self disclosure

I met a friend at a party this past weekend who I had never met in person before. (I know, that fact alone is a modern communications marvel, though I guess it is a more and more common phenomenon.)

It was exciting to meet this person because I have always enjoyed his input in the online forum we both participate in, but at the same time I was slightly sheepish. My friend seemed excited to meet me in person and he was flattering in his remarks about my way in our group.

He told my wife and others in our circle of chat at the party that I was open and seemed willing to talk about anything. He lauded me for this, at one point suggesting perhaps it could represent catharsis for me or maybe something else, but extolling the virtue of it benefiting our online forum. This is what I have an odd feeling about.

It’s worth mentioning too, my wife readily agreed with my friend’s assessment. She emphasized my friend's point by laughing and agreeing with the observation with some gusto, as if it was a relief to hear someone else say it. I believe she meant her remarks in a mostly positive way, though in her case, I know she has had misgivings at times about how free I am with myself.

what is it that compels me, or anyone for that matter, to be open? i have always thought others odd for not being open, for being so private about their affairs.

as our discussion continued at the party, my wife mentioned something about secrets and i uttered mine mantra; "a man is only as sick as his secrets."

i believe in this maxim. to me, when people clam up about their strengths or their flaws, i am at a loss.

"Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us: We ask ourselves ‘who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of god. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do..." (-marianne williamson, or nelson mandela. i'm really not sure.)

this is a wise thought. still, i am more concerned with the converse side of the equation.

when we hide our flaws, it is as if we pretend they do not exist. it is an extension of the old keeping up with the jones' mentality. it is as if we believe in appearances. (shame on us.) if i feel like everyone i encounter in a given day is more perfect than me, that they have it all together and they look and smell nice and they have social grace and they're smart and funny and charming and athletic and self-deprecating and free of all the standard maladies of the day, (no e.d., no dandruff or gingivitis, no trouble sleeping, not fat, no vitamin deficient nails, no blemishes, no sleep in the eye or boogers in the nose, no hallitosis, no jock itch or athlete's foot or tennis elbow.) the more i notice this or believe this, the more i recognize this as my own insecurity, the more i am certain that everyone has maladies and it is just a part of being a human creature.

my friend is really a bright guy. he is in real estate and i guess he is quite successful at it. i do not own a house. this little tidbit of a fact is as self-disclosing as i get because i cannot think of anything i am more embarrassed by. the financial security train has been rolling for a lot of years by my age but i have refused to get on it all this time.

in my 20s i considered moving to a third world country. i saw americans as an embarrassing lot who would rather buy a house and live as a slave to it than venture out into the far reaches of the world.

in my 30s i considered myself engaged in the quest for my mate. i survived living check to check and thinking things like financial security would have to wait until i found the person who would settle down with me and have a family. i considered financial security the sacrifice i would endure, (eating out and drinking late being the spoils of such a sacrifice,) for the time being until the family life brought me to a more conventional form of sacrifice.

always i have thought of money and finance as a bother. i realize how important it is but i know the love of it is the root of all evil and i consider it an agent of strife. if i lived in a world wherein i could trade the fruit of my labors for that which others produced, a world completely free of currency, i would be at ease.

by contrast, currency clouds man's efforts. just think about the various pay rates among you and your peers. are they comensurate with what the various people produce?

it is like our health care system. the doctors who go to school to learn how to do the complex work that is caring for people, should make the most money for their efforts but by involving themselves in the process, businessmen, (and business itself by extrapolation,) have asserted that their efforts towards managing the flow of money in human care are equally if not more crucial to the process. (of course, this is a ridiculous notion but how we arrived where we are today, where this notion is not only credible but implemented, is truly a long and winding road.)

money is a form of trickery. in a large scale economy it is difficult to know how else a society could proceed, especially after all that has transpired, but moving backwards toward smaller, more liveable communities is an idea i see in a positive light always.

it's here and it's now and i have not made any headway on owning a home. i do not have that investment and my tax guy reminds me of this fact every year. and when i say this, i am chagrined, but it is important to me to be so.

many times i wish i could have all of my flaws published on my t-shirt. i think it would save me much effort. i think i could make certain assumptions about the people i interact with based on how they treat me. in a way, i dare people to treat me like a stereotype.

i am annoyed by conservative republican types who try to take the moral high ground in a discussion of politics and i refuse to give them one moment's rest on that plain. when i had long hair i took some pleasure in defying those who would pigeon-hole me in any way whatsoever.

self-disclosing is who i am. it is what i do. i had nothing to do with my mother or who my mother was when i came into this world. i was just born. i did not ask it of my father nor did i ask anything of him, a man i never met. i did not ask my mother to do heroin nor did i try to stop her from doing it. so early on when people indicated i should feel shame for these mere facts of my existence, i took exception because it made no sense to me. when i learned the meaning of the word bastard i thought it was a joke. that someone should feel shame for the circumstances surrounding their entry into the world? well that was as ridiculous as someone taking pride in their background a la some asshole fraternity pledge who claims some birthright to greatness because daddy was a top dog way back when and now he owns some corporation or another. the mentality that goes along with that is repulsive to me. every man should make his own way in this world and even the father who longs to give the fruits of his labor to his progeny, is mistaken to a degree.

self disclosing had something to do with why i left christianity. (this is a bit of self disclosing i have tried especially hard to keep from disclosing recently but i make an exception here.) the hypocrisy of sinning and feeling guilt then asking forgiveness and truly repenting only to repeat the cycle wore on me, moreso than it wore on my friends, or so it seemed.

at some point in trying to work out my own salvation i came to conclude that i was feeling guilty for, and indeed being punished for, acts that were as natural to me as eating and sleeping. this was the disconnect for me. i can't see feeling guilty or feeling inadequate on the basis of being normal. those who seem or claim to be above the things i call normal offend me, (and i am not one who is easily offended.)

i self disclose in order to lead by example. i do not mean to self disclose so much as to make anyone around me feel uncomfortable and while it may be cathartic at times, it is not my self treatment in action. rather, the practice embodies my world view, my feeling that we are all equally human and prone to suffer as humans.

that said, self disclosure becomes a means to get through so much of what ails us, that which we try to hide or tend to feel less than because of. self disclosure becomes an admission of an already known truth.

anarchism in spirit

i just saw a wal-mart commercial wherein a couple shops for a television and asks the salesman point blank why the price is so much higher than the same tv at Wal-Mart. The advertisement ends with the couple realizing they are too smart to ever consider buying their television anywhere but Wal-Mart because no other tv seller can beat or match Wal-Mart's price.
anarchy. question everything. everything you know is wrong.
any regular joe who watches this commercial and knows the truth, (wal-mart truly will have the best price,) rests comfortably in the knowledge he or she knows best, recognizes truth when it is seen, can add two plus two.

still, if one is to adjust one's thinking and become an anarchist in spirit, can the question of wal-mart be so simple?

walmart recently introduced a sick day policy wherein an ill employee must call a corporate number to get a sick day referral number which they must pass on to their store in call #2. apparently the corporate office can review attendance data at any store in the country and pronounce the day fit for an employee to be so ill they may use a sick day to abstain from working for the day. or they may pronounce the day unfit and tell the employee to come to work regardless of their infirmity.

can walmart do that? what if an employee happens to be the type who understates things? what if that employee calls the corporate sick line and professes to be, "a bit feverish," suffering from, "something of a headache?" then he gets in his car, despite that feeling worsening as he checked his neck tie and splashed cool water on his face, and rolls out into traffic where he faints and crashes and dies? what then? what if his work ethic was so profoundly strong and american that he had been ignoring the tell-tale signs of circulatory issues? what if the first thing the doctor had written on his chart at the hospital had been "m.i.?"

