We'll die with our options open

For the love of cats (the animal not the musical)

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:23:00 +0000

I grew up in the country but we lived on the main highway into town. We always had cats as pets, well once we had bunnies and another time chickens, but mostly cats and they didn't tend to last very long (neither did the bunnies or chickens). It was the country so some of them got eaten by coyotes or sometimes large predatory birds (hawks and eagles), but most of them got hit by cars on the highway. We knew the likelihood that our cats weren't long for the world so we didn't tend to get too attached to them.

We had one cat that had a litter of kittens just before she got hit on the highway. By the time we found them most of the kittens had died, all but one in fact. Our cats were random mixed breeds (barn cats really though we didn't have a barn), but this one was definitely part seal point Siamese (she had dark grey spots though instead of brown and the darker spots were tabby striped). She was super cute. My brother fed her milk with an eye dropper and he named her Nikki (we were both a little obsessed with the movie Who's that Girl at the time and before the kitten got big and developed some dark spots on her tail and ears her fur was sort of peroxide blond colored, like Madonna in that movie). Nikki was most attached to my brother but she was really affectionate with all of us. She was way more of a people cat than most cats.

She lasted a lot longer than most of our pets, probably because she kept closer to the house. My dad got attached to her to so maybe he let her inside the house more than some of our other pets too. Longer for her though was only a couple of years and while the loss was a little harder than the others we'd still always known, in the back of our minds, that Nikki would come to the same kind of end as the others. My dad took it harder, he didn't want to have pets for a long time after that, he still fed all the random cats that were around, but they were no longer our pets just stray cats we fed.

We had a cat at my mom's house too and that was a much less dangerous neighborhood for pets to be outside, but when I was 12 we moved to the city and had to give the cat to a friend because we couldn't bring her with us. That separation was a little traumatic because we'd had that cat for a long time, 6 years I think, but she didn't die...I mean eventually she did but by that time she was someone else's cat.

Now I have two cats. I got them shortly after I moved out on my own and I was in the city so They've always been indoor cats because I'm afraid of letting cats out anywhere near busy streets. I've had them for 9 years and like all good pets they are like a part of my family. I realized recently, for the first time, that these cats are going to get old, and possibly sick and then die, of natural causes. That prospect has me a little worried. I've never had a pet that lived a normal lifespan and died of natural causes. I don't know how I'll handle it.

They're really cute cats, one orange and one black. The black one has a meow that sounds like she's saying "me, me, me". I think she strained her voice by meowing non-stop for the entire hour and half drive home when I picked her up. I think her voice just never developed after that. The orange on the other hand slept the whole time when I brought her home but she's very vocal now. She likes ice cream, she won't touch any other people food but every time I eat ice cream she hovers around hoping to get to lick the bowl. I've had them both since they were tiny little kittens. The first night I brought home the orange kitten she kept following me into the bathroom and it's become a habit for her, she always wants to be in the same room as I am in and that includes the bathroom. I used to have a console television and the black kitten ran immediately under it when I brought her home and wouldn't come out. She still likes to hide under things, mostly whenever new people are around. She's afraid of new people. They have personalities and I've gotten to know their personalities.

I've always been an animal lover. I'm pretty sure I bent the axle on my old car because I swerved to avoid hitting a squirrel and hit the curb instead. The mechanic that looked at it that first time said it wasn't bent but the CV boots kept cracking. When their was an animal in the street that I couldn't avoid hitting (an opossum) I cried. I used to volunteer at the Seattle Animal Shelter (walking dogs and matchmaking cats). So, I've always loved animals but I've never been quite so attached to any as I am to these two. In fact, my relationship with these cats is longer than any other I've ever had (with the exception of my family). I'm not sure how I'll handle losing them.

So BA in English

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:35:00 +0000

This is a fairly winding train of thought so I won't blame you if you don't follow it entirely.

A while back I read an interview in the New York Times with Lou Reed and he referred to one of his own comments as "so BA in English" which he has. This week's guest on Elvis Costello's new show Spectacle was Lou Reed and it brought back to mind the comment about his BA in English (which he mentioned in this interview as well).

Last night I went to a the Seattle Women's Chorus winter show at Meany Hall (which was great by the way). Lou Reed and Meany Hall made me think about my own BA in English.

Meany Hall was the scene of my graduation from the University of Washington English department. I mean my main graduation from UW was at Husky stadium (in the freezing, pouring rain), but I also went to my department graduation and that was at Meany Hall. Graduation ceremonies are more for the parents than the students and I went to both of mine for my parents like most student, of course, but the memory of my department graduation is a surprisingly fond one. It turned out that had a professor or two in that department that had a significant impact on me.

I took a big chunk of time off between my sophomore and junior years in college, and changed majors a bunch, so by the time I declared my final major (English) the requirements had changed and I had to take a core requirement, a linked writing and literature class, that normally would come earlier in the degree progression.

At first it annoyed me to have to take the class. It reminded me of having to take Washington State History in night school because I transferred school districts twice between 8th and 12th grades. At my first school State history was a 9th grade requirement but I transferred to a new school for 9th grade, in my new school district it was an 8th grade requirement so I'd missed it and when I transferred again for 11th grade I'd missed it in that district as well so I had to take it in night school my senior year in order to graduate. The linked lit/writing course at UW was just like that at first. It was just the requirement I'd missed and had to take in order to graduate. Then...well...there's an idea that college is where people go to become independent thinkers and this class made me feel like they wanted me to think for myself only if I thought like them, like him (the professor) so it annoyed me on that level too.

Over time I started to like that class a lot. I suppose that was in small part, or possibly large part, to the huge crush I had on one of the guys in my discussion group. He was, undoubtedly a much greater influence on me than the class itself or the professor and at the time that completely overshadowed the fact that the class and the professor did have an influence on me. But Lou Reed and Meany Hall have got me thinking.

I don't know if reverse psychology was the plan, but that original annoyance I felt with the class translated into my becoming more antagonistic than normal, which is saying something since "for the sake of argument" is kind of my motto to begin with. I said all sorts of stuff in the discussion section of that class just to get people's ire up, just to get arguments going. That class reintroduced me to that part of myself that looks at things from all angles. If I'm honest about it that class did exactly what it was supposed to do. Maybe it didn't teach me to think for myself, because I had a pretty good handle on that already, but it helped me to get back to thinking for myself.

Television and the Gospel of Elvis Costello

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:13:00 +0000

Elvis Costello recently joined the ranks of television personalities and said, of working in television, "For every frustration, for every idiotic suggestion that you get when you work in television, the great moments far outweigh the minor frustrations,". When you're Elvis Costello and your executive producer is Elton John and your show is airing on the Sundance Channel I would imagine you have a lot less idiotic suggestions and a lot more latitude when it comes to taking them than others, with less clout, might have, with shows airing on the major broadcast networks, but I want to believe that the sentiment will hold true for them as well.

You see, I think television is the best medium for storytelling. Costello's show, "Spectacle", is primarily a talk show, or you might call it a variety show since he interviews musicians and occasionally they play some songs. Maybe you wouldn't call that storytelling, and maybe there are plenty of great venues for interviewers (magazines definitely give television a run for its money when it comes to interviews), but he's making a statement that echos the complaints of all my favorite storytellers when it comes to working in television.

Joss Whedon was fed up with television after his experiences with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Firefly" and who can blame him. Aaron Sorkin put his annoyance with network interference right back into his shows and, perhaps not coincidentally those two shows ("Sports Night" and "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"), while just as good if not better than "The West Wing", didn't last very long. Sorkin does a wonderful job with stage and film projects as well, most recently with "Charlie Wilson's War", but even so, I can't help but miss his presence in the television landscape. Whedon too has done well in other mediums, "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog" proved the viability of programing straight to the Internet, but his presence is also sorely missed on television.

Elvis Costello said that the good outweighs the bad though and if Elvis Costello said it I have to believe it's true. I only hope that Sorkin and Whedon (and others like them) take that to heart and keeping pitching television shows so they make it back to my airwaves as soon as possible.

A more perfect disillusion of unions

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:51:00 +0000

With all my talk about how marriage and civil unions are (and ought to be) two separate things (for both gay and straight couples), I didn't really think about divorce until I read this article in the New York Times the other day. Divorce obtained through the courts of the land is a disillusion of a civil union but the spiritual union may be much more difficult to dissolve. The Catholic church, for example, doesn't acknowledge divorce at all. If you are Catholic and you want to dissolve your marriage you have to petition the church for annulment which is a lengthy process, often not coming to fruition until years after the civil union has ended. In the Times article they talk about how difficult it is it for a woman who wants to divorce her husband versus the relative ease with which a man can divorce his wife under Islamic (Shariah) law. It says that most of the rulings of these Shariah courts (made up of panels of Islamic scholars) are not binding under British civil law (i.e. just because the Shariah court grants you a divorce doesn't mean you are divorced under British law), but the Shariah courts are still relevant because civil divorce isn't good enough for the religious community, religious leaders have to approve of the reasons for divorce. Civil unions are a different thing than spiritual unions and civil divorces are a different thing than spiritual ones as well.

