Well, when you were born just after the end of World War II, the year 2010 seems pretty darn futuristic. There was a time when even the 1980s seemed a long way off. I can say that I read Orwell's 1984 when it did feel far enough away that it might as well have been titled 2084. But the years pass, and the Contentious One keeps chugging along, just waiting for his first big health crisis--which vital organ will grow the tumor? Ah, the joys of getting older.
Of all the days in the year, perhaps New Year's Eve has been the most eventful for me, in many ways. The fact that kissing at midnight is part of the New Year's ritual has led to a couple of memorable romances, one of which had a particularly significant impact on the path of my life. And then there was that New Year's Eve somewhere back in the 1970s when I was aggressively hustled and hit on (you can't make this stuff up) by a minister of a gay church from San Francisco, at a party in Mahtomedi. It was on that night that I learned how a woman might feel on the receiving end of untoward and unwelcome advances. The fact is that New Year's Eve, especially when you are young and single, invites a certain sort of debauchery--it is as if we are all in a time warp, willing to throw caution to the wind, in a state of suspended animation combined with a mild dose of inebriation. What happens on New Year's Eve stays on New Year's Eve--it's the calendar's equivalent to Las Vegas.
But now, as I grab my AARP membership card and hope for the Senior Discount at Jiffy Lube or some such place, I have to say that those days of debauchery are pretty much ancient history. You see, time projects both ways: in 1968, the year 2010 seemed like forever, and in 2010, 1968 now feels like a very distant but pleasant dream. Could it all have been THAT long ago?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Christmas blues
I'd like to be able to say that Christmas is the happiest time of year for me, but the simple fact is that it's not. Unfortunately, it involves a perfect storm of several things that together make "the most wonderful time of the year" something quite less:
1. It's dark--the days are short.
2. It's cold--the snow is here and more is on the way.
3. It's overcommercialized--and so I must find a way to please the most important people in my life with various objects, always wondering if they are the right objects.
4. It's expensive--and I'm both poor and cheap.
5. It's illogical--the birth story has never made any sense to me. (Virgin mother indeed!) And it brings out some of the most nonsensical beliefs I have ever encountered.
6. It's a focal point for every family issue and old squabble. And it reminds many of better times and lost loved ones.
7. It's bound to be disappointing--because expectations are so darn high.
When Christmas is over, I invariably heave a big sigh of relief. No more trudging through crowded malls! No more 24/7 Christmas music on a couple of my normal radio stations! No more worry about "doing it wrong"! And no more reminders of how our lives fall short of the ideal. It's not that I'm a depressed person by nature--indeed, most of my water glasses at home are half-full. But Christmas is like a stress test on an icy treadmill. I'd rather take a leisurely walk around the lake on a warm spring afternoon.
1. It's dark--the days are short.
2. It's cold--the snow is here and more is on the way.
3. It's overcommercialized--and so I must find a way to please the most important people in my life with various objects, always wondering if they are the right objects.
4. It's expensive--and I'm both poor and cheap.
5. It's illogical--the birth story has never made any sense to me. (Virgin mother indeed!) And it brings out some of the most nonsensical beliefs I have ever encountered.
6. It's a focal point for every family issue and old squabble. And it reminds many of better times and lost loved ones.
7. It's bound to be disappointing--because expectations are so darn high.
When Christmas is over, I invariably heave a big sigh of relief. No more trudging through crowded malls! No more 24/7 Christmas music on a couple of my normal radio stations! No more worry about "doing it wrong"! And no more reminders of how our lives fall short of the ideal. It's not that I'm a depressed person by nature--indeed, most of my water glasses at home are half-full. But Christmas is like a stress test on an icy treadmill. I'd rather take a leisurely walk around the lake on a warm spring afternoon.
Monday, December 7, 2009
President Sarah Palin?
