red fuzzy jesus

iGrowth

About three years ago I got iTunes on my computer for the first time.  Actually it was first on a loaner computer my friends Dave and Katherine leant me for my move to New York.  I was familiar with the program and seen it on others’ computers for years but never considered having it for myself.  There’s a line in Me, You, and Everyone We Know about not having nice things because we subconsciously think we don’t deserve them.  The reason I had never downloaded iTunes was probably similar to that logic.

The first thing I did with the music store on iTunes was download songs common at Psi Upsilon parties during my college years.  This was music I associated with good times and easier living.  In the following months I continued to download a song here and there that helped me recreate that college experience.  It was liberating finding individual titles and not having to bother with an album’s filler songs. 

Since having iTunes I have downloaded literally hundreds of songs.  However, my music purchasing habits have always been tinged with caution.  I have reoccurring nightmares that some arty snobby friend will snatch my iPod and judge me for having this crappy song or that top forty confection on my iPod and forever lose their respect as a person of taste. 

But, in the past year I’ve slowly gotten over that fear.  The fun and ease of a one-dollar single song has allowed me to purchase stuff that pops into my head whether I’m particularly fond of the artist or genre.  I hear a song at the store and start remembering the time when that song was new and eventually I just own it.  The mind has a way of tricking you into wanting something. 

My initial efforts to recreate good times in college have expanded to fond memories in high school and before.  Even if I didn’t like the song at the time, there are certain songs that flood me with nostalgia and I enjoy hearing them now if for no other reason than their ability to transport me back to a particular setting. 

There was that song that was popular when my sister was fighting so much with my parents and I was the good kid.  There was that song we’d always listen to just before cross-country meets that I hated then but now perfectly places me on running trails with friends in autumn.  And there was that music video that was a little risqué that came out around the time erections were new and exciting to me. 

Each little piece of my personal history gets downloaded with a click of the mouse and then I sit and wallow in them.  I listen to some dumb song on repeat and instantly I’m a freshman in high school.  It’s overwhelming to be reacquainted with myself at various stages.  I realize I kind of liked myself all along in spite of whatever joy or drama is recalled by the music.

With this interest in recreating the past musically I have constructed individual playlists.  There’s the 11th grade playlist and the middle school playlist all with songs from each time period I’m targeting.  Again, it’s not about whether I liked the song at the time or even if I like it now.  It’s about what triggers memories and nostalgia -  what was ubiquitous during all those life experiences.

Lately I’ve had a great idea.  I construct playlists with a song from each year in my life starting with my earliest memories of music.  On each of these nostalgia journey playlists I have a song that makes me feel like 7-year-old Gabriel, then 8-year-old Gabriel, all the way up to those fun college party songs and beyond.  And, lately, these have been my gym soundtracks. 

The combination of these experiences is powerful in a way I can’t describe.  Each time I work my way through one of these playlists in order it’s like I grow up all over again.  I make a little stop and greet myself at every year in life by listening to the songs.  Usually I warm up with some light stretching to some cheesy 80s hit my oldest sister used to blast through the house during her adolescence (my early childhood) and finish on the treadmill around Sophomore year at William & Mary.

There is something emotionally fulfilling about working out.  I’m sure there’s a chemical explanation.  Lifting and running releases the same chemical in my brain I experienced while being nursed by my mother or something.  So the good fluids of exercise combined with the sensory overload of using music to review my upbringing provides a real rush of adrenaline and intense self-awareness.  It’s inadequate to describe this experience in words and I’m leery of pretentious psycho-babble like “rebirth” and “self-actualization” but whatever those terms are supposed to provide, this does. 

I’ve heard so many times that there’s nothing new under the sun.  Supposedly technology doesn’t provide us with wholly new experiences but provides tools to do old tasks in new ways.  But I think being able to use individual songs in chronological order to re-grow-up does provide a unique and new experience.  Before the ease of downloading individual songs, if one wanted to reconstruct their past through music they would have to seek out endless whole albums probably no longer available in stores.  And even then it would be awkward to keep changing the CD song to song, year to year.  A carefully pieced together mix tape in high school was as close as you could get. 

I wonder what song will someday put me back in the skin and chagrin of Gabriel version 2007.  It’s difficult to predict what music now will provide the best lens to the past.  But presently I’m loving this new trick.  I just hope this tinkering with my auditory memory doesn’t unlock some repressed trauma from a creepy uncle while I’m exhausting my lats.  That would just be awkward. 

CEO vs. Minister: Election 2008

The election of 2008 is the longest run for president ever.  Eighteen months before the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are held the candidates are campaigning as if they were two months out.  My Sunday morning talk shows tend to be split evenly between two topics; the Iraq mess and sizing up candidates for president.

There are literally hundreds of polls one can access right now that try to make some statement or prediction about the race.  There’s every variation of the direct match-up poll anyone can think of.  There’s Clinton v. Romney.  There’s McCain v. Edwards.  There’s Obama against any unnamed Republican nominee.  There are likeability polls and electability polls.  There are polls with Bloomberg included as an independent candidate – even though he hasn’t announced his candidacy – and there are polls that leave him out. 

