.
housekeeping
.

i've been cleaning out my office, scrubbing under my kitchen sink and now i've fooled a bit with the links bar over yonder...

went back to my old format of including some recommendations along with the blogs of friends and family.

i've decided *not* to include student blogs -- an arbitrary "line" demarcating where my confusing "front burner" and "back burner" leave off from one another. Some of you will recognize that former students who have now been promoted to official "friend" status have been retained.

Been having wierd dreams where my college friends go on trips with me and my students and my family members morph into old acquaintances. they feel like a metaphor for the contents of the FIVE trashcans i filled with paper two days ago (and i'm only half way done!) -- an amalgam of all material evidence for the fragmented and profound experiences that have constituted the "me" many of you know...

peace~

top five films

on a lighter note (than the last post), here's some more residue from my conversation with mark...and from a hundred conversations with many of you...

here's a list of my top five films.

.
the danger of letting your prophets get in bed with your prostitutes
.

i'm so upset by this news. this is from sojourners:

Disney slips a mickey to Michael Moore movie

The Walt Disney Company, corporate purveyor of mass-marketed media and entertainment, has pulled the plug on Michael Moore's latest film project, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which probes the Bush family's financial ties to illustrious Saudis (including Osama bin Laden's family), going back 30 years. Disney's Miramax division had financed the film and was set to release it this summer, when Disney CEO Michael Eisner objected, citing his fear of the movie's "partisan nature." Another top executive expressed concern that the politically provocative content would alienate some of the more conservative patrons of Disney entertainment. Moore and others critical of Disney's decision say Disney fears the controversial material in the documentary would jeopardize the company's tax breaks in the state of Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor.

Moore's anticipated release, following his blockbuster "Bowling for Columbine" (which grossed $22 million in North America) is rife with his signature predilection for hounding wealthy and elite profiteers and politicians. Disney has refused to renege on its decision not to promote the film, though it now appears that they will sell it back to Miramax for independent promotion.

Unbelievable! I was really banking on the populist appeal and the resonance of Micheal Moore's voice to help in the great unseating of November...

After perusing Michael Moore's website a little more, I see that this scandal has been in the press for about a month. Where have i been ?!

10 minute posts

i've been reading plays lately. lots of tragedies. do you know what tragedies are? (i know you do, i'm not trying to be pedantic. i've just realized anew what they are.) tragedies are endings where characters realize something about themselves that they've been avoiding.

so last night as i polished off a few glasses of mark's homemade great wine -- i had a moment which, if i were to have died or been raptured (imagine my surprise at *that* moment) or a curtain come sweeping across his porch and thunderous (or measly applause) followed, would have been tragic.

i asked mark to be honest as i pitched him the play i've been toiling over for a few days. i love how well mark's b.s. detector works. he was "intrigued," but he said words that were a deathknell even through my buzz and the beautiful summer air. "sounds therapeutic."

shit.

"therapeutic."

ugh.

so now i'm back to trying to figure out what story to spend my summer developing. i've had brilliant and confusing conversations with my friends gary and cliff -- these in-the-process-of-succeeding filmmakers who i'm *so* glad to have as friends. (they weren't confusing. i think that they have life much more by the balls than i. its me and what i want and what i've done and where i am thats confusing.)

didn't it seem like everyone you knew who was thirtysomething was a little more sure of what they were up to than you feel like you are now that you're (t/)here.

i love (/hate) these the the lyrics:

Mirror, mirror on the wall
You've watched me grow since I was small
So what will I regret the most
The things I do or the things I don't?
The deeper you peer into my soul
You'll find that I already know

But I can't say it
Because I can barely face it
My life is halfway through
And I still haven't done
What I'm here to do

so my new plan is:

(my new plans! -- if i had a nickel for every new plan)

ten minute posts only...

so rants might get curbed in the middle....

the happiest part of my day? i get to go out with Lynn, my girlfriend, who i miss lately, but i think is incredibly attractive. i'm hoping to get lucky...

peace~

Haves and Have Nots.

caveat: I wrote this before i read the pirate-bishops response to my politicoblog. i'll respond to his erudite argument next time out.

