acting in the wings

Today I watched All About Eve, a movie from 1950 about an aging stage actress and the younger woman who conives her way into the leading lady's role.  I thought it was particularly interesting that in a film all about plays and stage acting, there was never a single scene of the stage performances - we never see any part of the plays or of the acting on stage.  I'm pretty sure it's because everyone gives their best performances off stage. 

Basic Math

i don't really get what's going on. i don't understand it.

i've been keeping up on the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, and a lot of things just don't make sense to me.

To start out, here are some things i do get:

• Israel is an actual nation. It has, you know, a real army and stuff. It has national sovereignty and the right to protect itself from attack.
• Hamas is, well, a terrorist group who broke a truce. They do not recognize Israel as a nation, and therefore, lasting peace is not a viable option as long as they are the dominant governing body in Palestine, so something probably needs to be done about that.
• The paradox there is that Israel does not recognize Palestine, so i guess lasting peace could also not happen while Israel is the dominant governing body of...itself. Israel has the advantage in this respect though, as they are, in fact, an actual nation capable of being recognized.

here are some things i don't get:

• Last i heard, there have been 2 Israeli deaths as the result of Hamas' mortor attacks. There have been over 315 deaths as the result of Israel's attacks into Gaza, which Israel refers to as self-defense. i am under the impression that attacks are typically retaliated against based on a "proportional response." That would mean, basically, a life for a life. (This is the same sort of principle that support for capital punishment is frequently based on, but that is a subject for a different post.) My powerful math skillz tell me that 315 does not equal 2; these same math skillz tell me that this response is therefore not proportional. Now, that's fine and good if Israel decides they want to handle this one differently, that's their right. And it's fine and good if each of the 315+ people dead are members of Hamas, as they are the targets of Israel's attacks. But what if they're not? We can't know for sure, i don't think, and isn't the chance that Israel may have killed a couple of innocent folks who may never have even thrown a rock at a fence enough of a reason to step back a second and rethink what has surely gone past the category of self-defense? i'm certainly not saying Israel is wrong. Actually, i'm saying Hamas is wrong. i'm just also saying that maybe Israel should maybe back off a little bit. They made their point.
• All that said, i don't understand why the media isn't being just a wee bit more objective in their coverage -- i'm hearing phrases like "a truce expired 10 days ago" when i should be hearing "terrorist organization Hamas broke a truce 10 days ago" and seeing headlines like "Israel pounds Gaza for third day" and little reminder of the fact that is is a response, even if it is a disproportionate one. It's kind of like how the media coverered the democratic nominees for the presidential candidacy, except instead of Obama, there's Palestine (his supporters are like the pro-Palestine protesters: overly emotional, and probably farther removed from the problems they're talking about than they're willing to let on), and that makes Clinton like Israel (who people will accept if they have to, since it seems like there's no way to get rid of it). Is that a fair analogy? Probably not. But given the example set for me by most major media outlets, i'd say i'm still doing alright.

But oh, i don't really even know what i'm talking about, aside from my crazy idea that we shouldn't go around killing people as a way to solve problems. i mean, i guess i just haven't learned from all the other times when it worked so well! Oh wait...no, that must have been something else.

i know this wasn't the cheerful holiday blog i may have predicted on facebook, filled with tales of London and Amsterdam and skiing in the Alps, but hopefully there's still time for that. Maybe i'll even reach far back in the bag of illusions (tricks are what a whore does for money) and write about something else, like the election, or my semester or something. Who knows? No one. Who cares? How many is less than no one?

Living in a box

Wow, it's been a while, blog. i've missed you.

It's finally Christmas break, and i have to some to sit and be still and contemplate the many mysteries of the universe. i had a pretty fantastic semester at UNC with the Achordants and the small group, and the friends, and the classes, etc. But now i'm home, which means i can read Newsweek articles on msnbc.com and then post my commentary here. i just took a trip to London to see some plays, and i'll be back to talk about those later, but this struck my fancy, so i thought i'd get it out of the way while i'm around.

Barack Obama has selected Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inaugural ceremony. This has apparently upset some members of the gay community, because Rick Warren, a Christian (zoinks!), is less than supportive of gay rights. To help settle this, Newsweek had two gay writers do a sort of article debate about it - Chris Crain in support of the decision, and Leah McElrath Renna against it.

Basically, Crain insists that we look at what unifies us, rather than what divides us, claiming that Warren represents the beliefs of many Americans, including the foundational Christian beliefs shared by President-elect Obama. Renna, on the other hand, claims that by selecting someone who doesn't recognize gays and lesbians as spiritually whole people, but as people who choose to be sinners, Obama has selected an inappropriate person to be the "spiritual representative of our nation as a whole."