(sir, you can't be ill today. your store already has the maximum allowable persons off today. plus, you work for walmart so you do not have the insight nor intestinal fortitude to stand up for your right to dictate your every day life even to the point of deciding which days will be your sick days. thank you for not dictating so much of your life as to even own your own business, such as a television store, where you could have dictated your entire investment in the business to include which days you would mind the store, instead of selling tv's for a corporation that thinks of you and treats you as a warm body. thank you for being happy with 48k per year to prepare reports of data covering your area of the business for the people above you, for treating everyone with dignity day in and out, for caring about this menial job that takes way more from you than the substantial amount you give it, including a disproportionate amount of profit considering the time investment of all parties, and for the investment you made in walmart considering the life we afford you is neither financially, spiritually, intellectually nor emotionally rewarding. thank you for being walmart's bitch. please report to work.)

how big is that lawsuit? what's more profane than that is the question of whether walmart even flinches at a settlement of that magnitude. the risk may seem conservative in the face of the increased efficiencies and profits walmart can realize if the employee remains sedate.
walmart is able to offer goods at better prices than its competitors by using its size and purchasing power to leverage the sellers of the goods they buy to rock bottom prices. the number of small businessmen walmart can bankrupt in any community is substantial and so, a measure of wealth is stripped from these would be shopowners. they are reduced to employees of the corporation which pays less money than owning a business that compares to any department within walmart, such as tv's. this happens to would be tv store owners all over america and one family in arkansas grows a more massive wealth than had already been obtained.
every day. more. more. more.
how does one fight against what walmart brings? one does not shop at walmart. one gets stronger about working to convince people they know not to shop at walmart. not all peer pressure is bad. one fights walmart and all mega corporations everywhere, all the time, because one understands these corporations are inherently bad, an illness for a society or a community.

walmart is good for it's owners and stockholders only. walmart is not good for it's stakeholders.

the problem with the couple in the commercial is they do not realize, (nor want to admit,) the insidious nature of the corporation, of walmart, which is content to bind them into a lower quality lifestyle in the name of improving thelifestyles of the few who gain the disproportionate wealth. indeed it is easier to only consider the first option, about how it is less expensive to run and clothe a family by shopping there, even if at the same time they limit themselves and relinquish a measure of control over their own lives.
it's not like you can know everything, but it is noble to push upwards.
they need anarchy of spirit. they need to learn to question even the most basic and seemingly inocuous aspects of their lives and environments, if they want more control which amounts to more balance and happiness and health.

[click on header for link to yahoo walmart attendance policy news story.]

lists

i love lists-always have. top three, top 10, five worst, whatever. lists are great conversation starters and good fun in most any context. i even like the "my favorite," list, which isn't even a list at all, but rather a thinly veiled act of self disclosure, but still f-u-n, fun.

while it has always bothered me when my friends don the garb of a corporation, (e.g. the gap t-shirt or even the izod polo shirt.) i prefer rock band t-shirts because i think they speak for me and what they say aligns better with my personal beliefs or outlook. sure, some people may misinterpret my t-shirts to mean any number of things: "i like to party till i puke," or "i condone wrecking hotel rooms," or even, "peter pan syndrome is my way of life," but i can't be concerned with that. rock band t-shirts tend not to be interpreted as: "i misreport my earnings on purpose," or, "i reject kyoto," or "pensioners can look out for themselves." all this said, here are my top 10 rock and roll bands of all-time:

radiohead
pearl jam
u2
the beatles (or john lennon, he was a band unto himself)
bob dylan
the smiths
jeff buckley
rage against the machine
talking heads
nirvana

(another great thing about lists, and my friends can attest to this, is they can change by the minute.) plenty of good artists were left off that list, and i am resisting the urge to name any of them right here.

the five best movies ever made differs dramatically from my five favorite movies ever. the five best ever made:

apocalypse now
star wars
the wizard of oz
scarface
traffic (or traffik)

my five faves:

central station
dances with wolves
syriana
dancer in the dark
american beauty
(i like justice.) also, breaking the waves could easily have been on either list.

novels have changed me and so, novelists are like giant thumbs to me. they mold and shape their readers, whether intentionally or not. my top 10 novelists ever:

milan kundera
slaman rushdie
francois-marie arouet (voltaire)
gabriel garcia-marquez
louis ferdinand celine
herman hesse
kurt vonnegut
jd salinger
henry miller
robert a heinlein

i have only visited a handful of the great cities and i will proclaim my allegiance to my own; la. but of the rest, i like these three in this order:

san francisco
tokyo
buenos aires

the cities i most want to visit would fall in this order:

dublin
beijing
paris

cities i want my unborn son to visit:

cairo
sao paolo
london

men of letters who write (or wrote,) from the heart:

richard rodriguez
gao xingjian
che guevara
alistair cooke
karl marx

i recently discussed my favorite sources of news in the new information age, (be it a person, a blog, a paper, or any other media.) i would rank them as follows based on unwillingness to parrot the status quo or kowtow to general electric and the ability to cut through the layers of confusion so prevalent in this age:

www.talkingpointsmemo.com
noam chomsky
www.alternet.org
keith olberrman
salon magazine (www.salon.com)

okay, enough lists i suppose. (it is getting a bit ridiculous.) it is fun to lighten it up a bit, (though i'm not sure i did that.)

i do not approve this message

have you noticed how more and more political advertisements end with the candidate declaiming, "i'm richard cranium and i approve this message?" what is that?!

it's you asshole!?! it's your message! you're the freaking candidate-it was your campaign money that paid for the television time, of course you approve the message!

(maybe they could point out some other obvious stuff?
i'm wearing 3 pounds of make-up.
you only see my face in this ad because i'm an obese behemoth who snacks on small farm animals.
i'm focusing on my adversary's negative points because i have no positive points of my own.
i invented the term "washington insider."
i lie for cash.
self-loathing is a lifestyle.
or best of all, "i'm trying to trick you.")

it seems to me this phenomenon started with president bush. he is the first one i remember with that tag on the end of his commercials, "i'm george w bush and i approve this message." at the time, it seemed to be happening for a couple of reasons. first, it was in line with his bumper stickers, which had only a large 'w' on them. i read that the 'w' was a means for republican voters to show their support for the candidate and the party without creating the kind of conversation that might bring out the various inconsistencies in bush's policies, etc. it was akin to a secret handshake. (it was a bit like whispering to your like-minded neighbor, "i don't care about the common man either. let's get ours." wink-wink.)

and, bush ran a negative campaign against john kerry. so the commercial would put forth a pack of lies, (e.g. 'john kerry stole his purple hearts and was actually a killer of babies in vietnam,') then put up a small picture of the president in the corner of the screen and his voice over, "i'm george w bush and i approve this message."

now i am seeing this marketing strategy all over the place. i guess it is now a market-tested strategy for candidates who cannot trumpet their own deeds. Here is an example courtesy of bob corker's website.

http://www.bobcorkerforsenate.com/video.tb1.aspx?video=commercial19

this particular ad is layered in innuendo. harold ford jr is not from tennessee, he's from washington d.c. ford has only worked in politics. while he may be handsome, ford does not bring substance to the table. he was born with a silver spoon.

all those messages are slyly delivered in bob corker's commercial but we the voters have only ourselves to blame because the commercials are market tested. it's been proven we respond to them. now, it may not be you personally, (just as it may not be me personally,) but somewhere along the line we all have to take responsibility for each other. if our relatives in the midwest are voting differently because they don't know any better, we need to straighten them out.

there seems to be this idea that people should not talk about politics, (among other topics,) at family get-togethers or with strangers and this idea is born of insecurity. generally all parties in such discussions have about the same values, but by allowing this idea, that it is okay to be offended, (thereby muting the more informed,) the values are trumped in favor of niceties.

i say let the new value be that we have little tolerance for those who are easily offended. we should push back on these people, so the conversation can move forward, so candidates like tennessee's bob corker can be made to talk about his record, his accomplishments and his shortcomings.

when a candidate can be heard to "approve this message," we the voters should automatically dismiss them as a viable candidate. they are not appealing to our reason. they are trying to circumvent it. they are not representing themselves honestly, they are pandering to the lowest common denominator.

eastwood's flags

most people go to the movies to be entertained. some go to the movies to learn. others go to take in high art. i went to see flags of our fathers today and got all three from clint eastwood.

as far as high art goes, making movies is the art form of our age. art is communication and film has taken virtually every other art form to the next level by communicating to two of our five senses, (when it works,) in complementary concert. (when seats vibrate and subtle odors fill the theater, the evolution of film will have continued.)