I was home sick a couple of weeks ago and I discovered that Bravo airs three re-runs per day of the West Wing. I find the frenetic pace of Aaron Sorkin's characters quite soothing so I watched a couple episodes that day and have been watching it every day since. There was an episode in season one where Sam was disturbed that some town in Alabama was trying to pass a law requiring adherence to the ten commandments. Sam and everyone he mentioned it to wondered how they planned on enforcing them since they have no way of knowing about (or proving) violations of some of the commandments. They were particularly obsessed with how someone might know if you coveted your neighbors wife, or if you didn't honor your father, for example. Of course, regardless of the enforceability of the ten commandments they were, and we should be, opposed to such a law because we live in a country that requires the separation of church and state.

My previous argument was based primarily on the separation of church and state (and equal protection), but there has been an argument made, which many people believe and endorse, that because the words "separation of church and state" don't appear anywhere in the founding documents that no such concept exists in our laws. I would argue, and did in my last post, that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" is pretty clear on the subject and it's intent, it seems to me, is to protect both the people (from having specific religions tenants imposed on them) but also the government (from being unduly influenced by any particular church).

I can't help but return to discussion of same sex marriage over and over because I think it's important. The only argument people have opposing same sex marriage is that the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman (which isn't exactly true, but I can see the clear implication there since all married couples in the bible are male-female...although not always one man and one woman, sometimes one man and several women...but you don't see the people making this argument also advocating legalizing polygamy, but that's another argument). Since the constitution clearly prohibits the passing of any laws respecting the establishment of religion, this argument against gay marriage doesn't really hold water. Especially since the bible also says (explicitly), "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake" (Peter 2:13, King James Version), and our constitution prohibits enacting religious rules into law. Is it possible to adhere to both civil and religious laws if civil law allows something religious law prohibits? Absolutely. If you're Jewish your religious law prohibits eating pork, that doesn't mean you would advocate making it illegal to eat pork would you? Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to do it. You can refrain from eating pork even though it isn't illegal.

A more perfect union

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:39:00 +0000

This week Dan Savage was on the Colbert Report talking about California's Prop 8. While I do enjoy seeing two of my favorite people together it's unfortunate that gay marriage had to be banned in California for to bring them together.

I want to talk about gay marriage but my opinion on the subject is a little unusual. I would absolutely vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage if it were on my ballot (but I live in Washington where it hasn't yet been on my ballot) and I'm horrified that it has been banned...well, anywhere, but especially in California.

It's just not okay to deny rights to any citizens that other citizens enjoy. Now some would say, in fact Elizabeth Hasslebeck did say, that the right to marry is not being denied to anyone under these types of bans, but I can't believe anyone is buying that. Yes, it is true that anyone can get married to anyone they chose of the opposite sex, but that denies a significant right from a large number of people (i.e. the right to chose a spouse that they love).

The religious fanatics that are opposed to gay marriage see "civil unions" as the answer. However, I'm pretty sure that would fall under the banner of "separate but equal" rights which I believe the supreme court frowns upon.

My solution to this problem would be if you want to ban gay marriage, you want the state not to recognize gay marriage, well then the state can't recognize straight marriage either. If you believe that the bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, that's a religious union anyway and the state shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religious unions. The state should only recognize civil unions. If you want to get married, whether you are gay or straight that should be between you, your partner, your clergy member and your God. If, on the other hand, you want all of the legal rights and responsibilities of what has heretofore been referred to by the state as marriage, then that is between you, your partner, two witnesses and a court clerk. Two different things, one spiritual and one civil.

There are, in fact, a lot of gay people (and some straight ones as well), that are married in the eyes of their God but not their state (i.e. they've been joined in a religious ceremony but haven't filed a marriage license). There are also those (far more straight than gay since gay marriage is only legal in a few states right now) who have filed a marriage license but were joined in a civil ceremony (not a religious one).

I say, ban straight marriage too and institute civil unions across the board. That way, if you are opposed to gay marriage you can go to a church that supports that view, with a clergy member who refuses to marry homosexuals, and if you are in favor of it you can go to a church that supports that view and will marry homosexuals. That way, everyone has the same legal rights. That way, the state stays out of religious arguments about what does or doesn't constitute a marriage.

There was an interesting point of view on Huffington Post back when California first legalized gay marriage that talks about some of the same issues. It's title is "Why I'm not getting married again", and in it David Shneer discusses how he had a religious wedding ceremony and later he had a civil one as well (in Canada) and he didn't feel like he needed to get married again now that his home state had finally gotten with the program.

My own family has experience with this as well. My mom and step dad had two weddings. Their first wedding was in a little church in a remote coastal town and a lot of people (all the guests in fact) had traveled a fair distance to be there. When the clergyman gathered them and their witnesses together to get the paperwork done they realized they'd forgotten all about getting the license. So, they did the whole thing again a week later to make it legal.

As it stands now people who are married are (often) joined in both a spiritual union and a civil union. Don't you think it's confusing that those two separate things have the same name? Not just confusing but actively misleading. People like Sherri Shepherd say that they can understand the argument against gay marriage because the bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The bible says a lot of things that we don't allow to be written into our laws. In fact, I believe "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is one of the first rules our founding father's adopted...the first (amendment) in fact, but people have a hard time distinguishing this civil law from religious law simply because they both go by the same name.

A lot of people argue against civil unions because they say it is important to them to be able to say they are "married", but find a clergy member to marry you and you can say that. I am a clergy member now and I am more than willing to marry anyone (gay or straight). I'm not advocating civil unions instead of marriage, I'm advocating them in addition to marriage.

Hope and Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:40:00 +0000

The election is finally over and our new president elect has brought hope to the world. As Stephen Colbert said, the people rejected the politics of fear and embraced faith, and that is, of course, rhetoric I understand.

I want to be really careful with my words hear because I don't want to give the impression that I support in any way the the type of fear mongering politics we've been putting up with for the last eight years. I have faith and hope. I believe that Obama will change a lot of things for the better.

The thing is, I'll consider him a resounding success if he gets more than two of the major items on his agenda accomplished. People get so disillusion with politicians because they promise a lot of things that they don't deliver on, but I think that shows a remarkable lack of understanding of governing (and the world for that matter). If you get two or more people together in a room, chances are they won't agree (at least not entirely) about everything. Passing legislation involves 435 congressmen and 100 senators (which is considerably more than two people) so, if you have an agenda to accomplish chances are that end result won't look exactly like you planned because you'll have to make compromises...or maybe someone else will make a convincing argument and you'll add something to your agenda, or take something off of it. To expect politicians to deliver exactly on all of their agenda items is beyond ridiculous.

I've always said that, despite my interest in politics, I'd never want to be a politician. I'm too idealistic, and too indecisive. I wouldn't want such important decisions to be my responsibility. I suppose I wouldn't mind being one of the zillions of people behind the scenes who makes the arguments that help the politician decide...arguments I'm good at, decisions not so much.

Anyhow my hope is that when we come to the end of Obama's term, which, God willing, will be eight years, I hope that people will let his accomplishments stand alone. I know he's going to do great things, but he's also going to have some really difficult decisions to make and I trust him more than anyone else to make the right ones or I wouldn't have voted for him. I really hope that other people feel the same way.

"Tell Spike Lee to sit down and shut up"

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 04:31:00 +0000

I've been waiting for 10 years to hear Aaron Sorkin and Tommy Schlamme's commentary on Sports Night. A couple weeks ago the tenth anniversary edition DVDs came out and I finally got my wish.