Today marked the tumultuous return of "Governor" Sarah Palin to Minnesota. At the Mall of America, she was greeted by throngs of devotees, all waiting in line for many, many hours to have her sign (no more than two) copies of her (ghostwritten) book, Going Rogue.
Let's start with the predictable disclaimers. Sarah Palin is a narrow-minded demagogue. She's about as deep as the Los Angeles River, and has about as much gravitas as an ostrich feather. Having said that, I must grit my teeth and say something that is anathema to liberals: Sarah Palin could indeed become our next President.
Heretofore, we have determined that Ms. Palin is simply too inexperienced and too much of an idiot to be elected to higher office. A colleague of mine at work would be pleased if Palin were nominated in 2012, for that very reason--i.e., in his mind, she simply doesn't have enough broad appeal from people with brains to be elected, so let the Republicans nominate her! But I had to remind my friend of one thing: this is America in the 21st century.
In this modern/postmodern age of media celebrities, Sarah Palin fits in pretty nicely. Many people like her, and many others simply adore her. She's down to earth and she makes sense, in their view--and she's not too bad on the eyes, either. In 2009, that's about all you need. There's a reason why both Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected to be governors--they weren't "typical politicians" and people liked their style. We live in a Cult of Personality, and darn it, Sarah's got that in spades.
So, let's hope the Obama Presidency is reasonably successful. If it isn't, look out! Persistent economic problems and a losing effort in Afghanistan could propel people to once again look for "change." And if you think Sarah is unqualified, just give her a couple of years. In our media-saturated culture, exposure = credibility. Palin was regarded as unqualified because nobody had ever heard of her. But give her a couple of years on newscasts, talk shows, and magazines, and a little grooming from a few advisors, and voila!--suddenly she is way more legitimate than before.
Gosh but it pains me to say all this! I pray to all Higher Powers that I am dead wrong.
Let's start with the predictable disclaimers. Sarah Palin is a narrow-minded demagogue. She's about as deep as the Los Angeles River, and has about as much gravitas as an ostrich feather. Having said that, I must grit my teeth and say something that is anathema to liberals: Sarah Palin could indeed become our next President.
Heretofore, we have determined that Ms. Palin is simply too inexperienced and too much of an idiot to be elected to higher office. A colleague of mine at work would be pleased if Palin were nominated in 2012, for that very reason--i.e., in his mind, she simply doesn't have enough broad appeal from people with brains to be elected, so let the Republicans nominate her! But I had to remind my friend of one thing: this is America in the 21st century.
In this modern/postmodern age of media celebrities, Sarah Palin fits in pretty nicely. Many people like her, and many others simply adore her. She's down to earth and she makes sense, in their view--and she's not too bad on the eyes, either. In 2009, that's about all you need. There's a reason why both Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected to be governors--they weren't "typical politicians" and people liked their style. We live in a Cult of Personality, and darn it, Sarah's got that in spades.
So, let's hope the Obama Presidency is reasonably successful. If it isn't, look out! Persistent economic problems and a losing effort in Afghanistan could propel people to once again look for "change." And if you think Sarah is unqualified, just give her a couple of years. In our media-saturated culture, exposure = credibility. Palin was regarded as unqualified because nobody had ever heard of her. But give her a couple of years on newscasts, talk shows, and magazines, and a little grooming from a few advisors, and voila!--suddenly she is way more legitimate than before.
Gosh but it pains me to say all this! I pray to all Higher Powers that I am dead wrong.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Suffocating in data smog
As the academic term ramps up for the Big Crunch at the end of the semester, I continue to marvel at the number of messages that are flying around through cyberspace and good 'ol paperspace. Sometimes I feel as if I am a member of the Borg Collective--you know, those strange creatures, all connected psychically, who lived in a humongous cube on Star Trek: The Next Generation, and always knew what all the others were thinking, in real time. As with the Borg, there are all these thoughts and all this information flying around and we are expected to attend to it, understand it, and respond to it. It's a wonder that anyone can keep up. And I must confess to a certain level of guilt if I fall down on the message-processing job, even if I only let it lapse for a day or two--sometimes even an hour or two!
