable nowadays, but in its time the practice was seen as lazy, self-indulgent, and egocentric to the extreme. Being that much of the plot was strikingly similar to Breathless both in style and in scope, the criticism has merit. Part of this effect was purely a matter of the fact that the film went into filming with no script whatsoever and was often a product of improvisation. Godard wrote each day's lines the day before they were to be filmed, so he certainly didn't have the luxury of reflection, time, revision, or the ability to avoid occasionally repeating himself. This in itself is indicative of many art house pictures of the period---frequently unfocused, rambling, and aiming to be unconventionally different while going much too far in the process.

One is often aware of Godard's tip of the hat to other director, but what isn't documented as much are when his influences respond in kind. For example, Pierrot Le Fou utilizes primary and sometimes secondary colors in every conceivable aspect, from the dress of the characters, to the color of the cars, and even to the opening and closing credits. Godard had filmed Contempt along similar lines with the same slowly-moving, moving image-as-still-painting aesthetic of Italian director and fellow auteur Michelangelo Antonioni. Antonioni, obviously touched, would return the favor when it came time to film Blow-Up a year later. Buildings in the area of London where filming took place in that film were deliberately and conspicuously painted in these same basic primary and secondary colors, and the director even had the grass of the park where, famously, the movie's murder was accidentally photographed, painted solid green for effect. Godard, after all, like many New Wave directors had begun his film career as a respected critic and theorist in widely published cinematic periodicals. It is through these journals that ideas and concepts were exchanged and formulated. Nowadays, underground film critics would probably contribute to a blog or a internet-based magazine but in those days, of course, electronic media did not yet exist.

Pierrot Le Fou has its detractors, for sure, and for understandable reasons, but it is frequently a charming film as well. In it one sees a man emerging from a dark period in his life while trying to make sense of all which has transpired prior. It also is rightly seen as a final homage to Anna Karina, though they would not officially divorce until two years later, and a means of taking stock of her influence on Godard's life. As his first color film, Pierrot Le Fou uses the cinematic effect to a beautiful degree and leaves one wondering what earlier works would have looked like in Technicolor, not monochrome. This film concludes the director's most accessible period of film craft and shows glimpses of what future works would look like. Godard had made one Hollywood film with A-list Hollywood actors and actresses, 1963's Contempt, and found the experience much to his distaste because of studio meddling and perceived constraints upon his artistic freedom. Henceforth, he was more concerned with leftist political theory at the expense of anything madcap or conventional in the least, and was particularly concerned with Maoist treatises and revolutionary rhetoric. After the Contempt experience, subsequent films were made on his terms alone, meaning that he deliberately eschewed the popularity and deliberately commercial works of other French New Wave directors like Francois Truffaut. Godard used increasingly radical techniques in his pictures which placed him firmly in the category of independent, underground filmmaker. This was a role in which Godard was quite comfortable, though it all but assured he'd forever be an acquired taste and a frequently unknown talent.

Quote of the Week

A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit.- D. Elton Trueblood (American Quaker scholar)

Uncommonly Rational Thoughts

Many of the problems of this world are based purely in irrationality. These same problems are often products of impulsive human behavior. We frequently ask why other people don't take the time to let cooler heads prevail and employ common sense instead of instantly reacting to a situation without thinking the matter through. Believing that people ought to behave rationally as a matter of course---when they do not, we are left with perplexing questions that provide no easy answers. In truth, one cannot discern sense from the senseless. Emotionally charged matters cannot be explained by cold hard facts, lines of logic, or methodical analysis.

The more education we have, the more we believe that humans are capable of solving their disputes rationally and that since irrational behavior makes no logical sense, so there's no reason for it to even exist. Education preaches rational thought and rational discourse. Rationality as a construct goes hand in glove with the civilized impulse and we often pride ourselves when we willfully substitute raw emotional response for reasoned contemplation. As a result, when nonsensical behavior or foolish reaction bubbles to the surface, the first question we ask ourselves is frequently---"Why?"

Politicians are no less human than we are. The recent behavior of some of them has provided the opportunity for much disbelief. For example, why did South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford concoct an elaborate lie to his wife, the press, and his own staff about his own whereabouts that was so ill-conceived that it forced him to come clean with where he really had been? Why did Sarah Palin respond so indignantly to an admittedly third-rate joke about one of her daughters? Why did she craft a rambling written acceptance of David Letterman's apology for the joke that included an incredibly weird and totally unrelated passage citing those who serve in the military? Why did Texas Governor Rick Perry imply that his state had the right to secede from the Union? Why was Michele Bachmann even elected? Why do any number of our elected representatives say incredibly stupid things from time to time that completely boggle the mind?

Dumb political decisions aside, I thought I might provide a personal example from my own life as a means of comparison. As I might have alluded to on this site before, my mother was an elementary school teacher for most of my childhood and early adolescence. The bane of her existence was almost never the children, her students. Instead, the metaphorical fly in the ointment was a particular kind of parent, one who entertained the willful delusion that their sainted child couldn't possibly be acting out and couldn't possibly be a behavior problem. Parents like these refused to think rationally, instead clinging madly to an egocentric and narcissistic belief that since they themselves perceived that their own parenting skills were solid, then it stood to reason that their children must be behaving correctly. As their "logic" would have it, clearly the teacher and the school must be in the wrong since it was utterly incomprehensible to them that their child wasn't an angel. Parents like these lived in a fantasy of their own creation, one in which they were never willing to be self-reflective or to undergo the indignity of confronting their own flaws. When one boiled it down, the matter was never really about their children. Instead, it was all about them.