Sports Night is, by far, my favorite television show ever. If you know me, you know that saying something is my favorite anything is a rarity. My favorite food, or movie, or band, or song, or book...if you ask me about any of these things I'm more likely to give you a top ten list...or top twenty. I love television and always have so I could probably give you a top fifty list of my favorite television shows. I could tell you what my favorite currently airing shows are (Chuck and How I Met Your Mother). I could tell you what, in order, what my favorite shows were every year of my childhood. First came Sesame Street which was my favorite for several years (more than most, in fact Sesame Street was my first and only guilty pleasure, the first and last time I ever cared enough to hide what I liked from people for fear of what they'd think). After Sesame Street came the Nick at Night years (Gilligan's Island and Get Smart were among my favorites then), then I got really into reruns of Taxi and Three's Company because my local station had them on every night, then came Family Ties, then Growing Pains, then for several years The Wonder Years (in fact, until Sports Night came along The Wonder Years was my all time favorite show), after that was Sea Quest DSV, then Dawson's Creek, then Sports Night...I've had other seasonal favorites since then (Veronica Mars actually gave Sports Night a run for its money). But ask me what my favorite show of all time is and the answer, without hesitation, is Sports Night.

I loved A Few Good Men, and The American President, and if, at the time, I were the type of person to notice the writing credits on movies and shows I liked I could have guessed I'd like Sports Night, but I don't think I could ever have guessed how much I would like it.

Wordy wouldn't be an inaccurate label for Aaron Sorkin's writing and, as such, my appreciation for his work is predictable. He's not just wordy though, he doesn't just use a lot of words, he uses better than anyone else and he manages to make each word drip with subtext so that, if possible, the things his characters don't say, say as much or more than the things they do say.

So, I've been waiting, for ten years, to hear him his commentary and it's finally here. I'm really hoping he explains his bizarre fascination with Zamfir (master of the Pan flute).

I'm done

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:40:00 +0000

I am generally pretty interested in politics. I've written about it a few times. Right now though, I just can't watch it any more (or read about it, or listen to it).

I could say I'm disappointed in the level of discussion, and that's true, but really even if the level of discussion were great I think I'd still be sick of it. Although, the level of discussion is really pretty low.

I think my disillusionment hit a high last week when I heard someone saying that all Barack Obama has to be is adequate to win this election. It's not that I disagree with the idea that any democrat has a distinct advantage this election season. I've said that myself many times. People are really disappointed with the way things have gone for eight years and they put a lot of the blame for it on the republican party which makes it kind of hard for the democrats to lose this one. My problem was that the person said it in such a way that made it sound like Barack Obama is only adequate, as though he hasn't inspired millions of people, as though he doesn't have the ideas for how to get the country back on the right track.

That's just one example of the fluff reporting, but even the non-fluff, even the legitimate issues are starting to sound like empty noise. Luckily, I have already voted so I can kind of tune it out, but I can't escape it entirely. I can't wait for the whole thing to be over.

The Sun Also Rises

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:51:00 +0000

This is the house where Ernest Hemingway was born (in Oak Park, IL). I've become quite a Hemingway fan lately so on my recent trip to Chicago I took a little westerly detour and visited the Hemingway house (and museum).

My love of Hemingway is somewhat new found. I, like most people, was first exposed to the writing of Ernest Hemingway in high school. I was required to read a couple of his short stories and, at the time, I hated them.

I make no apologies for the fact that I like happy endings and I didn't see them in Hemingway's stories. Not that I dislike all stories without happy endings, but Hemingway's stories often don't seem to have endings at all. When I was younger I hated open endings. I liked my stories tied up in nice tidy bows for me (preferably, happy bows).

My aversion to open ended stories started to diminish over time and was finally abandoned completely because of some really great short stories written by the very same person who inspired me to (among other things) change the title of this blog. He writes really great open endings, I think they're better than any I've read.

There is a real art to open endings. You have to give enough information that the reader feels satisfied, the story does still have to have some resolution, but also leave enough loose ends to that the reader is left thinking about it, wondering. I still don't think Hemingway gets it exactly right a lot of the time, at least not in his short stories.

The other problem I had with Hemingway was what I perceived as pessimism that seemed prevalent in his stories. It turns out there's quite a history of sever depression in the Hemingway family (a lot of suicides). Hemingway himself suffered from depression for much of his life so it stands to reason that his writing might be somewhat dark, but now I'm not so sure I'd call it pessimism.

I started reading his novels at recommendation of my friend who's writing I love so much. First I read Old Man and the Sea, then I re-read some of the short stories, then I read his memoir (A Moveable Feast), then I read The Sun Also Rises...and the more I read, the more I started to think that the pessimism is actually optimism in disguise. There's a sense, especially in The Sun Also Rises, that the current circumstances are unbearable (for the characters) but that they are, that everything is, temporary.

You might think that it is my own optimism that's changed my mind about Hemingway. I can't help thinking that things are just on the verge of getting better for these characters but maybe a pessimist would feel that things were only going to get worse. I don't think though that it's just my personal optimism, I think the optimism is inherent in the stories. The desperation is palpable in almost all Hemingway stories but the characters don't give up. It's especially clear in The Old Man and The Sea. After everything that character goes through in the story, he still gets up the next day and goes on. Right now, my favorite is The Sun Also Rises, it does this same thing but the suffering and desperation are dealt with a little more indirectly and are also more emotional. Even the title of, The Sun Also Rises, seems like it just teetered off the edge of the line between optimism and pessimism firmly onto the optimistic side. It's definitely become one of my favorite books.

Faith vs...Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:21:00 +0000

Bill Maher made a documentary about religion called Religulous (as in religion + ridiculous). The film attacks religion not faith (according to Maher in his press tour...I haven't actually seen the film), but the problem, on both sides of this argument, is that too many people confuse the two.

Do I believe in God...I don't know. That's what Bill Maher says too. The truly logical mind can't rule out the possibility because just as there is no empirical evidence of the existence of God there isn't any evidence to the contrary either. Okay, there are some who would say you don't need to prove the absence of something, that it's assumed a thing doesn't exist until there's proof that it does...like "innocent until proven guilty". I can't endorse that theory. If I have no proof that something doesn't exist than I can't be sure. Aliens, elves, vampires...I don't know...they could be out there somewhere. I don't want to equate God with aliens and vampires, except in that I don't know if either exist. Bill Maher sort of does (equate God with aliens), and I won't argue with it either, I just won't make that analogy myself because I think it's sort of sensationalistic

I make no secret of the fact that I don't believe there is any one true religion. One day, for the sake of argument, I said, maybe it isn't that they (religions) are all wrong, but that they're all, in a way, right. The first time I made this argument, it was something I said sort of off hand and I've come to call it the napkin holder analogy because, at the time, a napkin holder was the first thing I saw. I was sitting at a table with a friend and I couldn't think what to compare it to, but my point was that it's a matter of perception. If I look at that napkin holder and you ask me to describe it maybe I say that it's rectangular and that it holds and dispenses paper napkins, ask another person and they might say that it's red and made of aluminum. It's the same napkin holder but people describe it in different ways. Now take something without any tangible properties that can easily be described and ask a few people to try describe it anyway. You'll probably get an even greater number of different answers. "God" is such an intangible entity. The Judeo-Christian tradition is to anthropomorphize "God", many pagan traditions cast the divine as an animal (or several different animals), the Greeks went the anthropomorphizing way as well but for them it was many gods, another common image is of energy. What if those are all just attempts by people to describe the same thing? It's something that they can't see (or smell, or taste, or touch, or hear), so doesn't it stand to reason that they'd come up with different descriptions? And it also makes sense that they'd all insist that their description is the right one because otherwise they'd have to admit that they don't understand it fully and it's human nature to fear what you don't understand (which would be in direct oposition to faith).

My mother asked me a few months ago if I'd ever considered ministry (as a career choice), and she's not the first person to ask me that. I seem to have a quality that makes people think I have answers to any questions they have. I get asked for directions and for direction a lot.

My adamant refusal to endorse the idea that there's only on right religion means that, even if I had considered it, Christian ministry is not something I could ever do. I did, however, seriously consider going to rabbinical school a couple years ago. I don't know Hebrew, but I could learn it I think. However...I really like bacon and apparently the dietary rules for rabbinical students are even more strict than the regular Kosher rules.

I know several people who've been ordained as ministers of the Universal Life Church. Most of the time people get ordained (which is free and takes about 30 seconds) in order to officiate the wedding of a friend (or family member), but I thought "Universal" might be an indication of agreement with my theory about all religions being right...although "Catholic" also technically means universal and they definitely don't think anyone else is anything close to right so that's not necessarily an accurate indicator. In this case though, it turns out to be fairly accurate. So, I got myself ordained.

I'm no more qualified than I was before to offer advise on matters of faith, but since I am fairly vocal about faith, and since people have always and will always ask me for advice, I figured I might at least get credentialed.