I don’t believe, as do many of my democratic peers, that one of the primary problems in our country is the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

At least not as long as the haves and the have nots are measured with income and wealth and possessions and net worth.

I’m trying with all my energy NOT to believe the lie(s) of the advertising-industrial complex that buying things / having things will make me:

More fulfilled.
More happy.
More secure.
More sophisticated.
More hip.
More erudite.
More rebellious.
More normal.
More stable.
More excited.

On the other hand, I do believe that the widening gap between the haves and the have nots is important when it deals with:

Opportunity.

Specifically, the opportunity to find work which reinforces people’s humanity, individuality and belonging.

Specifically, the opportunity to find work which allows people to have and care for children if they so desire.

Specifically, the opportunity to develop your own interests and gift set regardless of the socio-economic strata into which you were born.

How are these opportunities pertinent in this election?

I’ve been convinced that multi-national corporations are one of the most egregious inhibitors of these specific opportunities. They don’t have to be. I think its perfectly plausible that multi-national corporations could provide all of the opportunities I outline above. I just think that in general, they don’t.

Starbucks would be an example of a multi-national corporation that does, more than others, attempt to achieve these ideals. (I know Starbucks has its problems.)

Again, the question, Andrew, how are multinational corporations relevant to the election?

(Unfortunately, we don’t elect CEOs, CFOs or boards…whether we’re stakeholders or not.)

Here’s how: Republicans, in general, believe that the freer a market is, the more wealth (and thus – opportunity) will be created. The opportunities for the have nots emerges from the “compassionate conservativism” – the money from the wealth trickles and/or is donated down to efforts to help the under-privileged.

Democrats (particularly progressive ones – like Clinton, Gore & Kerry) believe that while economic development (capital / wealth creation) is an essential force in nation and world building, the free reign of markets must be held in tension with the rights and needs of workers.

THAT tension gets played out over and over again in many ongoing campaign issues.

buying in / selling out

I wrote this in feedback to a student today:

Try to detach your experience from your evaluation of the book

Ahh! What have I become? One of *them*!

Politicoblogging

Oh come on, it’s election year. You knew I couldn’t avoid the subject forever.

As some of you know, I am a pretty staunch liberal in my political views. Having emerged from a right wing family / school / lifeworld / upbringing, I think I understand the motivations and underpinnings of conservative political thought.

However, I have to say that in today’s political climate – particularly given the pervasiveness of issues of globalization – the categories of political liberal and conservative are often insufficient.

So I’ll get into that issue on another day.

I want to start politcoblogging with an argument that I think everybody might agree upon. And when I say everybody, I really mean BishopRudd (eg. The Pirate / Coach / etc) – who is by far the most regularly-opposed, but brilliantly-analytical reader that I have.

Here it is:

People are voting too often for issues as they affect them directly and individually INSTEAD of voting for the good of the country (and mutatis mutandi, the larger world). If voters were more focused upon the general good of everyone when they voted, then democracy would be working optimally (both thriving on participation and encouraging participation).

People are far too concerned (on the right and the left) about which candidate will protect their interests. I’m arguing that this self interest can only devolve into worse and worse politics.

Effects of this attitude: political rhetoric becomes increasingly partisan, single-issue-focused, and non-wholistic; voter attrition; special interest lobby groups become increasingly powerful in swinging elections.

I believe that this problem proceeds from the left and the right equally, and I’d just like to do my part during this election to push every person that I know to think about voting NOT as being about protecting your own interests, but instead as an opportunity to think about –

The greatest needs for our country.

And then ask: What is the best way to address those needs?

Of course this also allows me to explain what I see as the greatest needs for the USA and how those perceived needs influence my vote.

But that’s a later blog.

peace~