As we move "forward" in this electronic, information-processing age, a huge challenge will be to find a way to be competent, conscientious, and effective--yet sane. I believe that this will, increasingly, become a quality of life issue as well as a mental health issue. Even if we don't have Borg-like implants in our heads, we are becoming every bit as connected. And I'm getting tired of all that connecting. Jean Luc--help me! Send a shuttle craft to take me away! I'm a cyberprisoner.
As we move "forward" in this electronic, information-processing age, a huge challenge will be to find a way to be competent, conscientious, and effective--yet sane. I believe that this will, increasingly, become a quality of life issue as well as a mental health issue. Even if we don't have Borg-like implants in our heads, we are becoming every bit as connected. And I'm getting tired of all that connecting. Jean Luc--help me! Send a shuttle craft to take me away! I'm a cyberprisoner.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Black Friday: capitalism on steroids
And so here we are on Thanksgiving--my favorite holiday. I've always loved Thanksgiving because (a) you don't have to believe anything in particular that is nonsensical (I'll let you infer those references), (b) the message is simple and one that we can all embrace, (c) you get to eat a lot, (d) it's always near or on my birthday, and (e) it's the only holiday left that hasn't been "overcommercialized"--no gifts or cards required. (Thousands of you loyal readers can check my post from November 26, 2008, "Thankful for Thanksgiving," which expresses a similar sentiment.)
But--stop the presses, hold the phone: that last reason is quickly becoming a reason of the past. Yes, things are still pretty darn good until 11:59 pm on Thanksgiving, but then something awful and ugly happens at the stroke of midnight: we arrive at BLACK FRIDAY, which this year (to make matters even worse) coincides with my birthday. As we all know, stores are opening on Black Friday as early as 3:00 am; other "lazy" stores are actually waiting until 4 or 5 am to open on this day. In short, my birthday this year is on a day that bows down to the true Great Gods of America: consumerism, conformity, conspicuous consumption, profit, and superficiality. It's a material world, but I don't want to be a material girl--or a material boy, for that matter.
Yet I am still conflicted. I realize that some of this capitalistic hyperactivity is done with the goal of finding gifts for people we love. And I also realize that in order for our economy to prosper, people do need to buy stuff: that is a very sobering notion to me--the idea that we simply must spend and buy so that everyone can work and profit. But I hark back to a book by the philosopher Alan Watts: Does It Matter? Essays on Man's Relation to Materiality. In one of these essays, Watts argues, in so many words, that we need to re-think our fundamental ideas about money, wealth, and the national economy. His point is at once both totally sensible and rather naive: to wit, we have an incredible amount of wealth (just go to Sam's Club and look at the shelves), and so all we need to do is distribute it to everyone; we have more than enough. "Money" and "debt," in his view, are so 19th century. And if you think about it, he's right: "money" is merely pieces of paper. In Watts's words,
"Money doesn't and never did come from anywhere, as if it were something like lumber or iron or hydroelectric power. We invent money as we invent the Fahrenheit scale of temperature or the avoirdupois measure of weight. . . By contrast with money, true wealth is the sum of energy, technical intelligence, and raw materials. Gold itself is only wealth when used for such practical purposes as filling teeth. As soon as it is used for money, kept locked in vaults and fortresses, it becomes useless for anything else and thus goes out of circulation as a form of raw material; i.e., real wealth."
Hmm. Sounds like Watts was one of those "wealth-spreaders." But really, don't we have quite enough for everyone? Can't everyone have a certain level of material comfort? Why is it rationed in the way that it is, such that guys stand on freeway off-ramps with cardboard signs and we feel like we've saved the world if we give them a frickin' sandwich?