Once upon a time

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:41:00 +0000

Once upon a time in a land a lot like ours there lived a lot of little girls who wanted desperately to be princesses and princesses who just wanted to live normal lives. There were cats who wanted to be dogs and and dogs who wanted to be cats and plucky British couples who wanted nothing more than to fall out of canoes into shallow bodies of water. There were star crossed lovers and there were bitter rivalries. There were dreamers with single minded determination and there were those who never quite figured out what they wanted. There were those with stories to tell and others with the skill to tell them, and if they were lucky they story tellers were able to find the stories.

Once upon a time in this world I wanted to be a professional baseball player. In the first grade I was sure I was going to be a major league pitcher but then in the second grade someone told me that girls don't play professional baseball and now I throw like a girl. After that I took dance classes for seven years thinking, I suppose, of a future in musical theater, but I'm not such a good singer. For a brief period I wanted to be a model but, while I apparently had the poise for it, I was told I'd never be tall enough for runway modeling (though I did find myself on a catwalk once or twice, not in a professional capacity, strictly amateur, thanks to an aunt who's a designer).

One thing I always wanted to be through all of that was a writer. I've tried numerous types of writing. I won a short story contest in 5th grade and then promptly quit writing short stories forever. I wrote awful angsty poetry when I was in high school and then quit writing poetry forever when I got a C in my college poetry writing contest. After I dropped out of college I decided to try my hand at screenwriting. I studied screenwriting for a year and in the process, I found that I am not a story teller, at least I don't have a natural talent for it. I can do it, sort of, but it's hard for me. One of the professors of my screenwriting class was one of the most natural story tellers I have ever seen (or heard) and I couldn't believe how easy he made it seem (in comparison to how hard it actually is).

So, now I write this stuff instead, but I'm still always looking for a good story to tell. I can't stop trying.

If Google doesn't map it it's not a place on Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:34:00 +0000

In the immortal words of Tiffany, "They say in heaven love comes first" (which I guess makes today's song of the day Heaven Is a Place on Earth). Unfortunately, all to often, heaven is not a place on earth and love does not come first. For many people life gets in the way of love. In life, if love did come first a lot of other things would have to be compromised. Where you want to live, how many (if any) kids you want to have, religion, who is going to be the bread winner, how much sex is enough, who's family to spend the holidays with, where to go on vacation...it seems like every day would present dozens of new things you might have to compromise on.

Most people realize this and when they're single they try to predict what things will be "deal breakers". As a single person you think of things you want in a mate and things you couldn't live with. Many people stick to these guns no matter what, but a lot of people find there's a little more wiggle room in the rules they've written for themselves than they thought. They meet someone who has none of the things they thought they were looking for and/or all of the things they thought they could never live with but they can't help loving that person anyway.

My great-grandfather was a devout catholic. A true believer who thought that he could buy salvation for all his family by donating to the church. When my mom and I went through a bunch of his old papers, searching for clues about our genealogy, we found records of all the money he spent and who's souls he was trying to buy into heaven with each of those donations. We also found my great-grandmother's catechism book. It appears that she had at least planned to convert to Catholicism for him (though I don't recall if we found record of her confirmation or not). I don't know much about them but I can only assume that they loved each very much because for a devout catholic man and Jewish divorcee to end up married there had to be some compromising.

It seems like, maybe, she was the one to do most of the compromising and maybe, it is from her that I've inherited my sense that love conquers all. It wouldn't be the only thing I get from her. At age sixteen, I saw a picture of her and it was the first time I'd ever looked at a photograph of anyone in my family and seen myself reflected back. I suppose it would stand to reason that I get more than my looks from her. Unfortunately she died young and neither I, nor my mom, ever had a chance to meet her. In fact, even my grandmother, who was only three when she died, barely knew her. I asked my mother recently what she died from...I had always assumed it was childbirth for some reason, but it turns out she had an enlarged heart. I'm not making that up. I know it seems like I must be because of the metaphor (i.e. she had such a big heart, she loved so much, that she was willing to make whatever compromise she had to for it), but I'm really not making it up.

I don't know if I get my capacity for love from my great-grandmother, but where ever it comes from, even though heaven isn't always (or even often) a place on Earth, for me love does come first. If I love someone I'll always find a way to compromise.

Ethics: Because I said so

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:29:00 +0000

There was an article in Tuesday's NY Times about the ethical dilemmas presented by new technology. An environmental scientist is quoted in the article saying, "There is no one to say 'Thou shalt not'". That phrasing struck me as odd. "Thou shalt not" is biblical terminology, and the implication of the statement is sort of Nitzschean. I mean, either this woman believes that there never was anyone who said "Thou shalt not" (i.e. there is no God), in which case it doesn't really bear mentioning in this way (because if there never was then it doesn't relate to new technology or anything new for that matter), or, more likely, there was but isn't any more (i.e. God is dead).

Whether you believe that God really dictated to Moses (among others) or not, the fact is that a great many people did believe that, so someone, whether it was God, or just Moses himself, was able to tell people "Thou shalt not", (and have many of them listen and accept it as a commandment they must follow). If someone were to try the same thing today (i.e. to say, whether truthfully or not, that God spoke to them, they would likely be institutionalized (or, depending on where they were from, maybe killed). I wonder, if someone found or claimed to have found, some ancient text adding all sorts of commandments, would people listen?

It isn't so far fetched. The Book of Mormon is a whole lot newer than Moses and his commandments and there are a lot of people out there not drinking coffee, tea or alcohol, because Joseph Smith told them that God didn't want them to and a good many of them believe that it is purely about obedience.

I always thought that God would know what things we might want to eat and drink that could be harmful to us and that those dietary restrictions (which many religions have) were more about God protecting us from harm to our health. However many people who believe in a good and loving God also, apparently, believe that this Father in Heaven, is the type of parent that comes up with arbitrary rules and insists that we follow them because He said so.

I actually like this parental analogy because as an adult I can see that some of the things my parents told me not to do, which at the time seemed arbitrary, were really for my own good (like God's diet laws). They were trying to protect me. For example, when I was 14 my mother told me to stay away from older guys. She explained it really well too. She told me that once I was out of school, age difference wouldn't matter (at least not as much), but until then, people change so much so quickly that older guys would be vastly different that guys my own age and than me, that they would want different things than I wanted. I ignored her, of course, and a year later nearly got myself raped (or more accurately got myself nearly raped).

Even after that happened I still wasn't exactly a paragon of obedience. I'm obedient if I understand the reasons why I should be and sometimes, I have to make the mistake in order to understand the reasoning. When it comes to things that affect my own health and well being (like the things my mother told me not to do, or religious dictates about not drinking coffee or eating pork) I can make my own mistakes but the things they are talking about in this article have potentially harmful effects on humanity as a whole. It seems to me like the absence of someone to say, "Thou shalt not", might actually be a good thing. Especially if the only reason offered would be, "because I said so".

In the absence of such an authority, panels of scientists and philosophers convene to discuss the ethical implications of creating new technologies whose effects on humanity are yet unknown and could potentially be disastrous. These are people who can tell us not just that we shouldn't do these things, but why we shouldn't do them.

The family you make

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:52:00 +0000

I've had Growing Up Falling Down (the Living End) stuck in my head for the past week or two. According to some my youth ended a couple months so I guess I should be all grown up already but I feel like right now is the moment that I am growing up.

I think that growing up is a lot about the family you make for yourself. As someone who is really close with the family I was born with I never thought about making a family for myself (because I already have one and I'm happy with it). I have been thinking about it a lot lately though.

There was a lot of talk about it in the news coverage of one of this summers big movies (Sex and the City). I didn't see the movie but it was something I questioned about the show so I understood the criticism, the girls families are hardly ever depicted in the movie (or the show), not even at their weddings. The explanation, of course, is that those girls may not be connected by blood, but they are each other's family.

The natural conclusion is that people make their friends into surrogate families because they don't like the families they were born with. Another possibility is people in extreme situations, working super long hours or the like, form those family like strong bonds with each other and it has nothing to do with dissatisfaction with their existing families (you see that in television too, Sorkin does it a lot).

Neither of those things apply to me, and yet, I find myself creating family for myself. Maybe, there was a void to fill...I never had a sister so I found myself one. Ever since then I've been building my family outside my family.

So now, it's not that the roots I have here in this place, my family, mean any less to me, but I have other things in my life now that mean just as much. The other things, other people, are pretty spread out. I know I'm going to be moving soon. The lease on my apartment is up in October and I don't think I'm staying the Seattle area. I'm just not sure where I'll end up. LA, Olympia, and New York are the options...Olympia is probably the most me, I like a laid back place, and one of my best friends is there now. Three years ago I was sure if I ever moved from Seattle it would be to LA, I have friends there, and an entire branch of my extended family in that area. New York is somewhere I swore I'd never live, but one of my best friends just moved there, my sister really (in this family I'm making for myself), and like family, I think we need each other. I'm not sure how it will work out, but no matter where I go I guess I will have family around me, whether it's the family I was born with or the one I make for myself.