movies, (especially those made in hollywood,) are collaborations but the main artist is still the director. the directors are our mozart and bach, our picasso and renoir, our rodin, or even our bukowski. while we still appreciate the art forms of yore that linger but do not touch us on so many levels, movies are omnipotent in our day.

directors include von trier, almodovar, innaritu, spielberg, aronofsky, scorcese, coppola, (coppola,) salles, altman, godard and many others, including clint eastwood.

eastwood is a man's director. he gets out of the way and let's the story go wherever it needs to go. flags of our fathers could easily have been pearl harbor, or saving private ryan if it had wanted to be,but the real story was so much more important and eastwood told it without bias.

he could have made his film into an anti-war diatribe. (god knows it would be appropriate, all things considered.) he could have painted it in black and white, as the story of these soldiers who were actually photographed planting our flag atop the volcanic tip of iwo jima were rendered in real time, as props to shed favorable light on a war that required financing. instead he layered it in revolving shades of gray.

eastwood has made a habit of finding good books and turning them into powerful movies. the story of flags of our fathers was told by a son of a navy corpsman who helped tilt that flag into positon. he wrote the book and eastwood made the movie leaving the researching son in as an integral part of the story.

the son knows the father was one of the group of men who raised that flag and toured the country in support of war bonds as real american heroes but because as the old saying goes, 'war is hell,' the father had no interest in talking much about what he saw as he scaled that volcanic mountain and fought on iwo jima. it is left to the son to research and imagine and discover. the son plays the role of tending to the process of writing history.

eastwood shows an even hand in the movie as he neither vilifies nor glorifies any particular side or ideal. he let's the events speak for themselves and for the thoughtful viewer, there is much to consider and/or weigh in on. in this way the film is educational.

flags of our fathers flies in the face of convention in so much it is not an act of the victors writing history as they would see it. instead it is simply an honest portrayal of life in those times, of war and of men.

perhaps above all eastwood's movie is entertainment. despite the fact it tells a true story, it is good old-fashioned storytelling. the narrative switches perspectives and times often, but is cohesive. the music and cinematography and editing work together for the overall effect. eastwood did not do it on his own, but as the director, the lion's share of the credit for this fine film goes to him.

this morning i read an article that expressed a measure of frustration about the lack of black americans present on screen in the movie. the events portrayed took place 60+ years ago and before civil rights legislation so african-americans want to be sure the people of the united states know they were there fighting on our behalf despite their limited citizenship and in spite of the mountain of war movies made over the years which did nothing to aid their cause but rather propagated the myth intact and in many cases, set the cause of african-americans backwards.

at lunch i told my wife about the article and that i couldn't recall seeing any black soldiers in the movie. she corrected me and said she did see some black soldiers in the background two or three times.

ultimately, i find the complainers annoying. i understand they are struggling forward and mean no harm but as a friend of the artist, i cannot see holding eastwood accountable for the omission. i don't think he is a bigot. i guess because his movies seem to have more social conscious than most, he may be held to a higher standard?

u.s. insecurity

why should the united states' taxpayers fund propaganda against the castro regime? we allow dissenting voices here, within our borders, but we deem spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to vilify the government (and economic system,) of a tiny, neighboring, island nation worthwhile?

please click on the header, (title of this post,) and read the news story about "journalists," who have been paid by our government to write stories slanted against castro and the cuban government.

the most important aspect to consider about this story is the effect of these articles and op-ed pieces. as americans, we tend to discount propaganda. individually we think ourselves above it. we think we are too smart or too canny to be swayed by untruth of any variety.

an apt parallel for this is how we tend to think money does not affect elections, despite how often the candidate who spends more wins and the fact that only candidates with access to large amounts of cash, (usually supplied by corporations which dole it out to would be friendly lawmakers,) can even be considered.

the truth is, we are influenced. most people do not have the time to sift through the mass of information they may process in a given time frame or cross check facts. furthermore, this is not the fault of the individual. instead, we rely on ethics. in this case, journalistic ethics. schools teach them. news outlets should teach and enforce them. individual journalists should hold them as sacred.

by and large, most journalists likely do adhere to them as best they can and consider these ethics hugely important in executing their job, (their role in our free society as watchdog.) those who do not, should be frowned upon by the public and certainly fired by their employers.

in the known cases cited in the referenced article, those journalists were fired or cut off by their superficial employers.

the next question to consider is why our government considers these payouts a worthwhile expenditure for american taxpayers. the obvious, (and again superficial,) reasons are because of cuba's proximity to our border and because of the stark contrast of their values.

the cuban government is socialist. castro led a successful revolution against a corrupt, (though friendly to the interests of the united states,) dictatorship some 47 years ago. in the time since, the people of cuba have seen great accomplishments in the face of even greater odds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outposts_of_tyranny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_of_Cuba

these four links to wikipedia articles outline the treatment cuba has been subjected to by the u.s. the first one details the origins of trade embargos that were put into place shortly after castro assumed power and continue to date. the second cites language from u.s. secretary of state condoleeza rice depicting cuba as an outpost of tyrrany. the third outlines cuba's accomplishments in education and the fourth does the same for their efforts in the field of modern medicine.

ultimately, cuba represents a nation and a people who have chosen a different tack than our own as americans. (that tack being socialism.) as a socialist nation, and despite the odds they face in the form of embargos opposed by every nation in the united nations except for four, (the u.s., the marshall islands, palau and israel,) cuba has succeeded. (it should be noted the reasons the other three nations oppose cuba are strictly a means to cotton to the u.s. and the marshall islands in particular, has recently been a hotbed of human rights violations linked to the corruption scandal of jack abramoff and several republican lawmakers.)

as a capitalist nation, the u.s. has an obscene amount of poverty and infant mortality. we have created an industry of imprisoning our citizens and rank as the leader in the western world, incarcerating at a rate three to eight times higher than that of western europe or canada. currently nearly 1.4 million americans are incarcerated. the move to privatize and thereby create the prison industry is a poignant example of class division wrought by capitalism. (in our society we glorify the winners of capitalism but we hide away the losers, in prisons, homeless shelters, mental institutions and the like.)

despite the fact much of the wealth of the united states has been built on the backs of populations who were taken advantage of, (i.e. the slave trade, native americans, migrant farm workers, etc.) pointing out the worst parts of our system is not meant to be a diatribe against capitalism. rather, it is important to realize there is more than one viable way to build a fruitful society.

cuba has chosen a way different from our own. it should not be seen as a threat to us. the embargos we have in place against that country should be halted immediately. we should see the people of cuba like we see the family down the street who has a different skin color than our own or who adheres to a different religion. and we should not finance propaganda meant to color them as evil or a blight just because they have chosen a different path.

andre again

It's over. andre agassi's professional tennis career bowed, blew a kiss, and eased behind the curtain of time as so many others have before.

his departure was a bittersweet moment. it was bitter to see it end, to know center court would never again behold that particular set of skills that is or was, andre agassi. it was sweet though, to see his emotion at the end of the defeat, and to hear such a classy and poignant speech.

the end of the match was rather sudden. throughout most of the fourth set, it looked like agassi would force a fifth one against 25-year-old benjamin becker. it was becker who hobbled a bit and tanked when agassi served. but then with andre serving at 4-4, becker broke agassi's serve with ease, firing returns into corners where andre was not. next game becker served out the match and the men were shaking hands at the net.

then the most interesting stuff started happening. andre took his seat courtside and the crowd of new yorkers stayed standing and continued cheering. they clapped in unison, as if being cued, and hollered a bit for about 10 minutes. all the while andre fought back emotion, rubbing his face like a child and dabbing his eyes.

did andre cry because of adulation lost? did he cry because his ego would miss the affections of so many courtside tennis fans?

andre is a man in the way whitman and emerson were men. he is graceful and open. his retirement is a gift to all who witness it because it is of our nature.

like andre's career, we end. and this is why andre cried, even if it was on an instinctual level, even if it was subconscious. our mortality may be at the root of all of our laughter and tears but today's event crystallizes that idea.