Unfortunately, Alan Watts's view of things has not prevailed. He was writing in the 1960s, and I couldn't help but notice this passage in the aforementioned book: "If, if we get our heads on straight about money, I predict that by A.D. 2000, or sooner, no one will pay taxes, no one will carry cash, utilities will be free, and everyone will carry a general credit card. This card will be valid up to each individual's share in a guaranteed basic income or national dividend, issued free, beyond which he or she may still earn anything more that he desires by an art or craft, profession or trade that has not been displaced by automation."
Well, he did put an "if" in there! But we are obviously a long way from Watts's vision of the ideal approach to materialism. So, it's 2009--spend like a drunken sailor, pull out that plastic, rack up those frequent flyer miles, bury yourself in gifts, and have fun coping with the millions of other idiots out there who see Black Friday as some sort of festival. Me? I be stayin' home. Call me a Conscientious Objector.
But--stop the presses, hold the phone: that last reason is quickly becoming a reason of the past. Yes, things are still pretty darn good until 11:59 pm on Thanksgiving, but then something awful and ugly happens at the stroke of midnight: we arrive at BLACK FRIDAY, which this year (to make matters even worse) coincides with my birthday. As we all know, stores are opening on Black Friday as early as 3:00 am; other "lazy" stores are actually waiting until 4 or 5 am to open on this day. In short, my birthday this year is on a day that bows down to the true Great Gods of America: consumerism, conformity, conspicuous consumption, profit, and superficiality. It's a material world, but I don't want to be a material girl--or a material boy, for that matter.
Yet I am still conflicted. I realize that some of this capitalistic hyperactivity is done with the goal of finding gifts for people we love. And I also realize that in order for our economy to prosper, people do need to buy stuff: that is a very sobering notion to me--the idea that we simply must spend and buy so that everyone can work and profit. But I hark back to a book by the philosopher Alan Watts: Does It Matter? Essays on Man's Relation to Materiality. In one of these essays, Watts argues, in so many words, that we need to re-think our fundamental ideas about money, wealth, and the national economy. His point is at once both totally sensible and rather naive: to wit, we have an incredible amount of wealth (just go to Sam's Club and look at the shelves), and so all we need to do is distribute it to everyone; we have more than enough. "Money" and "debt," in his view, are so 19th century. And if you think about it, he's right: "money" is merely pieces of paper. In Watts's words,
"Money doesn't and never did come from anywhere, as if it were something like lumber or iron or hydroelectric power. We invent money as we invent the Fahrenheit scale of temperature or the avoirdupois measure of weight. . . By contrast with money, true wealth is the sum of energy, technical intelligence, and raw materials. Gold itself is only wealth when used for such practical purposes as filling teeth. As soon as it is used for money, kept locked in vaults and fortresses, it becomes useless for anything else and thus goes out of circulation as a form of raw material; i.e., real wealth."
Hmm. Sounds like Watts was one of those "wealth-spreaders." But really, don't we have quite enough for everyone? Can't everyone have a certain level of material comfort? Why is it rationed in the way that it is, such that guys stand on freeway off-ramps with cardboard signs and we feel like we've saved the world if we give them a frickin' sandwich?
Unfortunately, Alan Watts's view of things has not prevailed. He was writing in the 1960s, and I couldn't help but notice this passage in the aforementioned book: "If, if we get our heads on straight about money, I predict that by A.D. 2000, or sooner, no one will pay taxes, no one will carry cash, utilities will be free, and everyone will carry a general credit card. This card will be valid up to each individual's share in a guaranteed basic income or national dividend, issued free, beyond which he or she may still earn anything more that he desires by an art or craft, profession or trade that has not been displaced by automation."