Losing yourself

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:56:00 +0000

My first acting teacher told me that you have to keep something of yourself (I think it was 90/10, give 90% to the character and keep 10% of yourself). This is excellent advice especially since if you're any good at all at acting you'll at some point find a character you're playing bleeding over into your own life and personality. It's the reason actors end up dating their costars so often. It's also the reason actors are often crazy, or at least assumed to be crazy.

Heath Ledger is a very good actor, and his Joker was great, and while I'm not trying to say that he's crazy, I don't think it was Oscar caliber work. He played a crazy killer with no motivation what-so-ever. I know it's cliche but actors need to know what their characters motivation is, and the Joker is a character without any motivation. That's not a character that allows for an especially emotionally nuanced portrayal, in fact it's pretty one dimensional. He died tragically, and perhaps deserves a posthumous Oscar both for making the Joker nuanced at all and because he didn't win the one he deserved for Brokeback Mountain, but I am saying that his acting in Dark Knight didn't take my breath away, his acting has taken my breath away, but not in this movie.

Cristian Bale, by the way, is a very good actor, who, it's said, doesn't keep anything of himself. People say that he becomes a completely different person (off camera I mean, since obviously he becomes a different person on camera). Of course, I'm not trying to say that he's crazy either. He had the more three dimensional character and he did very well with it is all. Of course it's kind of hard to see the emotionally nuanced acting when the man is wearing a mask over his eyes for half the film so I don't think anyone is going to be getting any Oscars (for their acting in this film).

Still, when I was watching the movie I totally lost myself. My friend tells me she was watching and she knew they couldn't have killed Gordon, because he wasn't commissioner yet. I should have known that too. I know enough Batman to know that Gordon was commissioner. Then Harvey Dent has gasoline running down the side of his face and I'm so caught up in the story, I should know what's coming, I know enough Batman to know about Two Face, but I don't even realize what's coming. That story had me rapt from beginning to end even though I know Batman. Maybe I have a tendency to let myself get lost in a story more than most people, and maybe this story was particularly compelling for a lot of reasons, but at least one of those reason is convincing actors.

Can you see the real me?

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:52:00 +0000

Dan: Why do I want people to like me?
Abby: Yes.
Dan: Don't you want people to like you?
Abby Sure.
Dan So?
Abby So, I'm a likable person, and I assume people are gonna like me, and many of them do.
Dan: What about the ones who don't?
Abby: I don't really think too much about that.
Dan: Why not?
Abby: 'Cause many of them do.

It was suggested to me by a friend recently that my tendency to blurt things out is not only not a bad thing but actually an enviable trait. She was with me at a pub a couple months ago and she asked the bartender when his birthday was, and when he told us I said, "Of course it is, all the cute boys are Leos". She thought it was great, couldn't believe I'd said it, and she said it took guts.

That pales in comparison to the time I told a guy I had a huge crush on that he shouldn't have any trouble with women as he was smart and funny and cute. Or the time a professor was trying to make a point about insecurities and I claimed that when I was younger I'd never doubted for a minute that I was beautiful and then turned to the guys next to me and asked if they could blame me. At least with the bartender I could claim drunkenness though in truth I wasn't that drunk, and probably would have said it anyway, I mean, I was completely sober in the other cases. Alcohol does bring out this trait in me even more, but, as with most traits, alcohol only enhances what is already there.

I think her assumption is that I don't care what people think about me, but that's not true. It's just that I'm a likable person and I assume people are going to like me and many of them do so I don't worry too much about the ones that don't.

"For the sake of argument" is kind of my motto, so when my professor was tyring to make a point I had to disagree and it wasn't exactly a lie. Of course, the truth isn't that I never had any insecurities as a kid, it's just that they weren't about my looks (more about my personality). I couldn't not say it, you know. And when I think someone is cute, for some reason that thought can't just stay in my head, I have to say it. I can't seem to censor myself. It's not exactly intentional so I can't say that I really have guts. It's just who I am.

Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song...

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:26:00 +0000

I have in the past made a lot of jokes about meeting people online and how it's impossible to tell anything about someone from their online profiles aside from their favorite music (and books and movies and television). In fact I went so far as to post a facetious profile on the Yahoo personals saying as much (well, actually kind of saying the opposite, but...you know...irony and all that).

I just didn't think someone's taste in music said much about them, or I didn't think that I thought that. It's come to my attention recently that I actually put a lot of weight on a persons taste in music. Maybe more than any other single factor.

Also, the truth is, with my songs of the day, I was hoping to tell someone something about me. I said before that their purpose was to keep in touch (and that's true, and it was pretty effective) but also there was someone I didn't know very well and, while I wanted to get to know him better (probably because he had such great taste in music), more than that, or at least as much as that, I wanted him to get to know me better and I thought a good way to do that was songs of the day.

Being totally honest with myself here, the first time I saw him, the first thing I noticed was that he was wearing a Social Distortion shirt, and one of the first conversations I had with him he was talking about seeing the Who live (a subject that I continue returning to, by the way, as seeing the Who live was one of the defining experiences of my adult life). Is it any wonder I wanted to get to know him better (and wanted him to get to know me better)?

Since I didn't actually send the songs of the day daily I often tried to tie songs together with a theme (the Diablo series, or the Chicks Rock series, or the Cheesy Romance series, etc), but with very few exceptions, I didn't really explain why I'd chosen the songs. Once he asked me how I picked them and I told him the same vagueness that I said here (that sometimes they were my favorites, sometimes songs I thought he'd like, or ones that reminded me of him, or songs to suit my moods, and sometimes they were random).

Sometimes I wonder if he got to know me better because of the songs, or just because of time, or because this blog is kind of tell-all-ish, or if maybe he knew me better than I thought already. I tend to believe that there is something fundamental about my character that some people just "get" and others don't and it isn't a matter of them knowing my favorite songs, or even my life story they just get it or they don't.

I like music. A lot. But it's a funny thing, you know. Some songs I like because because of the lyrics (they tell stories, or they make me feel something, or they describe something I have felt), some I like because of the music (they have interesting melodies, or just catchy ones, interesting arrangements, or use of unexpected instruments, etc.), and sometimes I just like a song for no reason that I can identify. Just like the songs of the day...

January 11th - In Gods Country (U2) - Well, U2 is one of my favorite bands, but that's not why I picked this one, he was in Israel (i.e. Gods country)
February 2nd - Never Been to Spain (Three Dog Night) - One of my favorite songs and at that point I hadn't ever been to Spain.
March 6th - Why Don't We Get Drunk (Jimmy Buffett) - I generally put my Zune on shuffle all the time and this song seemed to come on just as I was arriving at class, not every time, but enough times to be considered an interesting coincidence (if you believe in coincidences)
March 7th - Thrill of It (Robert Randolph) - I'd been to see Robert Randolph play at the Showbox that night.
March 12th - Then I'm Gone (Supersuckers) - I thought the titled was fitting since that was the day I left for Switzerland.
March 14th - Old College Try (Mountain Goats) - I thought he'd like this band and this is one of my favorite songs by them. It contains one of my favorite song lyrics ever ("in the way those eyes I've always loved, illuminate this place, like a trash can fire in a prison cell")
March 17th - Fiesta (the Pogues) - This song reminds me of him. He likes it, we talked about it.
April 20th - I Want to Break Free (Queen) - I'd been to see We Will Rock You in London that day
April 25th - Pints of Guinness Make Me Strong (Against Me!) - this was a band he'd recommended to me (that I love), and I'd been in Dublin.
May 7th - Love the One You're With (Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young) - A lyric from which was the title of my blog that week.
May 13th - Jack and Diane (John "Cougar" Mellancamp) - A song I had stuck in my head that day, which I'd had stuck in my head before thanks to him (and thanks to a blizzard which got me snowed in where I was house sitting with among others a Jack and a Diane)
May 22nd - Bring it on Home (Led Zeppelin) - My second favorite Led Zeppelin song. My favorite is Over the Hills and Far Away (song of the day February 18th).
June 9th - Graduated (John Haitt) - This one is pretty self explanatory...it was the day I graduated.
July 21st - It's Only Me (Wizard of Magicland)(Barenaked Ladies) - The day the new Harry Potter book came out

That's just a dozen or so songs (out of over 400). There are, of course, more like these, that I chose for specific (and for the most part fairly obvious) reasons, but in a list of 400 songs, the ones with clear meanings (to me) are the minority. And even the one's with clear meanings...well...