humans are for seasons. our lives are marked by them, beginnings, middles and endings. the famous phrase says, "this too shall pass," and it describes everything. from the ignorance of our youth to the glory of our prime to the pain of twilight, they all pass and they can all be dissected into smaller parts but why we shed a tear in the privacy of our own living room while watching andre shed tears in front of a world of people is because we relate.

the career is over and time marches on. this is the melancholy of life, the negative within the positive, the proof of balance. we should not cry that it comes to an end, rather we should be aware of the temporal nature of it all and strive to make the most of it.

andre taught us this lesson with his actions today, which is of course the best way to teach. he spent his career straining to be the best tennis player in the world, not because, (and like so many,) he needed the glory and recognition, but because he always knew it would come to an end. instead of competing to pass the time or even to earn a living, andre competed to be the best, knowing the reward was in the work.

andre agassi was not the best tennis player ever. only for moments was he even the best in the world. and this may be the greatest aspect of his legacy. it was when he lost that andre showed us all the way. when the bigger and stronger pete sampras would break him in tiebreaker after tiebreaker of grand slam finals, andre flashed class and grace as he spoke well of pete and accepted 2nd place with aplomb. when federer soundly beat him at last year's us open, or when nadal beat him in montreal in the run-up, agassi smiled for the gift of being able to play tennis at this level and for a handsome living, spoke well of his opponents and accepted his place and moved on. today he shook becker's hand and wished him well and lived up to his own example of dignity.

andre gave a speech to the crowd and to all who watched on tv around the world before heading into retirement. he spent almost all of it thanking the crowd for their support. and that is as it should be. too many times we think public figures make us but they don't, we make them. (contrast and compare andre agassi to barry bonds for a vivid example.)

andre is beloved above sampras, above federer and above others from across the landscape of sport despite his record of having achieved a career grand slam but otherwise paling next to the achievements of others. this is grace. his grace, and ours.

like today's match, andre's career ended with a winning feeling.

"The scoreboard shows that I lost today," he said. "But what the scoreboard doesn't show is what I feel."

introducing: love!

everywhere around me lately, there is love. it is an amazing time in my life and i want to reflect on it.

in a way, i almost don't want to notice it, not so much from fear it will fade but knowing it will likely change and go and hopefully come again. but this particular moment, is unprecedented.

terra is walking and talking and running and dancing and singing. today she worked on peddling a big wheel to modest success. it's hard to know to what degree she may feel love. for her, it is need. for her, it is instinct and selfishness and an utter lack of perspective. but from me, palpably flowing out of me in her direction, pouring in all truth though metaphorically, there is a deluge of love.

i am a realist and i embrace selfishness. philosophically, i consider selfishness the natural order and i think anything not truly good for you cannot possibly be selfishness and that is basically how i come to embrace this trait everyone wants to deny. and, i think this feeling i am experiencing, this state of mind i am in, this aura of invincible love flowing through me and enveloping me now is why we have children.

in fact, i'll proclaim it now and here for all to hear in my little public domain, i did it for me! i intend to be responsible by my daughter. i mean to provide for her in every way a father should. i expect to teach her much and prepare her for much and ultimately to trust her utterly. but i chose to have her in order to enrich my life. i decided in favor of children, (at what some consider an advanced age,) because i thought it would be good for me, and it is.

like most of us, my life has not been norman rockwell, all puppy dogs and christmas trees and sunday school. but as an adult i have more control over it than ever. i fail a lot. there are wide swaths of failure in my life, but i cannot spend my time beating myself up over those things, it is up to me to move forward in all positivity. i'm a creature of love and love, has rescued me.

raising terra is a lot of work, (and my fraction of it is not the largest one.) but working is homeostasis for humans and i have found terra's requirements conducive to my happiness, favorable for planting, nurturing and harvesting this pure love which is in me and surrounds me always today.

my relationship with my wife is ever improving. adjusting to marriage and children, (monogamy even,) represents cataclysmic shifts in one's life and so, it is difficult. but everyday i see faith and i getting better at working out our problems and differences, at managing our household, at loving. the best part of this is that we still have a long way to go. while there may be moments of regression ahead of us, i do not expect them to hold sway. i expect them to teach and to grant passage to greater heights in our coexistence.

i have in me an instinct to blush at my happiness, but there is no reason to shy away from this season of plenty.

my relationships with friends and family are like invisible jewels adorning my life. my brother has been released from his imprisonment and we speak on the phone often. tonight as i drove to my basketball game he told me he loves me as we hung up the phone. i am charmed.

even work, which still leaves much to be desired, is better than it has been in a long time. i struggle to understand the political aspects of work relationships and this is an aspect of life i have much to learn about still and much to work harder at to bring it into the harmony i am achieving elsewhere but this is a wholly acceptable life.

i have nothing to complain about today and so i sing it to anyone who may care to listen. i am writing daily. i am reading the collected works of ralph waldo emerson. if henry miller was correct in saying the aim of life should be to live it fully, i find myself joyfully in transit.

it is so good to know love, to appreciate its real meaning and to go forth unafraid of tomorrow because of the essence of my nature. i am a creature of love.

"Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself. To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night. To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving." -khalil gibran

dreaming

I tend to bask in these seasons when my nights are filled with vivid dreams I remember in whole or in parts when I awake. It is another existence in there, in my dreams. It’s extra life.

Years ago after reading a science magazine article, (Omni?) on the subject of ‘lucid dreaming,’ I took to suggestions from the article designed to help one take control of their dreams. For a couple of months I went around reading things in public places, on walls, billboards, menus, then reading them again. The idea is that a thing read will never read the same twice, in a dream. So, if one could make a habit in wakeful life of reading things twice, the read thing which changed would trigger the dreamer into knowing they were dreaming and hence, being able to take control of the dream, “lucid dreaming.’

It worked for me. I was in Japan on an Air Force base and I volunteered to coach youth sports while I was there. One day I was driving my ’81 Celica around on base when I got into a collision with the mother of one of my players. (The kid actually played for me three seasons in a row, soccer, little league baseball, then soccer again.) After damaging the family VW Beetle, I followed her and Todd back to their house on base and when I saw Kevin, (Todd’s dad,) he got angry about the car. He fretted and fumed a bit then he started acting like he was going to punch me.

I looked at his t-shirt, which said “Brooklyn Dodgers,” across it. Quickly I looked away and looked again. It said only, “Yankees,” the second time. I was dreaming and the dream immediately faded.

I was in a nowhere place for some moments as I pondered the fact that I was sleeping yet aware of my thoughts. In my dream I moved slowly about in an ether. I recalled the point of this lucid dreaming, and how the article had talked about the exhilaration of flying in one’s dreams. It had specifically suggested one could work toward flying by taking giant steps like they were on the moon, intending to float, which I did. I never did fly but I did take the giant steps though I don’t think it was in that specific dream. I engaged in lucid dreaming for a few months after which, I think I got tired of reading things twice in the daytime.

The floating was truly thrilling. I remember pushing off the earth and floating up and out and being amazed at what I could do and how it felt to my normally limited body.

More recently I have had a recurring dream wherein I levitate. Usually I am in a group of people and out of the blue I begin to rise into the air. Often I entice others, who did not know they could do this, to join me. No one is ever baffled at my ability in my dreams, rather they casually look then return to whatever they were doing.

Last night I dreamt I was writing a piece of fiction. In my story a 10-year-old daughter was telling her father the family should take certain steps, engage in conservation projects or write letters to soldiers, in order to support the war. The father was incredulous and asked his daughter what war she was talking about.

“The war on terror,” she responded.

“There is no such thing as ‘The War on Terror,’ dear,” the father chided.

He went on to explain to her that the war on terror represented a propaganda campaign and that people who fear will more readily support the side who both puts them in fear and purports to protect them, and that in fact, the definition of war was in flux since it had formerly implied troops were engaged in battle on a battlefield as opposed to the idea governments were secretly collecting information to thwart otherwise unknown would-be attacks and similar activities.

This was all just me, sitting at a keyboard, writing, in my dream. The idea stuck with me though, somehow. When I woke, I thought I had happened upon that one idea, the one I’ve been looking for, the one that will help me write fiction, the one that will help me finally write a cohesive story with a plot and narrative and a hero with an arc and redemption awaiting him in the end.