Well, he did put an "if" in there! But we are obviously a long way from Watts's vision of the ideal approach to materialism. So, it's 2009--spend like a drunken sailor, pull out that plastic, rack up those frequent flyer miles, bury yourself in gifts, and have fun coping with the millions of other idiots out there who see Black Friday as some sort of festival. Me? I be stayin' home. Call me a Conscientious Objector.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Bowing to tradition
As I have mentioned previously, I have an on-going e-mail debate in progress with an old high school chum who I have called "Kyle" (not his real name). I could discuss a variety of specific issues we have discussed in the last few months, but I thought I'd focus on our most recent exchange, which deals with--of all things--bowing.
Again, Kyle is on the "far right" with respect to virtually any political or social issue. Therefore, his sights are firmly set on our current CEO. (His name is Barack Obama; perhaps you've heard of him.) Well, Obama was recently in Japan, and while there (hold your breath and then expel it in utter shock) he actually BOWED to Japanese royalty. Well, for Kyle, this is tantamount to treason--bowing to a foreign monarch, he argues, has not been done by U.S. Presidents going all the way back to George Washington. And Kyle sent me a web article that called the President's bow both a sign of "idiocy" and "weakness." From the perspective of the far right, the President bows to no one--certainly not a foreign monarch. The Revolutionary War, he noted, was fought to put an end to worshiping monarchs.
As usual, I was a bit shocked at such a notion. Since bowing is a deeply-ingrained part of Japanese social interaction, I considered a bow to be culturally appropriate and as well as a welcome (and fairly innocuous) gesture of politeness. Well, after a little further research (some of it Kyle's postings sent to my in-box) it turned out that Kyle was correct--to an extent. Having never studied bowing closely, I discovered that bowing is not necessarily a traditional part of U.S. Presidential protocol in Japan. But, in the '90s, Bill Clinton did bow somewhat when he visited Japan, and I also found that President Eisenhower once bowed to a foreign head of state. Still, I was flabbergasted that such a gesture would be regarded as either weak or idiotic--from what I know about Japan, bowing deeply could never be disrespectful; far from it.
Kyle provided me with several American conservative yahoos--including one who claims to be a "Japan expert"--to support the idea that the bow was a faux pas. However, I became more interested in the receivers--i.e., what did the JAPANESE think about this gesture? Finding an answer was a little hard to come by--most of the Internet buzz is from those yahoos. But I did find a site that had the following rather telling information, from a web page called examiner.com:
"While the Japanese media has largely avoided commenting on the [bowing] incident, numerous comments have been made on Japanese blogs and open forums. The general comments have been rather different in tone from that of American counterparts. Here are some select comments made on several sites:
[All comments translated from Japanese]
Again, Kyle is on the "far right" with respect to virtually any political or social issue. Therefore, his sights are firmly set on our current CEO. (His name is Barack Obama; perhaps you've heard of him.) Well, Obama was recently in Japan, and while there (hold your breath and then expel it in utter shock) he actually BOWED to Japanese royalty. Well, for Kyle, this is tantamount to treason--bowing to a foreign monarch, he argues, has not been done by U.S. Presidents going all the way back to George Washington. And Kyle sent me a web article that called the President's bow both a sign of "idiocy" and "weakness." From the perspective of the far right, the President bows to no one--certainly not a foreign monarch. The Revolutionary War, he noted, was fought to put an end to worshiping monarchs.
As usual, I was a bit shocked at such a notion. Since bowing is a deeply-ingrained part of Japanese social interaction, I considered a bow to be culturally appropriate and as well as a welcome (and fairly innocuous) gesture of politeness. Well, after a little further research (some of it Kyle's postings sent to my in-box) it turned out that Kyle was correct--to an extent. Having never studied bowing closely, I discovered that bowing is not necessarily a traditional part of U.S. Presidential protocol in Japan. But, in the '90s, Bill Clinton did bow somewhat when he visited Japan, and I also found that President Eisenhower once bowed to a foreign head of state. Still, I was flabbergasted that such a gesture would be regarded as either weak or idiotic--from what I know about Japan, bowing deeply could never be disrespectful; far from it.