I just wonder, does it really stand to reason that music is somehow a window into my personality?

Broken hearts (and bones)

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:34:00 +0000

I spoke a few days ago about heartbreaking bike crashes and since then the Tour de France has witnessed a couple of them.

In stage Fifteen Oscar Pereiro crashed on a switchback decent, he went over the edge and fell down to the road (when it switched back) below. Easily, that could have been fatal and it wouldn't have been the first fatal crash in the Tour. There have been three fatal crashes in the Tour (most recently Fabio Casartelli in 1995, also in stage fifteen). In fact, at first it looked like this was a fatal crash. The riders slowed down when they passed Pereiro, laying motionless on the pavement. His teammates stopped to check on him, of course. Miraculously he survived with only a broken arm (shoulder or elbow, I'm not entirely sure).

In stage Sixteen John Lee Augustyn crashed on another steep decent. He was fine, but unfortunately he lost his bike and had to wait several minutes for his team car to come with a replacement bike.

Augustyn, the youngest rider in the peleton this year (he'll be twenty-two next month), is riding in the Tour de France for the first time. On the final climb (the highest in the Tour) he dropped all of the top climbers in this years Tour. He accelerated about half a kilometer from the summit and no one could stay on his wheel. Just a few minutes later, on the decent, he crashed and had to do some fancy climbing up the nearly sheer face of the mountain to get back on the road. His bike though was lost and since his team was down to only a few riders by that point they're only allowed one team car and it was following behind the rest of the peleton (about seven or eight minutes behind him).

Crashes in the Tour are often dramatic, but these two are even more so than usual. They really highlight the danger involved in professional bike racing.

The Zen Tour Fan

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:43:00 +0000

Since my personal life has become more complicated than I'd like I've decided to focus my blogging on the Tour de France.

Not that my feelings about the Tour are simple this year either. You see, my favorite team (CSC) lost a rider in the off season. In fact, they lost my favorite rider. Dave Zabriskie switched to the Garmin-Chipotle team. He's not riding in the tour though, so I suppose I'm still free to cheer for Team CSC, and they've got a decent shot, with Frank Schleck, at winning the Tour. He's likely to lose time in the next time trial, but there are still a couple more mountain stages where he could gain enough time to offset the losses he'll see in the time trial. As it stands now he's only got 8 seconds on Evans, 38 seconds on Menchov, 39 on Vandevelde, and 49 on Sastre. Since Carlos Sastre is probably (technically) the CSC team leader, I don't think Schleck would mind losing to him. He lost a minute forty-seven to Evans in the previous time trial which was only about half as long as the upcoming one. Menchov and Vandevelde got time on Schleck in the time trial as well (both weren't far behind Evans).

I suppose I'd also like it if an American to won it. Even though I'm a huge fan of the CSC team and of the Schleck brothers, I'd love to see Vandevelde (who's racing on, the American sponsored, Garmin-Chipotle team as well), win this year.

My loyalties as a cycling fan are difficult to define. Its not like there's a home town team to root for. Although Tyler Farrar of Garmin-Chipotle is from Washington, he's not on their Tour team this year. You can bet, when he is I'll be rooting for him because he's local and because I have the added benefit of having met him and seen him race a bunch locally before he joined a pro team. Obviously, I have a certain amount of national loyalty. I like to see Americans winning races.

Beyond that, I couldn't say why I root for certain riders. I prefer the classics to the tours so I tend to like sprinters, and classics riders more than grand tour contenders. Also, it's not as much a situation where I like rooting for the underdog (like in baseball). I like winners, but I also like guys who seem laid back, whether they win or lose they say in the interviews something like, "Yeah it was/would have been great to win, but it's just a bike race". I like Tom Boonen, despite his resent arrest for cocaine, for all those reasons (i.e. he wins a lot, mostly in sprint stages or one day classics, and doesn't seem to care one way or the other), but I also like the way he looks in spandex so who's to say which of those are the reason I root for him.

This year...I guess I'm just enjoying watching the race and not really invested in the outcome so much.

Welcome to my life...

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:35:00 +0000

I've been thinking about getting a tattoo for a long time, so long in fact that it's kind of a joke. Likely I'll go on thinking about it forever and never actually do it. Of course, I thought about getting my belly button pierced for ten years before I finally did it, so I guess I shouldn't say never.

When I was younger I couldn't think of anything that meant enough to me to tattoo on myself and I can't imagine getting a tattoo that didn't mean something to me (in fact I can't imagine getting one unless it meant a lot to me, maybe everything). I finally came up with something I might want to get a tattoo of but then I got stuck on the irony of getting a Hebrew letter tattoo. It seems to be on other peoples minds as well because I've read no less than 5 articles in the last year about the Jewish prohibition of (or, depending on who you ask, aversion to) tattoos, the latest in today's New York Times. Apparently it's not as ironic as I would have thought, or if it is that isn't stopping people from doing it.

So, with that objection out of the way, I'm forced to face a much more difficult one. The thing is, I'm afraid people will think I'm not Jewish enough to brand myself as such. The truth is I don't think I'm Jewish enough. There are two pretty simple tests of Jewishness. One is, do you practice the religion, and the other is, do you have a Jewish mother and my understanding is that they are mutually exclusive. The Orthodox rule is that if you have a Jewish mother then you are Jewish. The Reform rule is that if you were raised practicing Judaism you are Jewish. The first takes a view of Jewishness as race (more than religion) and since I'm not big on organized practice of religion I guess that's the view that I should subscribe to, and that's the only view under which I am Jewish at all and even then I'm a couple of generations of mother's away from anyone that actually practiced the religion...but since that view doesn't really take into account religious practice, just blood ties...well you see why I'm hesitant.

Race is a tricky thing to get a handle on. Maybe there was a time when it was easy, black and white (pardon the pun), but now, at least here, the lines are a little more blurry. I have enough trouble just figuring out my own racial identity much less wondering about other people's lineage.

I recently found out that my great-grandfather (my father's mother's father) was from Finland, Swedish, but from Finland. This is actually not uncommon because the Swedes occupied Finland for quite a while and many of them still live there and identify themselves as Swedish Finns. Presumably that means they identify Swedish as their race and Finnish as their nationality. If that's true, and it seems to be, then it doesn't seem that easy to just lump all the people of European nations into one race, but that's another blog really.

Americans have racial versus national identity issues, perhaps, more than most nations. We're an immigrant nation and like it or not, believe it or not, we really are a melting pot. People came here and though they cut their ties to their home nations they can't sever all ties, some things are in their blood. So now we have Italian Americans, and Irish Americans, and Swedish Finnish Americans, and African Americans, etc, etc, and more to the point, combinations.

A combination is what you might call me (English, Irish, Danish, Dutch, Swedish Finn, either Native American or African, Irish again, Italian, Russian Jewish). So, which of those things should I identify with? Even if I answered that question it still wouldn't bring me closer to getting my tattoo. It would probably just give me more tattoo options (perhaps a shamrock), and we all know how great I am at making decisions.

The breakfast of the indecisive

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:09:00 +0000

I have another blog which I haven't posted on in months. It was created primarily to update friends and family about my trip to Europe last year and to talk about concerts and theater. I decided to fold the theater and concert bits in to this blog (sort of) and phase out the other blog (unless I take another extended trip) but even though I haven't posted on it in more than six months I still get stat reports on it and for a long time it was getting more hits than this one despite the lack of new content there. Most of those hits are coming from Google Images, and of those hits coming from Google Images most are from this picture:

That is a full (proper) English breakfast and I photographed it for several reasons. First of all, I promised a friend of mine that I'd take pictures of all my food on that trip, though in truth I rarely did and had it not been for the other reasons, probably still wouldn't have in this case. The second reason was a guy I met in Munich. He was from Scotland and was constantly complaining about not being able to find a proper breakfast in Germany, I told him I'd order one when I got to London and I promised to eat all of it, even the black pudding, and I took a picture of it both to prove myself (there's also pictures of me eating it for proof) and to make him jealous. The third reason I took this picture has to do with my inability to make even the smallest decision. You see, at greasy diners in the UK (and Ireland), you can walk in and order a full breakfast and cup of tea and they just bring this to you no further questions asked. You don't have a choice of meats, or a choice of toast, or a choice of teas. It's just breakfast and a cup of tea. I love the simplicity of that, even if I don't love baked beans for breakfast, or black pudding ever (unless I forget what's in it).

I love this picture, of course, for the reminder it is of all those things and more, but I don't think it's the best picture I've taken. In fact it's neither the most interesting subject I have pictures of on my other blog, nor the best photo.