For the most part, i side with Crain on this. Although i understand the complaints of those who may call him an appeaser and maintain their frustration with Obama and his selection, his arguments at least focused on the unity that Obama has been emphasizing, and he calls out Renna for encouraging disunity among Americans, gay and straight alike (an accusation i have been more than happy about making towards the many many Obama supporters who have managed to live through the cognitive dissonance it must have required to actually be an Obama supporter, seeking change and unity, except for, you know, that other half of the country, eewww).

i just wanted to point out that Renna fails to take into consideration the fact that Warren very likely believes that no one is spiritually whole, and that we are all sinners because, that's sort of what Christians believe. Not that Renna went out of her way to actually talk about or even speculate on what Christianity itself actually holds to be true. She mainly just focused on what she thought. Furthermore, i'm bothered by the fact that she gives the position of giving an invocation at the inaugural ceremony so much credibility. i was a bit surprised to discover that America even had a spiritual representation of our nationa as a whole, our very own direct line to God, who must be an American. i mean, if he wasn't an American, why would it be so important to represent the entire nation to Him?

But then, i wonder who Renna would have selected as a better "spiritual representation"? Is there anyone out there is atheist, agnostic, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu out there? Also, if that person could be gay and straight, black and white (no, wait, Obama's got that one covered already), a man and a woman, American and...well, no, only American (since that's apparently all that matters to God), then will that person please stand up, because i bet you meet Leah Renna's standards for who would be best to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Or no, how about this? If you can just be a Christian who agrees with Renna's opinions on this one particular issue, then i bet the entire gay community would feel better. Kay, thanks :)

Do you see, Leah Renna? No one will ever make you happy, which actually makes me kind of sad. Your sadness is a virus, and it is infecting me, so i'm going to leave now, before it spreads further, but before i do, i thought you should know, that gaping (cross-shaped?) hole in your soul cannot be filled by a woman. Or a man. Or a pro-choice, gay-rights activist Christian. Or Barack Obama. Or debating issues that have little importance aside from what you assign to them. i hope you've figured out what i'm getting at by now because i don't really feel like spelling it out any more.

Just because you put yourself into a box doesn't mean you have to make everyone else live in one, too.

(And before anyone does try to put me in a box on this, please feel free to get in touch with me about anything you'd like me to clarify about my faith, my opinions on Obama, who i actually don't mind very much, my views of homosexuality, etc. i can't guarantee i'll have very good answers, but i'd rather talk to you about them than let you draw conclusions based on this one entry.)

Singing my song, all day long at Hogwarts.

i am so bad at this lately.

i don't know why.

i partly don't have interesting things to talk about, or rather, don't have interesting things to say.

and when i do have something to say, it's frequently of a nature or pertaining to relationships in such a way that i shouldn't put it online for people to read. things more appropriate to journal entries.

hopefully i'll get on here with substance soon. maybe the election will bring something out of me.

dark/light

So yesterday i walk into class and i see 4 faces behind computers, illuminated by the eerie blue of their computer screens. All the lights were off. And i wasn't sure why. So i turned them on. i wouldn't take the time to say anything about it, except it's not the first time i've walked into the room and turned the lights on. It just doesn't quite make sense to me - why would you choose to sit in the dark when the light switch is just a few feet away?

Expanding Your Horizons

Today in COMM 140 (Media Criticism) we were talking about sexuality in media. There was a lovely moment when the roles in the classroom were switched and the students got to become the teachers. You see, our professor is gay and he was confused when someone mentioned the "reverse cowgirl" position. After we explained the concept to him, he was able to go home with the satisfaction of having learned something new.

Jump-starts

As i sit here ignoring my homework, waiting for a friend to come over so that we can finish watching the 2nd season of The West Wing, my favorite television show, i find myself thinking about the many guest performers on the show who go on to have bigger roles in different shows. So i thought i'd take a minute to make a list of all the ones i could think of. Mostly as a cure for my boredom, but hopefully as a cure to yours as well.

• Edward James Olmos, Battlestar Galactica (admittedly, he wasn't a nobody - he did get an Oscar nomination back in 1989)
• Jorja Fox, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
• Lisa Edelstein, House
• Reiko Aylesworth, 24
• Ian McShane, Deadwood
• Emily Procter, CSI: Miami
• Terry O'Quinn, Lost
• Mark Harmon, NCIS
• Felicity Huffman, Desperate Housewives
  
• Mary Louise Parker, Weeds (again, not an unknown - she was already a Tony-winning stage actress)
  
• Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men
  

And i'm sure some others i can't think of right now. Not to mention some already prominent names like Taye Diggs, Matthew Perry, Alan Alda, Jimmy Smits, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Glenn Close (later on The Shield, currently on Damages), William Fichnter (currently on Prison Break), Philip Baker Hall, and Tom Skerritt, plus Elmo and Big Bird.

It's a really cool show.

Important events

So i guess i'll do an obligatory 9/11 blog entry now, this being the first 9/11 of this blog.