Yes, I have had the idea I had this idea innumerable times. Sometimes I think I am the idea of me longing for the idea, (while reading Lao Tzu, perhaps.)

I have often thought I do have one great idea, one great work in me. Less from ego and more from the need to feel like I have helped humanity, I long for this to be true. I think I want it to be true so badly I will happily sacrifice any notoriety or wealth that could conceivably come from a great work of fiction. I imagine it manifesting so late in my life, there is no time for me to enjoy it, or perhaps the work comes to light after my demise.

In reality, perhaps I merely need this idea to impel me through the everyday rigors of life. Maybe I need this specter of a higher calling realized constantly near me in order to change diapers and take customer service phone calls. I would be most pleased to be able to help, however meager. And I admire the men of one work. I love the greatest Mexican novelist ever, Juan Rulfo. (I know Gabriel Garcia-Marquez would never have existed without Rulfo’s inspiration.) I love Ralph Ellison, the invisible man of letters who painfully tried to make it happen again in his lifetime but could not, (or if he did, that second great work was destroyed in fire.) I would rather read one book, full of meaning and ideas and life, by a one-book genius, than 50 pieces of Stephen King tripe. (Apologies to King, he merits mention unlike many others on the popular landscape.)

Maybe I have this work in me? One would never know it today, based on my habits and my station in life. I do not have the ability to write fiction today. I am an expert letter writer. I correspond with the best of them. I write first person journal entries with some skill. (If you’ve gotten this far I will say I’ve proven that much, recognizing there are likely two or three of “you.”) Occasionally I can write something funny, a sarcastic essay or two but mostly, my efforts towards fiction have been flat.

Still, I have not yet said “uncle.” I try, sometimes. Maybe I will try with this material from my dream. It seemed much better while I slept. I saw it as such a great jumping off point. This idea would impel me through pages and pages, I thought. Before waking I saw myself working backwards from that conversation to the beginning, to the family, who they were and why the reader would look at them. I thought of the larger story and saw the arcs of the characters and bits of plot like stardust shuffling through my field of vision.

When I woke, it was mostly gone. I still see the moment. I understand I have some idea the girl changes from naïve to one who calls out the emperor for running around naked. I suppose the dad is heroic in a way, for enlightening his little one and maybe that makes the daughter Terra and the father me and maybe all dreams are fantasy. Or maybe I just need to learn how to dream more often when I am awake.

andre agassi

andre agassi will be missed, not because he is the last american to ascend to extraordinary heights in the tennis world, (with no others on the horizon,) but because he is and always was the epitome of class.
agassi has chosen a great time to retire. At 36, his athleticism is waning and it shows on the court, though not so much he is not competetive. he merely has not been able to play at his highest level, which he reached about six years ago. his knees and back seem to be troubling him some and against nadal, in his farewell to wimbledon, agassi did not even chase some balls he surely would have hunted down and returned with fury a few years ago.
such is life. the fact is agassi outlasted every single one of his contemporaries. when agassi lost the 1991 french open final to jim courier, it looked like he might never realize the potential he flashed as a brash youngster.
michael chang appeared to be headed for greater heights. courier was unbeatable for a season and wowed the french crowd that afternoon with a gracious victory speech in their native tongue. pete sampras was bigger and more powerful and possessed a serve and volley game that combined roscoe tanner's fierce serve with john mcenroe's touch at the net. mcenroe himself was still playing and despite technological advances in the game, he improved his serve and exhibited a grit that retained the hearts of american fans. even patrick mcenroe or todd martin seemed like they might have greater staying power based on their respective, obvious work ethics.
agassi, however, obeyed life's golden rule and stayed true to himself. it was ironic in 1992 when he finally broke through and won his first grand slam at the hallowed grounds of wimbledon. he won in five sets over goran ivanisevic and dropped to his knees, his hands at the sides of his shaggy head in disbelief. in that moment, tennis became cool - cool, rock and roll tennis, with flea and anthony kiedis in the umpire's chair and the nike swoosh pulsing around the tv screen in unison with the beat of andre's wicked ground strokes.
the work ethic agassi became known for was not evident in the early part of his career. the media and some of his peers questioned his desire to win or his desire to join the pantheon of tennis greats he undeniably belongs to now. but this was agassi being true to himself.
what 21-year-old kid wants to be so utterly dedicated to something he loses the ability to enjoy himself along the way? not to suggest andre was partying 24/7, but the comments he made in the press were off the beaten path.
when he disdained wimbledon because of the dress code, he did so because his youthful sensibility wanted or needed to make a statement about clothes not making the man. it was a quixotic thing to do but andre had some power as a draw in those days and his absence dulled the luster of the tournament albeit slightly. (wimbledon, being wimbledon after all, just carried on.)
after losing at wimbledon a few weeks ago, agassi said he looks forward to this next stage of life. he realizes he will not have the opportunity to spend as much time with some people as he has in the past, but he also realizes in this tennis pro stage he is departing from he never had the chance to spend vast amounts of time with his wife and children. (of course he did not have kids until recently but the point is,) he does not rue getting older. he embraces the present, which is perhaps the truest quality of any champion.
andre agassi has been one of the best role models in the sports world. as much as i agree with charles barkley that it is not the athletes job to be a role model, it is still a nice thing when they are, and i will be happy to tell my children some day that agassi was a class act. no more, no less, but one of those few examples of celebrities one feels comfortable making that determination about.

freedom realized

this morning i picked up the phone and dialed 10 digits and my brother answered, “what up?” as if this was an every day occurrence.

for the past six years I have had to listen to a disclaimer about receiving a collect call from an inmate at a colorado state correctional facility before I could speak to tommy. those calls were limited to about 25 minutes-today we spoke for nearly an hour. today he was at his girlfriend’s house when we spoke. my nephew, (little tommy,) was nearby watching star wars episode 3. tommy had never operated a dvd player before and certainly had not seen one in a car, which he did when he was released from prison yesterday.

we talked about what he will be getting up to, job opportunities and such. we talked about my daughter, whose name tommy tattooed on his neck but whom he has yet to meet in person. we talked about my recent wedding, which prison kept him from attending. we talked about the child Faith carries in her womb, who that little person will turn out to be. we talked about little tommy and the challenges big tommy must face to help him steer clear of the mistakes his father made. we talked and talked.

it is hard to imagine how good tommy must feel. I guess he is worried some, too. i hope he values the thing he was deprived of more than ever.

i love my brother but that love has manifested itself to me in a way i would not have previously comprehended. people say they love each other and there are certain motions we can all be seen to go through, we stay in touch and talk about the weather, life’s travails, people, events, occasionally ideas, but there is and has been implied in most of my relationships, a distance born of insecurity.

my brother and i are men. there is a stoic, machismo-oriented sense about our interaction that feels like an unbridgeable divide. i sense it and i try to overcome it by speaking my mind but it is as omnipresent as the underlying pain and love we share.

tommy has lived in colorado for many years now, three times as long as this incarceration, i think. but the distance of free men is not comparable to that of one who is shackled. i visited him perhaps four times during the past six years and on one of those occasions, i traveled only to be denied access on the basis of a prison lockdown associated with an outbreak of violence inside.

life is not static. i was living and evolving and changing while tommy was behind bars and despite the constraints, tommy was doing the same thing. i know he does not hold it against me i did not visit more often. i know he appreciates the many books i sent him these last years. i can hardly wait to see my brother even though there is not a plan at present. it will happen.

the correspondence tommy and i have shared is an amazing thing. had he not been imprisoned, it never would have happened. in the letters we sent one another, we rarely practiced small talk. there was little in the way of weather discussion and only occasionally did we turn to what would normally be our favorite fodder, sports. (i should have known he would be paroled in a year when his beloved steelers won the superbowl.)

instead we talked about the big picture, about ideas and ideals, about raising a boy from prison, (or not raising a boy from prison,) about violence and racial tensions and revolt. in some of tommy's letters i saw him regress. i saw him put on his gang mentality like a cloak of invincibility, like a raging boy's defiance. other times i could see the man tommy nuzzling up to the truths i continue to see him embrace.