There's this picture:

This is the sunrise over Lago Majora. First of all I would imagine Lago Majora to be a frequently searched term as it's a popular resort area of southern Switzerland/northern Italy and also a key location in a famous work of literature (Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway). Also this, I think, is a nice picture. It's one of my favorites. Of course it means something to me as well. I couldn't sleep when I first got to Europe. I should have been exhausted but for the first week or so, I just couldn't sleep in, and was up before dawn everyday. Like kids on Christmas eve who are too excited to sleep because they can't wait to tear into their presents, every day of that trip was a gift that I couldn't wait to tear into. So, yes, the picture means something, but a) so does the picture of my breakfast and b)I would expect this picture to be a more interesting subject (to people who aren't me) and a more visually appealing picture than my breakfast.

I also have pictures on that blog of Robert Randolph playing at the Showbox:

and the Mountain Goats and Pony Up at Triple Door:

Okay, those two aren't especially great pictures, but they are more interesting subjects than my breakfast.

I have all sorts of pictures there, pictures of Bellinzona Castle, Schloss Neuschwanstein, cute animals, cathedrals and landmarks across Europe, not to mention boys in bike shorts,

but what people seem interested in is the picture I took of my breakfast.

Heart and soul

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

They have these interesting commercials on Versus this year to accompany the Tour de France. Essentially they are ads for their own tour coverage, but the ad campaign is called "take back the tour", and the slogan, which is more manifesto than ad slogan goes, "screw the dopers, politics, and critics, the false allegations and fair weather fans; they ripped the soul out of this race, but the tour doesn't belong to them...it belongs to us."

There are several of these ads. One that just shows a rider coming up one of the harder climbs in the Tour, through a tunnel of fans and has the above slogan flash across the screen. Another that has reverse footage of some of the famous riders who've been caught doping (or were suspected to be doping) set to Paul Weller's Brand New Start.

They're a little cheesy, and a little too obvious in their design, but I have to admit one of them gets to me a little. There's one that shows crashes with a voice over saying that in a sprint finish they're going an average of 40-45MPH and on a mountain descent up to 50-60MPH and then says "next time you're in your car at 50 miles an hour, strip down to your underwear and jump out the door, that's what it's like to crash in a professional bike race"

There are, of course, a few reasons this ad strikes a chord with me. I did spend several years of my life loving a bike racer and, in addition to washing jerseys, and making smoothies, and grilling chicken, and baking cookies, and standing by the side of the road to cheer and hand him fresh bottles of water, I also played nurse maid to a few cases of really bad road rash and worried constantly about the possibility of other, far more dire consequences of bike crashes.

However, lately I'm thinking that the main reason this particular ad might really get to me is because I seem to have more than my fair share of empathy. The past few years some of my friends have been spectacularly mistreated by other friends, spouses, or exes and I, of course, have a lot of sympathy and/or empathy for them, but remarkably I find myself really feeling sad for the people dolling out all the hateful behavior. I'm saying to my friends, who are in pain, how bad I fell for the person who caused them that pain. The really sad thing, I say, is that they can't love anyone, least of all themselves. Imagine how low their self esteem must be, how afraid they must have to be to not even be able to accept love from someone without having to stomp it out(to say nothing of giving love to anyone). I have friends that are so close they're like family to me and so, when I see people who don't really have friends at all, they have acquaintances, or worse "contacts", but no real friends, no real love in their lives, I feel indescribably sad for them.

I know at first glance these two things might seem unconnected (physical pain vs. emotional pain), but if you've had any close contact with bike racers, if you've seen them lose the race lead due to a crash, or have to abandon a race due to a crash, you know the physical pain of their injuries pales in comparison the the emotional pain of coming so close to something and then having in snatched away. You see guys crying when they have to abandon the Tour and I can almost guarantee they aren't crying because of injuries (at least not entirely, or even mostly, because of their injuries)...okay, I can't say for sure that those tears aren't caused purely by physical pain, but if I were a betting woman (and who am I kidding claiming not to be), my money would be on those tears being, at very most, 40% caused by physical pain and 60% by disappointment.

A prime example would be Tyler Hamilton, who's superhuman pain tolerance is legendary, when he had to abandon the 2004 Tour. My guess would be on an even greater disparity, more like 70-30 or even 80-20, between the disappointment and the physical pain. When they have to abandon Tour riders are almost always crying or clearly trying very hard not to. Even Jonathan Vaughters seemed close to tears when he had to abandon the race in 2001 because he'd been stung by a wasp (which he was violently allergic to) and couldn't take anything for it and also stay in the race because the treatments for such an allergic reaction are banned substances. Dave Zabriskie didn't have to abandon the race (at least not right away) when he crashed in the team time trial, but when he crossed the line, alone, his skin suit all torn up, looking down, he looked so sad, it broke my heart. But maybe my heart breaks a little too easily.

You're my...protagonist?

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:07:00 +0000

From my last post you probably picked up on my pre-occupation with character arc. I took some screenwriting classes several years ago and my classmates and I got into a spirited debate about character arc in action films. There's a pitfall that action films often fall into because people (including, often, writers) equate the character archetypes of "hero" and "protagonist" thereby writing stories that have no one, no character, driving the plot. You see, a hero doesn't have to have arc, and often they don't. The example our professor used to illustrate this concept when defining all the character archetypes at the beginning of our course was James Bond. Bond is not the protagonist in the Bond films. He's the hero. He never changes, his goals and motivations remain static from beginning to end of each film and across the entire series of films. According to my prof the Bond girls are usually the protagonists in those stories.

Spiderman would be a good example a story, or series of stories, where the hero is also the protagonist. You can see though, how it might be easy to write a story with a hero and no protagonist (and therefor no plot) and if you're a lover of action films (like I am) you can probably name, without much effort, a dozen or so films that fell into this trap.

Someone in the class had the audacity to criticize one of my favorite films for this very problem, and I had to set him straight. The film is Armageddon and he believed that Harry (Bruce Willis' character) was trying to do double duty in the story as both hero and protagonist, and he felt that the character didn't really change enough. His claim was that the only difference at the end is that he has come to trust AJ (Ben Affleck's character) more and he didn't think that was enough of a change. I, of course, disagreed and here is what I had to say about it at the time:

I think the change that Harry goes through in Armageddon is multi-faceted. However, trusting AJ was the essential change because it was his passing of the torch, admitting that he couldn't do it all by himself now and that someday (much sooner than he realized) he wouldn't be around to run things anymore, either in the drilling business or in his daughter's life. He had to trust someone to take over for him. Also, he started to trust the captain as well, whether it seems this way to most or not, I think that in attacking the guy the way he did, that whole exchange was about both those characters overcoming their distrust of each other in order to work together and get the job done. The thing about Harry was that he was a control freak and that control was being taken away from him, he couldn't control the asteroid, he couldn't control his daughter, he couldn't control AJ, he couldn't control his crew, he couldn't control the astronauts and in the end he had to let go of it all.

Also, if you want to get deep into the psychology of that character, his goal was not to save the world his goal it was to protect his family which consisted of his daughter and, though he wouldn't admit it, AJ. In the end his putting trust in AJ,his realization that AJ was part of his family, his passing the torch to AJ was the fulfillment of his goal, he saved the Earth and accomplished his real goal which was to protect his daughter, he left her in the best possible hands. I think you aren't looking deep enough at the protagonist's goal. It's more complicated than saying that in Armageddon the goal is to save to world, in Jaws the goal is to kill the shark (or save people from the shark), in Batman the goal is the defeat the villain. Save the world, kill the beast, defeat the villain, those are the action in action films but the real story is why our protagonist feels compelled to do those things or why they are reluctant or what do they really want.

I think that all Harry wanted in the world was to protect his daughter and therefore his trusting AJ is the essential change in that story, he realized what she did and didn't need protection from...she did need to be protected from the asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth, but she did not need protection from AJ and in fact AJ being younger and likely to be around longer was better suited to protect her.

I think all of the oil drillers had their own motives for wanting to save the world, none of them had as a goal: Save the World. One guys goal was to get chicks, how? Save the world. Another's goal was to make his ex-wife and kid proud, how? Save the world. Harry's goal was to protect his daughter, how? Save the world, but also pass the torch, trust AJ, realize that it's not always the case that if he wants something done right he'll have to do it himself, that he isn't always the best man for the job and that AJ will be better equipped to take care of her for a longer time than he will.

If you have half a brain

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:05:00 +0000

I'm going to jump ahead and deviate from my existing songs of the day list because sometimes I'm non-linear that way.