Someone had the great idea of assigning all the COMM 140 classes readings about 9/11 for today.  Because, you know, dwelling on things often helps. 

i remember 9/11.

i was in seventh grade.  That was a pretty long time ago, i feel like.  9/11 happened before a lot of other important events in my life.  It happened before i...

• was in any major drama productions
• started playing jazz on my saxophone
• became a Christian 
• moved to Germany
• started high school
  
• traveled to Israel, Japan, or many of the countries in central Europe
• ever thought about college - i was just getting out of that phase where every son wants to be like his dad and i thought i was going to be in the army

And then there's this one, which i think is a pretty big deal.  9/11 happened before i met any single person i am currently in continuous contact with, other than my family.  i don't talk to, or even remember, a single person in that 7th grade civics class.  When i sat there at Saunders Middle School in Dumfries, VA, calmly thinking, "Hey, i wonder if today was one of the days when my dad had to go to the Pentagon?" i had no idea that years later i would know Jon, Sarah, Bethany, Hatch, Kellie, Sperry, Dan, Lori, Joel, Brittany, Matt, Will, Mereda, Rachel, Wyatt, Kevin, Seth, or Jesus.  My life is completely changed from what it was then, and it has nothing to do with those airplanes. 

What am i saying?  Often i am unsure, but this time i think i'm trying to make some point about how 9/11 is something completely in the past for me.  As far as my own personal life is concerned, i've moved on.  Was it a big deal?  Yes.  Did lots of people die unnecessarily?  Yes.  Are our soldiers still dying overseas?  Yes.  Unnecessarily?  i think maybe so.  For the life of me i still can't figure out just what we're doing in Iraq.  But that's a different thing altogether and i don't know enough to get into it right now.

So let's call this my conclusion.  It was stupid idea to read about 9/11 on 9/11.  It doesn't enhance our understanding of media more than it would on any other day, it just combines that understanding of media with a bunch of twisted memories that for all practical purposes no longer have tangible effects on most of our lives. 

Maybe i'm way off base.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time., and please tell me if you think i'm being an insensitive jerk about this.  But right now, this is what i'm feeling.  Let's move on as best as we can.  i apparently already have without even trying.

The Moral of the Story

i just took a look at msnbc.com and saw a link that asked, "What can men learn from the tortoise?"  My curiosity led me to an article called "Discover the Secret of Slow."  This is what i learned:

Apparently, men are impatient.  We want quick answers to our problems.  If we take our time, slow down a bit, then a lot of things in our lives could be more enjoyable and efficient. 

Oh wait, i didn't actually learn that from the article.  i learned that from life and, you know, living.  But i guess the guy who wrote the article decided he needed to write about it anyway.  He gives all sorts of examples from slowing down when you eat (you'll get full off of less food and lose weight!), to not getting angry so quickly (because when you get angry quickly, other people tend to not take it so well!).  He even took a moment to let us know that if we slow down while having sex, the woman we're with will enjoy it more - fortunately, he takes the time to remind us that if she enjoys it more, there's a better chance of it happening more often, so don't worry guys!  This tip is self-serving too!  (So that we're clear, i don't plan on needing this last piece of advice for a good long while - no ding-ding without the wedding ring.) 

i'm just a little baffled that someone got paid money to write this article.  As if we can't just look around at the world, see how fast everything is moving without benefit, and take that as enough of an indication that we need to back off a bit.  We are an inherently selfish race, we want things quickly, we want them now, and we don't want to share.  Perhaps that's what baffles me so much about this thing.  It says, in effect, that if we don't take our time, our selfishness takes over, gets in the way, and we aren't able to get what we want.  It seems to me that the solution to this problem is to be less selfish.  But the writer disagrees.  He thinks the solution is simply to be as selfish (if not more), but to be slower about it.  Because then our selfishness actually pays off! 

Wow.  The tale of the tortoise and the hare has been around for an awfully long time, and this writer thinks he has finally unlocked the secret moral of the story.  People think our problem is our impatience.  But i'm pretty sure it's not just all in the timing.  If our motivations and desires aren't pure and just and righteous, then it doesn't matter if your actions are fast, slow, or indifferent because the outcome can't possibly be the best available option.

i is just another pronoun.

For a rather long time now, in my journal writing or my note taking, i have been writing the word "i" without capitalizing it.  i am unsure just how this diminished literary self of mine came about, but for whatever reason i quite like it (or i probably would not continue to do it).  i noticed a couple days ago, though, that here in the blogosphere i have continued to capitalize the first person singular.  i'm gonna stop that too.  "i" is not a proper name, it is merely another pronoun and therefore deserves no special treatment as far as i can tell by the rules of grammar.  So i'm going to refer to myself the way it makes sense to me.  In lowercase.  And i guess i thought you should know.