on his last night in prison he wrote me a letter, (mailed on his way out the next morning.) he wrote about an eerie feeling as if he was walking out to a death chamber. he wrote about the other men inside, men who would never ever leave those confines. he mentioned his tattoos and the state of mind he was in whenever he added one. it was fatalism he felt when he imagined he would never leave the institution.

tommy takes some pride in having endured. he is confident in his ability to convey his experience to others and in that, he feels special, and positive. in this letter he speaks of authenticity, of not portraying himself as someone he is not. he wrote, "...men like me, thugs, gangsters, beautiful losers, inmates, convicts and fathers, well, authenticity is of utmost importance to us."

i read that this morning and the urge to sob welled up inside me. he went on remembering having read about men who attract people by their way of life, ('beautiful losers.') i'm almost certain he is conjuring leonard cohen. my brother, the knucklehead, quoting leonard cohen. the power of art never ceases to amaze me.

tommy recalled his early days of incarceration and how devoid he was of any tangible sense of it ever ending. he contrasts that with the intensity of the light he sees at the end of the tunnel on this his last night of confinement, and how it mixes with images of his son and beautiful women and other things he has been deprived of.

as he readies to walk he reminds me i walk with him and he calls me and others his angels. he says we have accompanied him always. he says he has love to leave and love to receive.

this is my favorite letter ever. and the best part is how he signed it. i thought it represented a certain humility i think he will need. he wrote,

"Tommy
Parolee"

democracy?

i caught chomsky on charlie rose the other night and as usual, he said some things that got me thinking. first off, he mocked our democracy, saying in this country we were given a choice between two guys who went to the same higher learning institution, were members of the same elite, secret society, which grooms its caste for these positions of leadership, and who avoided talking about the issues that mattered most to the people, (and that this is consistently the choice americans get to make every four years.)

when asked of where there was a better democracy in the world, (as if rose's fill-in host could stump chomsky,) chomsky implied virtually all of them by saying we should look to the country who had the most recent elections in our hemisphere; bolivia. he said bolivians recently elected a leader who represented them, (as opposed to being from an elite class,) and that they voted on issues, which they had been fighting about for years and which affect the people, and that their voter turnout and participation dwarfs ours.

chomsky cited several polls and studies which have pointed out the fact that americans consider health care among the most pressing issues politicians should be involved in, and yet, none of ours talk about it. they don't talk about it because they are able to run for the office because of corporate donations and the corporations, (especially the health care ones,) do not want any sort of health care reform. and so, they dictate the agenda.

i listened and sheepishly thought to myself, 'duhhhhh.'

Bush Go Home

well there i am, in front of the casa rosada, buenos aires, argentina, by a makeshift fence on which someone spray-painted the message: BUSH GO HOME.

i saw similar graffitied messages several times while in buenos aires and always i was reminded of that view of the u.s. as the large dog in the small room whose every movement is felt by virtually everyone else in the room.

why i drink

i am thinking about someone who got drunk at my wedding and i wonder if they are chagrined by the fact. i sincerely hope not. i think the act, in and of itself, (the act of getting drunk, that is,) is often one of giving.

i think people often drink when they are nervous. in the social setting that is a wedding, where strangers are brought together to dine and celebrate, the mixing can be a daunting affair. perhaps the person i am thinking of got drunk from nervousness, wanting to impress or to avoid embarrassing, wanting to feel at ease and be at ease, wanting to be cool and easy-going and friendly? thank you for drinking at my wedding. i appreciate that you came.

in a similar vein, people often drink to lower inhibitions and allow themselves to come out a bit. perhaps this person drank because they wanted to join in the celebration and do so in a somewhat less inhibited way than they expected they might have otherwise?

i am like that. i like to drink but i don't necessarily like the effect alcohol has on my body. i tolerate that for the greater benefit as i see it. when i drink i find i feel more freedom to engage people in conversation, to express myself openly, and i enjoy that effect.

when it comes to others, i am frustrated by my own inability to connect with some people.
it bothers me that at work, i cannot speak my mind. instead, i am reigned in by social mores and boundaries of political correctness. so i enjoy opportunities to drink with people i work with or others who might be inhibited to speak frankly about just about anything.

i do not mean to glorify a vice, but i like to drink and i like when others drink. pirandello said we all wear masks and we are always wearing masks. i consider alcoholic beverage the best mask remover. if people did not wear masks. . .

if i could speak as freely at work or even around my friends as i am able to do in a bar, i would have no use whatsoever for alcohol. but in my time, that is a fairy tale. around my very best friends i am free to speak as i would. when they disagree with me they tolerate me because we are friends and we see this as a key component of our friendship. around other friends, i am forced to honor certain limits. if we disagree, it must be handled like a business transaction. there is an unspoken rule not to offend. it is implied that every person's opinion is equally valuable and so, one cannot speak with too great a force or too much passion lest another feel overwhelmed or slighted. it would be rude to make someone feel like that. (this may or may not be a backwards thought.)

in public life, at work or in business, the restrictions are even greater. i do not feel free to speak of my religious convictions at work. i cannot breach the subject of politics with a stranger at a ball game.

when i was younger i did not have much to say. i was more interested in listening and learning. at the same time, i admired those who did have something to say. i appreciated those who spoke with passion. it seemed the most natural state of things. in applying logic to it all, i figured this was the example of the pebbles in the sack polishing one another and i figured the strongest ideas and arguments would come to the fore not by being the most blustery but rather by the sheer strength of the substance. that may sound optimistic but i've seen jerry falwell yelling and screaming from a pulpit on tv, filled with the most passionate intensity and righteous rage, and i've read another preacher, ralph waldo emerson, whispering to me from a page, the quiet sage, and there is no compare.

after i had gained more experience in the world and gotten a bit more comfortable, i gained stronger opinions about the world around me. these opinions were often rooted in my experience and so, i became enamored with conversation and this may very well be where my fancy for drinking began.

i remember taking a college psychology course and the instructor went around the room on the first day and asked us all what we enjoyed doing with our free time and feeling emboldened by the fun nature of the question i said i enjoyed staying up late drinking with my friends and discussing philosophy and ideas. the instructor laughed and said 'we all enjoy[ed] that.' and i think that is true. deep down, i think we all do enjoy that. i mean, we all enjoy the freedom to express ourselves however we want. in our world where political correctness has gained sway, it has a fantasyland appeal to it.

i think of the homosexual closet and all those who want to get out and run around freely expressing their innate desire to interior decorate something. i think of those who live in north korea or elsewhere where fascism dictates their ability to express on any number of levels and i wish for them the freedoms they do not feel. i think of the girl who had the abortion who feels like she cannot speak about it for fear of being judged and i ache for her because i know she is not evil and i know she meant no harm and i know this inability to talk it out, not with counselors but with her peers, her aunts and uncles, her coworkers and such, the product of which is the inability to find closure, to understand what may have been wrong in her actions or thoughts and what may have sprung from ignorance or whatever other psychological condition, is destroying her.

in the bar i see a lot of people who have found the place because they needed to speak freely. i see marks and lines on their faces indicating hidden traumas. and sometimes these things come out of them and i listen and wish they did not have to put on a show all day every day acting like they are the joneses of the world, just as good as you but really just as insecure as you, and maybe this too is my story. i had a difficult childhood and like everyone, i have pains in my life, in my family.

i wish we could speak freely but we can't. it's just not the world we live in. we need contact with people more than we need to speak.

still, i drink as a respite to this condition. i think a functioning anything is a plus and, i like beer. i drink so that others may feel more free. i drink so that i may feel more free.