The song for today is Escape (The Pina Colada Song) by Rupert Holmes. There are several possible reasons that this song might make the songs of the day not the least of which is that it's an unbelievably difficult to shake earworm (almost as bad as Hotel California but not quite). I saw Wanted on Thursday night and this song has been stuck in my head ever since.

Unfortunately I really have nothing to say about Wanted. It was okay. Lots of action very little plot. I find myself far more fascinated by the actors themselves than the characters they portray which is unusual for me because normally I'm far more captivated by fictional characters than real life ones. There are two really interesting characters in the film (Wesley's father and Fox), but they have very small parts.

In fact, even the song (Escape) has more of a plot than the movie. Two people, already together, but both still looking for that one perfect person. One places a personal ad and the other answers it. Both of those characters have arc, albeit a short, three minute or less arc, but arc none the less.

You see in that story a guy gets bored with his honey and he thinks that the one perfect girl is still out there. He reads a personal ad and it strikes a chord with him. He likes pina coladas and getting caught in the rain. He doesn't like yoga, and he has half a brain. So, he writes his own ad asking the girl to meet him and when she does it turns out the girl from the ad is the same honey he thought he was bored with but he now realizes that she is that one perfect girl he was looking for all along.

Really none of the characters in Wanted have that much of an arc. Wesley, perhaps, is not the same by the end as he was to start, though I would argue that his defining characteristic (i.e. he doesn't know who he is) remains the same. There certainly isn't any compelling evidence that he has any better idea by the end than he did at the beginning. His actions have changed but his motivations really haven't. And the more interesting characters, his father and Fox, definitely don't have arc, they are most interesting precisely for their lack of arc, their stubborn adherence to an ideal that has failed everyone.

In any event, the song was played in the movie and I've had it stuck in my head ever since, now hopefully I've passed it on to some of you.

Blame the writers

noreply@blogger.com (Beth) — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:51:00 +0000

I've been feeling a little creatively stifled lately. For months now. No Inspiration. And in times like these I turn to what I consider the most inspired stories, hoping some of that brilliance will rub off on me. Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night), Amy Sherman-Palladino (Gilmore Girls), Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars), and Joss Wheadon (Firefly, Angel, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

This time I've been watching a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I have this thing about television on DVD. I can't just pick up a DVD an watch one episode, esspecially not one in the middle. I have to start with episode #1 and then over the course of several days, or in the case of a series like Buffy that ran seven seasons, over the course of weeks or months, I watch every episode, in order. So, I've been watching it for a while and it's on my mind.

I have always had an issue with Willow's identity as a lesbian. You see, Willow's first love was a boy, Xander and her second love was also a boy, Oz. Never in the history of literature, film or television has there been a more perfect couple than OZ and Willow. Star crossed, surely, in some ways (he's a wherewolf for one), but perfect none the less. Their's was the ultimate romantic courtship.

Oz knew the first time he laid eyes on Willow, in her head to toe furry Eskimo costume, that she was the one for him. Of course, at that point she was still in love with her best friend (Xander, also a boy). None the less, Oz and Willow began cautiously dating and they hit some obstacles. Oz became a wherewolf and he had to be sure that Willow was really over Xander which took some time. Even though Willow had Oz, she kind of freaked when she found out that Xander had been getting busy with Cordelia in the broom closet.

In that episode Willow asks Oz if he wants to make out:

Willow: (after a pause) Do you wanna make out with me?

Oz: What?

Willow: (looks away) Forget it. I'm sorry. (decides she wants to know) Well, do you?

Oz: Sometimes when I'm sitting in class... You know, I'm not thinking about class, 'cause that would never happen. I think about kissing you. And it's like everything stops. It's like, it's like freeze frame. Willow kissage.

(He nods his head and smiles to himself. Willow smiles over at him. He looks up at her.)

Oz: Oh, I'm not gonna kiss you.

Willow: (confused) What? But freeze frame!

Oz: Well, to the casual observer, it would appear that you're trying to make your friend Xander jealous or even the score or something. And that's on the empty side. (looks off into space) See, in my fantasy when I'm kissing *you*, you're kissing *me*. (looks back at her) It's okay. I can wait.

Oz and Xander are both wonderful guys, and she loves them both a lot, both in many different ways for many different reasons, all of which is well established through both dialoge and action in the show, and neither of these are purely cerebral or emotional attractions.

Oz and Willow finally do kiss, and become a solid couple, but she betrays him with Xander. When Xander and Willow see each other in formal wear they suddenly can't keep their hands off each other. It's a sudden, and physical attraction, and they try to fight it, but they can't and ultimately Cordelia and Oz catch them in a compromising position. And later when Oz has forgiven her (a great scene by the way in which Oz says, "This is what I do know: I miss you. Like, every second. Almost like I lost an arm, or worse, a torso. So, I think I'd be willing to... give it a shot") she's all over him again. When they have sex for the first time she says it's the best night of her life.

The beautiful love of Oz and Willow was tragically cut short by Seth Green's desire to do other kinds of work. While I wish he'd stayed on the show, because he was my favorite character at that point, his leaving was one of the best scenes ever in the show, in fact one of the best scenes of any show. You see, Oz has to leave to tame the wolf that lives inside him, it only comes out at the full moon, but it's always there. He had to go, and Willow, even though she caught him in a compromising position earlier in the episode, doesn't want him to go. She asks him how he can leave, doesn't he love her, and he says that his whole life he's never loved anything else. To me it's more tragic than any other story. Usually in a tragic love story, one or both people die in the end, but here you have two people (or a person and a wherewolf) who love each other more than anything and he has to have the will to leave because if he stays he'll become something that will destory that love (and possibly kill a bunch of people).

That episode has a lot of Willow and Oz in bed together, or references to Willow and Oz in bed together and she seems pretty keen on it. Not the image of a suppressed lesbian, if you ask me.

The thing is, I didn't have a problem with her relationship with Tara. After Oz left, Willow was crushed and it took a long time for her to fully recover. One of the things that helped her finally snap out of it was Tara. Willow fell in love with Tara, she loved Tara just as much as she'd loved Oz and they had great chemistry together. At that point I have to believe that Willow is a girl who puts a premium on love and doesn't care one way or the other if it's with a boy or girl and that was believable.

Willow and Tara's love was also tragically cut short though and in season seven a new love interest was introduced for Willow. Her name was Kennedy and Willow liked her a lot, but didn't really love her, they didn't have a courtship at all. They had one episode in which Willow felt guilty (about killing the guy who'd killed Tara, and about moving on) and, like in a fairy tale, kissing Kennedy brought her back from the brink. But honestly, she looked uncomfortable every time she kissed Kennedy and I don't think that's bad acting. I mean, yes, the actress that played Willow is straight, but she never had a problem making me believe that she loved Tara and liked kissing her. She's a good actress, but it wasn't there in the material she was given. The love that she'd had for Xander, and Oz, and Tara, that was well established, had not been established with Kennedy.

Maybe, while she'd been physically attracted to both Oz and Xander and had loved them both, she found that she preferred women more in general after having a relationship with one and maybe after thre such intense loves she just wanted to have a little fun but I didn't see that on screen.

It's true that if you're writing for film and television you can leave some things in the hands of your actors, or the casting agents. Probably if, in casting Kennedy, they'd put more focus on having actresses read with Alysson Hannigan they might have found someone who she had better chemistry with and that chemistry would have been enough to justify their attraction to each other. However, if the actors don't have any chemistry with each other, and they can both be great actors and still have no chemistry, then the onus is on the writer to show why those two characters are drawn to each other. The story has to justify the attraction if the actors have no chemistry and in the case of Willow and Kennedy the story didn't do it's job. Since she had two clearly great loves that were boys and only one that was a girl and she never looked very comfortable with the one girl she was with after that, she seems to me, a bit like an Anne Heche type lesbian (i.e. someone who, after years of heterosexuality, happened to fall in love with a woman but who just as easily falls in love with men or, basically, she's bisexual).

Clearly I put the blame firmly on the writers' shoulders but maybe I'm too hard on them. Maybe I'm too hard on myself as well. Maybe I should be writing something whether inspiration has hit me or not. Maybe it doesn't have to be good it just has to keep me going. The project I'm working on now, that I've been working on for going on 9 months now and it's gone through several drafts, I started because it was national novel writing month and I didn't want to write a novel (didn't think I could), but I liked the idea of writing something just for the sake of writing, quantity over quality. Like athletes who train in the off season, they don't train at their regular level, they aren't out to set records, but they have to keep in shape. If that was the spirit I started writing in maybe that's the spirit I should continue in.