Kyle provided me with several American conservative yahoos--including one who claims to be a "Japan expert"--to support the idea that the bow was a faux pas. However, I became more interested in the receivers--i.e., what did the JAPANESE think about this gesture? Finding an answer was a little hard to come by--most of the Internet buzz is from those yahoos. But I did find a site that had the following rather telling information, from a web page called examiner.com:
"While the Japanese media has largely avoided commenting on the [bowing] incident, numerous comments have been made on Japanese blogs and open forums. The general comments have been rather different in tone from that of American counterparts. Here are some select comments made on several sites:
[All comments translated from Japanese]
- “What a bow!”
- “Such a deep bow from Obama, what a fine guy.”
- “I’m surprised he bowed. He’s really trying hard to meet the Japanese way!”
- “President Obama is a top-class person, isn’t he? Amazing!”
- “The Emperor is giving a nice smile!”
- “Is the Japanese Emperor really that special?”
- “The Emperor or the Pope, the President or the Prime Minister, whoever is greater is not something that I think can be decided objectively.”
- “I laughed because it was a much better bow than I had imagined.”
- “Obama’s huge!”
- “Obama has more of a true Japanese heart than most Japanese do.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Music Man: Not big in Afghanistan
I've just finished reading a book that was long overdue on my list: Three Cups of Tea, the story of Greg Mortenson and his amazing, heroic efforts to build schools for girls in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This book is a must-read for anyone who is feeling a little hopeless and cynical, and it should be required reading for Bush/Cheney types who think that the War on Terrorism is going to be won with guns.
In one small part of the book, the reader is reminded that the Taliban are not real fond of music--so much so that virtually all music has been banned at times in Afghanistan, with severe penalties for non-compliance. As someone who relies on his iPod Shuffle to get him through a six or eight mile run, I can't help but be struck by the notion that music is bad. Music--the very essence of human creativity, something that separates us from the beasts, one of our noblest enterprises, something that entertains and inspires--of all things, music is illegal.
I try to wrap my head around this idea. What planet are these people living on? What values underlie this perverse fear of a melody, with rhythm? Why so categorical and extreme? (It might be one thing to ban, say, certain rappers, but quite another to throw in Bach and Beethoven.) A world without music is a world without sunshine. You might as well ban chocolate syrup, popcorn, and re-runs of The Rockford Files while you're at it!
Yes, a hedonistic life is a potentially empty life. But listening to music is so far from mindless hedonism that I can only shake my head and say that it's quite a diverse world in which we live. I'd like to say that diversity is always wonderful, but sometimes it's a real headache. I'm happy today to be a "westerner"--one of those times when I appreciate and do not take for granted the pleasure of running around Lake Harriet with Dire Straits' "Walk of Life" pulsing into my ears.
In one small part of the book, the reader is reminded that the Taliban are not real fond of music--so much so that virtually all music has been banned at times in Afghanistan, with severe penalties for non-compliance. As someone who relies on his iPod Shuffle to get him through a six or eight mile run, I can't help but be struck by the notion that music is bad. Music--the very essence of human creativity, something that separates us from the beasts, one of our noblest enterprises, something that entertains and inspires--of all things, music is illegal.
I try to wrap my head around this idea. What planet are these people living on? What values underlie this perverse fear of a melody, with rhythm? Why so categorical and extreme? (It might be one thing to ban, say, certain rappers, but quite another to throw in Bach and Beethoven.) A world without music is a world without sunshine. You might as well ban chocolate syrup, popcorn, and re-runs of The Rockford Files while you're at it!
Yes, a hedonistic life is a potentially empty life. But listening to music is so far from mindless hedonism that I can only shake my head and say that it's quite a diverse world in which we live. I'd like to say that diversity is always wonderful, but sometimes it's a real headache. I'm happy today to be a "westerner"--one of those times when I appreciate and do not take for granted the pleasure of running around Lake Harriet with Dire Straits' "Walk of Life" pulsing into my ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)