(dont cry for me,) im in argentina!

i heard it called a 2nd world country and i suppose i can see where that comes from but mostly i have seen argentina as a cosmopolitan city of world class status.

faith and i are having a great time visiting this city. our hotel is european-the room is small but comfortable. the city. . .

to me the city seems bright and hopeful. it seems the cow is the national animal of argentina and i coudl not help but compare that to our beloved bald eagle. yes, ours may be cooler, but more interestingly, it is fitting. the bald eagle is a bird of prey. the cow, by contrast is a kinder animal, a provider, and argentina is certainly a place where one can get a good steak.

i especially enjoyed speaking to the people of buenos aires. i found virtually everyone i met to be friendly. they did their best to understand my broken spanish and they used whatever english they possessed and i was able to communicate and nothing could have been more rewarding about this trip than that.

i should preface all of this by saying it was our honeymoon and faith and i surely celebrated our love and our union, but here i mean to address this foreign land.

i am officially, and accidentally, a fanof the futbol club river plate. their are basically two club teams in argentina, river and boca juniors. i went hopingexpecting to embrace boca, if anything, but when i inquired about seeing a game i found boca had already won their league and the game they played on the sunday i was there would be meaningless. the major, (corporate sponser name here,) tournament going on had already seen boca's elimination but river plate was alive and doing well and playing libertad, a team from paraguay.

a local business called go futbol picked us up at our hotel and delivered us along with several other tourist futbol enthusiasts to a stadium filled to the gills with rabid fans. 80,000 people, according to my guide, were jammed into a stadium which has a capacity for 65,000. they do not sell alcoholic beverages at these games. (it would just be overkill, believe me.) no one ever left their seat from what i could tell. the fans light fireworks in the stands. their were huge homemade signs paying homage to the players all draped all over the edifice. they wore river's jersey and colors and waved flags and unfurled flags that covered entire portions of spectators. they sang at least five different songs that everyone in the stadium knew. and they lived and died with every rush into opposing territory, every crossing pass, every header in the zone. when something went bad, i never heard such free-spirited but thorough cursing of the play and players. (i have always been adept at the curse words in spanish. special thanks to my neighbor, mexico.)

especially intriguing was one section of the stadium in the upper part of the bowl and in the corner. it had abut a 10 foot high chain link fence around it with curled barbed wire adorning the top. in it were the fans of club libertad. the team from paraguay scored the game's first goal too. from the top of the goal box a libertad player got his foot on the ball and sent it high to the right side of the goal about 40 feet out on a 45 degree angle from the goal. the libertad striker caught it coming straight down out of the sky like a drop of rain in mid-air and sent it on a line past the goalie who dove but had no chance. it was an amazing kick and when it happened i gasped in admiration but also with some anger, (it was against my new favorite team.) the gasp was audible and everyone around me was silent. i thought i might be in trouble so i added a couple "damn!"s on the end of my gasp and turned to look at the libertad fans. they were jumping up and down in ecstasy as the scorer came to that corner of the field and pumped his fists in unison up towards them as if to thank them for cheering him to such heights. wow.

the game ended in a 2-2 draw and when the world cup is over, the tournament will continue with river plate travelling to paraguay to play libertad on their turf. i hope to be able to follow that outcome somewhere in my local press. i purchased a river plate jersey a couple of days later and will wear it proudly around monrovia and see if anyone recognizes it.

faith and i caught a tango show, (which included an excellent steak.) i got a tattoo at about one quarter of the price i would have paid for it here. i brought home some "special," cigars and felt good about contributing to the economy of the country from whence they came. we saw the casa rosada and took a lot of pictures, all the stuff you would expect from americans abroad, but that status notwithstanding, it was a great trip and a truly beautiful country. i'd recommend it to anyone.

terra smile

you see, she doesn't really know what to do with herself when the camera is pointed at her, (and who could blame her?) so what she did on this occasion was, she forced a smile, of sorts, kind of leaned into it a bit like something i might see one day several years hence in a yearbook photo she will be chagrined by, and contorted her hands in an attempt to mask her uneasiness. cute, isn't it?
i love it.

where's antonio?

may day monday will see two major marches in los angeles protesting the various referendums to reform immigration policy. no city in the united states will be more impacted by whatever policy comes out of the coming elections and no city has a keener interest. but the mayor of los angeles, antonio villaraigosa, (he claims to be a latino but i'm not so sure,) will be out of town. apparently he needs to arrive a day early for tuesday meetings concerning the nfl's return to the city of angels.

the truth, of course, is that the mayor prefers absentia when caught between his identity as a latino mayor and the outcome he expects on immigration. he is playing cat and mouse in order to play politics and it's a bad policy to leave town on such a big day.

too often these days politicians do not speak their minds because they find it easier to let people fill in the blanks themselves. they understand the issues can be thorny territory while just shoving money into a campaign, smiling for cameras, kissing babies and spin doctoring when necessary is the path to election. that is a shame and we the people of los angeles, we the brown, white, black, red, or yellow people, should take every opportunity to let our leaders know we will not stand for this behavior.

i hope villaraigosa's absence tomorrow is noted and produces a serious backlash.

nothing is worth anything if it is not worth something

it seems the only way the moon is going to receive anymore visitors, is if she can produce something corporations can make money off of.

this is capitalism run amok. there was an obituary article on the front page of the times today for john kenneth galbraith. this harvard university professor argued that the free market economy was a myth and that the 1,000 largest american corporations dominated both our economy and our social life.

Giant corporations essentially operated free of competition, he said, often turning out frivolous goods for an increasingly consumer-minded society, while the capitalistic economy ignored more pressing social needs. "Americans still have an extraordinary capacity to ignore poverty," Galbraith told an interviewer in 1983. "I am struck by our superb capacity to manufacture consumer gadgetry. including electronic games, versus our capacity to produce schools."

glabraith's most noted work was "the affluent society," which was published in 1958.

now we see the only way we can run a space program and increase traffic to the moon is if we can find a way to make it profitable for corporations? That is pathetic, don't you think?

Loose Change

I remember waking up on the morning of September 11th, 2001. A guy on sports talk radio mentioned something about how a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and now possibly the Pentagon, also? In those days, I could listen to the radio for an hour without being compelled to actually rise and begin the day but on that day, this news was enough. I went straight to the living room and turned on the tv.

I sat on my couch, my back to my main window, watching the tv and wondering if I would hear bombers or bombs coming down into the San Gabriel Valley from over the tops of our mountains behind me. Unlike others, I believed. I believed everything I saw and like everyone I knew, I was sad, but for different reasons.

I was sad for those who were dying behind the smoke in front of my eyes on my television screen but also for the bad omen this "attack," represented. President Bush had cozened his way into office. This at the very least, (on the back of an antiquated electoral college system,) considering even he agreed he lost the popular vote. I knew this event would grant him license.

I am not a genius for realizing this-I know many understood it immediately, (though we were all kind of silenced in public about it.) But I knew the fear this event would place in the hearts of my countrymen, and men the planet over, would pave the way for an agenda of greed and corruption the likes of which I guessed the world had not before seen.

My thoughts at that time were conjecture. The manifestations of those thoughts today, are fact. (I could enumerate the evidence but in the interest of limiting this entry, I'll trust you either know or can find plenty of evidence at most any news or information outlet.)

All of this brings me to the idea of conspiracy theories related to the events of 9/11 and the obvious question, is a conspiracy theory by definition a falsehood? Noam Chomsky has said the phrase "conspiracy theory," is used most often to discourage institutional analysis. The idea that a thing could be a conspiracy theory is meant to dismiss that thing, render it on some acceptable level impotent.

If you click on the words "Loose Change," at the top of this blog entry, you will be directed to a site where you can view the movie Loose Change.

This movie is a documentary about the mother of all conspiracy theories. (Credit to Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle for bringing it to my attention.) Loose Change has the audacity to more than suggest the crime that was 9/11 was perpetrated by people other than those we were told executed it. And, the movie has merit.

I can't know what theories presented in the movie may or may not be true so personally, i don't see a point in taking a definitive stand on its veracity. Rather, I recognize what is important about the movie. It quite clearly illustrates and points out the fact that our government has become far too secretive, (secrecy being the cornerstone of all tyrrany.)

This movie, and indeed all that we know as "9/11," needs institutional analysis. Not like the Warren Commission wherein the findings remain secret even after they were scheduled to be revealed, (the secrecy being in the "national interest," in the first place.) There can be no national interest in this case greater than our need to know, our need to find a way to trust our government, again.

Totalitarianism in the USA

I’m not sure if the United States’ government is fascist or if the San Diego Padres’ owners and management are fascist or if the World Baseball Classic organizers are fascist but something smelled like stinky fascism last night at the World Baseball Classic championship game.