These days, we could easily call this phenomenon "playing the victim". It is a means of displacement, shifting the blame from us to some place else. We all are guilty of it to some degree but the key is being courageous enough to admit to our flaws and faults. Taken too far, we can become masochistic and self-pitying. Taken not far enough, we can lose touch with humility and come to believe in our own inherent perfection. The answer, as you might have guessed, is to be rational. But part of the answer is to also acknowledge that for all of our striving and struggles, occasionally we all act irrationally. So long as we keep that in mind, we'll be able to sympathize with those who make mistakes while not condoning their behavior, either.

Saturday Video

From The Archives

This was one of the first performance videos I recorded, and as you can see, at this point I was still learning precisely how much light was needed to properly illuminate my face. Still, the performance itself is strong, even if the image itself is much too dark.

Out of the Mouths of Babes

I have nothing further to add to the exhaustive analysis surrounding the self-proclaimed "King of Pop" and have no desire to provide my own unique angle to it. I do, however, have an amusing anecdote to share.

I called my mother last night to catch up on the family news and, as one might expect, the topic turned to the death of Michael Jackson. She mentioned something I had said as a little boy that at the time I was too young to remember. Apparently, at the age of two, I asked her whether Michael Jackson was a boy or a girl. The jury may still be out on that subject. Perhaps we will discover the answer for sure now that the star in question has died.

Sanford, Infidelity, and What the Latest Sex Scandal Says about Us

Prepare yourself for another news day involving the fallout from the Mark Sanford saga. The cable news networks, internet, blogosphere, and talk shows could speak of nothing else yesterday and, true to form, they will continue their analysis and critique today. In the midst of this cerebration, few people will be truly willing to confront the real story behind the story. If we were honest with ourselves, we'd take this as another opportunity to ask ourselves, collectively, the roots from whence infidelity stems and why those in positions of power so easily and willfully violate their marriage vows.

The conversation we're not having, partially because we're not comfortable with it, partially because it would reveal much about our own attitudes is why people in positions of power stray from their marriage. The Puritan in each of us has a instant tendency to judge them harshly, mercilessly, critiquing their behavior as purely a product of poor self-control, immoral influences, and a deficit of self-discipline. But what this critique does not take into account is how power, talent, and influence is very much an aphrodisiac. Any heterosexual male who has ever picked up a guitar, strummed a few tentative chords, and sang in front of even a few interested women knows this well. Any man placed in a position of authority knows too how women are easily attracted to authority figures. And, it should be added, this phenomenon also applies to powerful women employed in these stations, though the incidents themselves are either less frequent in number or less frequently reported.

I remember that when I was in college I made friendships with several of my professors. I became especially close to a handful of them and after I gained their confidence I was provided a peek into their private lives. Many of them quietly carried on adulterous affairs with their students, often taking a new sexual partner every term. Naturally, I never felt any inclination to inform their wives (or husbands, in some cases, or their same-sex partners) because while I might have found it personally objectionable I took the attitude that it was none of my business. At times, I wondered how their spouses, girlfriends, and boyfriends felt about the matter, but their complete silence on the matter seemed to answer the question for me.

I seriously doubt I'm the first person who has been faced with this realization. Though I have never been close enough to a political campaign or major office to see the behind-the-scenes back and forth, I bet this goes on all the time there, too. As the ancient phrase goes, most people are followers and few people are leaders. But what can be safely affixed to that saying is that followers often find leaders irresistibly attractive. A potent cocktail of power, money, influence, and means leads indirectly to temptation. What we might need to ask ourselves is whether we could be the strong ones with these constant distractions. What we might need to ask ourselves is whether we could be the moral ones when immorality, as commonly defined, is an omnipresent factor that goes along with the job description. What we might need to ask ourselves is whether we could keep it all from going to our heads and, if we indulged, would we be progressively more and more careless in the act of covering our tracks. Or, what we might especially ask is whether we'd be star-struck ourselves in the company of one of our stars, craving the attention and yes, even sexual graces of one of our personal heroes or romantic fantasies.

Crusading journalist Ed Murrow used this passage from Shakespeare to make a vital point about Senator Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950's, but in this regard, it speaks well to the matter at hand.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

I Was Made To Love Magic

Read My Story, and Many More Like It

(click to enlarge)

A few weeks back, President Obama asked those on his mailing list to write to him about their difficulties with our exceptionally broken Health Care system. I am pleased to say that my story was chosen for publication on the Obama Presidential website.

It can be accessed here. If, after reading it, you wish to click on the megaphone icon and amplify it so that it will receive greater attention, I would sincerely appreciate the gesture. As you might suspect, I'm not the only person who has been victimized by the greed, graft, and corruption that suffices as for-profit health care. Not by a long shot. If you will take the opportunity to scan through several entries on the site, you will find one heartbreaking story after another.