I left my office and drove down to the game from Pasadena before 2pm, arriving at 4:30pm in the vicinity of Petco Park. (Knowing I had to be at work by 6am the next morning, I was thankful for the 6pm start time.) Because it was the inaugural championship game and because Cuba was playing, I wanted to be there.

I read a biography of Che Guevara about seven or eight years ago, (Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, by Jorge Castaneda.) That book, more than any other I have read on related topics, gave me a clear understanding of the Cuban revolution as well as the roles played by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. I came away from that book understanding the basic, corrupt nature of the Bautista regime Castro and Guevara took part in toppling, and the basic ideas around Marxism and guerrilla warfare the Cuban campesinos in the Sierra Maestra espoused in fighting back and taking over their country for the people.

My personal views on the relationship between my country, (the USA,) and Cuba contrast with the views of most of my countrymen. I believe we have been choking that country economically since Castro took over through embargos and what can only be seen as, mean-spirited, un-christian like policies and behavior. (One example of this would be our refusal to sell steel to Cuba. Birmingham, Alabama, [once known as the Pittsburgh of the south because of its steel mills,] could have continued to produce steel and sell it at a profit to Cuba but government policy caused the industry to dry up in that area of our country.)

As I came to understand some of these dynamics between the two countries, it became necessary for me to ask why we would demonize Cuba. The answer could either be the military threat Cuba posed or the ideological threat they represented by choosing a different economic system than the one we chose; capitalism.

Cuba is a small country of limited resources. As a military threat, they can only be so frightening. On the other hand, Cuba played up to the Soviet Union during the cold war in order to gain protection from us, which worked. Since the cold war was real and given the hysteria generated by the likes of Senator McCarthy, as far back as the ‘50s, it is understandable we might consider the tiny island nation more formidable a foe than the reality of it all.

Still, isn’t it just insecurity on our part to paint communism the embodiment of evil? Communism, after all, is merely an economic system. It is not fascism, nor is it totalitarianism.

fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&-"ni-z&m Function: noun
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority

I got into the stadium at 4:45pm. I found my way to a place selling “Randy Jones’ pulled pork sandwiches,” and “Little Slugger” hot dogs that made the dodger dog look like a small pup by comparison. Adding a Coke, I found my way to my bleacher (obstructed view) seats. From my spot in right center field I could not see the corners of the outfield. No matter, when I got to those seats at 10 minutes after 5pm, the atmosphere was already electric and I was excited about the baseball game ahead.

I was two bites into my little slugger when two stadium security representatives approached me and my buddy as we ate. The man who spoke informed me he was slightly remiss about having to ask me to either turn my t-shirt inside out or take it off and check it upstairs.

My friend, (a French Canadien from Montreal,) asked the man if he was serious. He was. The security agent demanded an answer of me and I stalled by asking what the consequences of my refusal would be. He said we would need to go up to security to talk about it and if I refused, they would have me arrested.

My t-shirt has a picture of Che Guevara on it. Nothing more than the classic image of him, unshaven, wearing the beret. (Granted it is as famous an image of him as it is because of the remarkable way in which the photographer captured the intensity in Guevara’s eyes.)

I wondered if the security agent, (whom I put in his late 50s to early 60s,) knew Che Guevara was a doctor. He was likely a teenager when Guevara with Castro successfully fomented a revolution among the campesino, peasant farmers and country folk of Cuba. Was this man aware the CIA had gunned an already wounded Guevara down in Bolivia, as he tried again to assist an oppressed people of a corrupt regime to stand up for themselves and fight for their country? Did the security agent know Guevara was from an upper middle class family in Argentina and that he joined these revolutionary movements from pure altruism, (even going to the Congo to lend aid and support after Cuba was finding its way with Castro in charge and his own stint as representative to the United Nations was over?)

al·tru·ism
Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

This human animal, afflicted by asthma and having survived the Cuban revolution and his stint in the Congo, took to the mountains of Bolivia, (after traveling in disguise,) to handle a rifle once again in order to help the oppressed peoples, knowing it could, and likely would, die. (“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you, for greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for that of his friends.” John 15:13-14) Che Guevara’s life fits both of the above definitions.

The security agent reiterated that I could simply turn the shirt inside out in order to comply but I refused to do that. It seemed worse to me than removing it, disrespectful.

My thoughts as all this was happening bordered on self-loathing. Too many times I have taken the easy road. Too many times I have chosen convenience over standing up for what I believed in. I thought of Cindy Sheehan and men setting themselves afire in protest of policies and acts they had virtually no power to stop or change. I thought it was time to get arrested. It would have been inconvenient but it would have ended the self-loathing, for a season anyway.

Instead I took off my t-shirt and folded it neatly into a square with Che on the inside, unable to see me cowering in the name of convenience. My friend had been kind enough to drive us down to San Diego. My fiancé and my daughter had graciously allowed me to go, knowing I would be out until midnight. I had just begun dinner and the teams were warming up on the field in front of me. Of course there are many excuses for my behavior just as there are a million excuses for why good people do not know better than to restrict freedom of speech or endorse oppression.

The security agent said the reason for forcing me to remove my t-shirt was because the San Diego Padres were my hosts and they would not tolerate any political statements.

Immediately after I removed my shirt and the security personnel left me to my hot dog, three guys filed into the bleachers dressed as Castro, complete with fake beards and olive drab fatigues. They screeched whistles and hoisted a Cuban flag with the words “Cuba Libre,” written across it. (“Free Cuba.”) They were never accosted by security. Rather, they were given free reign to move front and center to the right centerfield fence and pose for pictures, whistle out to the warming up Cuban players, and suck on their mock Cuban cigars.

I was honestly not sure if these men meant to free Cuba from Castro or from US oppression but it seemed the only political statement being subdued was that which clearly endorsed Castro and what he, and Che Guevara, stand for. This, in the land of the free, where the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech?

foxes; not so bright

October 02, 2003
A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

this study is 2.5 years old but it is still relevant.

how does that old saying go? if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. i can hear malcolm x saying it again today, were he still alive.

if you don't stand for truth in journalism, you'll fall for anything.
if you don't stand for honesty and integrity, you'll fall.
if you don't stand for taking the individual responsibility of being a good citizen and doing at least enough homework to understand what is going on in the political process that affects your friends, family and countrymen, then you'll fall for any old despot that comes along.
if you don't stand for ethical behavior, you'll fall for unethical behavior.

so many have fallen. in fact, based on the last election, it seems a majority of americans have fallen. they've fallen for a fox news network that has cozened them into believing their point of view is viable. and it isn't. just because they say it with a straight face and take themselves seriously does not mean i do, should or would.

it is not that i merely disagree with bill o'reilly or rush limbaugh, as they would have you believe about those opposed to them. it's that i do not take them seriously. i do not consider their perspectives in any way shape or form serious, learned or insightful. instead they are obnoxious, derisive and self-serving.

so how did these guys get on tv or radio? how did chris mathews become the hardball guy? i mean, it's hardball right? we're supposed to take him and his show seriously. it's top echelon political fodder. but, it isn't. i don't watch or listen to the shows of these guys i've mentioned often but when i have, it is not difficult to spot the moments when lies are presented as logic or the truth is relegated to rumor.

i know a lot of people who think the fox news is a viable outlet to get their news, if not "fair and balanced." i can't say that these people are idiots, (though occasionally that impulse may strike me.) rather, they've been lulled into an odd and sinister sense of security. from what i can tell, they tend to think most things are okay in the world around them. from that sense, they have become complacent and shed any sense of personal responsibility for their government. they may bitch and moan about it but by and large, they do not study the facts, (in fact, they may avoid them to avoid confrontation.) they don't try to stay informed nor up to date. critical thinking is a college course, nothing practical.

and this is how we got here. click on the title of this entry above and read the story about the study. deny it if you will. infer some bias if you need to avoid the confrontation w/ yourself. assume the university of maryland or the world public opinion is not to be trusted or part of some out of touch, liberal academia as o'reilly might characterize it in order to dismiss the substance of the message. or, just admit that you haven't necessarily lived up to all of your responsibilities as a citizen of this free country we live in and make some changes in a positive direction so that in the future you will be better informed, you will care a bit more and not choose the path of least resistence as a matter of course, and men of dick cheney's character do not end up in high office.