None of these polls mean anything right now.  We don’t know enough about anyone to make these numbers significant.  A majority of Americans can’t identify Romney or know anything about him.  If they know one thing about him it’s that he is Mormon.  But then further questioning reveals people know very little about Mormonism and have snap judgments similar to some Freudian word association exercise.  Still, they somehow know they like him more than Senator Clinton. 

About the only poll that matters is the indicator of endurance also known as cash-on-hand.  Obama has pulled way ahead of Clinton in the fundraising department, which threatens her inevitability posture.  And John McCain is pathetically lagging behind and has been forced to cut staff; a near certain indicator his candidacy is all but doomed. 

The hard fast figures of campaign cash provide some useful information at this point but the remainder of the polls does not.  Polls are so easily manipulated that a vs. or a preference poll with unknown quantities and untested candidates is little more than a political 8-ball the news networks are shaking daily.  But, polling could be useful right now if the right questions were asked.

Largely, the nation’s temperature is not being taken.  What I mean is that there is not enough empirical data readily available for 2007 that indicates trends and attitudes.  People are ticked off about the Iraq war and concerned about global warming.  We know these things.  We also know people are fickle and any flavor of the week issue can suddenly spike in import.  What we don’t know and could be gleaning useful information from are attitudes regarding character traits and the degree of pragmatism people are looking for now.

There are many metaphors for the presidency.  Some see the chief executive of the country like the chief executive of a large company.  S/he has to have a specific vision and agenda for the company’s product (standard of living, security, etc.) and budget that can get board (congressional) approval.  Others allegorize the presidency as some limited monarch who delivers edicts for which the legislative branch either has to have the courage to oppose or the patriotism and duty to back.  How we each view the presidency affects how we vote.  Are we looking for a good CEO, a royal, an authoritarian, a friend, a diplomatic negotiator, what? 

In 2000 we wanted a good guy to be our husband and father.  After Clinton’s indiscretions we wanted a good Christian.  We wanted the guy that stood up and said Jesus was his favorite philosopher because he changed his life.  We wanted the guy that said the Bible was his favorite (or only) book and seemed sincere about it.  We wanted the beer buddy who found the lord but, awe shucks, still knew how to have a good time.  We wanted a back slapper who quoted hymns and moral man with a direct line to God. 

In 2004 we wanted someone who would protect us from the terrorists and the gays.  Marriage amendments were introduced in swing states with dire warnings about the fabric of society and God’s hand of protection over our nation.  Everything with which we disagreed was lumped into the label of terrorism and fear was the currency of authority. 

In both elections, we didn’t care if the candidate was a moron as long as he was moral.  We didn’t care if the candidate had any managerial skills as long as he called on the correct higher power.  Now, with the Iraq mess and W’s approval rating sunk lower than Carter’s and approaching Nixon’s bottoms it’s likely we are rethinking our presidential preferences.  There are lots of polls that say people don’t think Hilary Clinton is sincere when she talks about her faith.  There is little data out there that indicates whether one’s faith level and faith label is really going to figure into voters’ decision process this time around. 

It may be my grad school elitist idealism talking or maybe just my bleeding-heart optimism but I really believe a lot of voters are going to care more about who can actually run a country well than who squeezes the Bible the tightest.  There really is a skill set associated with leading a country and being a good hypothetical drinking buddy or knowing the right Christian sloganism doesn’t guarantee you have those skills. 

George W. Bush is not a total idiot.  He’s a near genius at manipulating the religious proclivities of millions of voters.  He knows how and when to invoke God-talk and he does it brilliantly.  But he’s not well read.  He hadn’t traveled abroad prior to becoming president.  He didn’t grasp the difference between Shi and Sunni Muslims before invading Iraq.  He chooses the ideology of tax cuts (for the rich) while ignoring the practical reality of wartime budgeting.  He focuses on moralizing.  Last week he again vetoed the stem cell bill.  The result is that excess embryos will be thrown in the garbage rather than used in medical research.  It’s mind numbingly stupid to think the former is preferable to the latter but it makes perfect sense in Bush world.  We elected someone who puts the demagoguery of “culture of life” above advancing Science and medicine.  Great religious devotion.  Bad governance. 

This time around we just may be looking for someone with intelligence and pragmatism rather than a dad or a minister.  I want my president to run the country well more than I want someone who best reflects my moral ideology.  And I think there are broad statements one can make about voters now that mirror that change in mindset. 

It’s difficult for me to say now who might win or even who I would want to win.  My number one issue is national healthcare.  I know in the recent Democratic debate there was a lot of discussion about the various candidates’ healthcare plans and in the Republican debate there was a lot of discussion about appropriate torture methods.  Coverage of the race right now though does not interest me because there is a deficit of useful information.  I’ll be waiting for Pew Research and Gallop to provide some numbers on attitudinal trends and I’ll be watching candidates to see what they think are their selling parts.   Are you trying to impress me with your church membership or your withdrawal timetable?  Right now all I hear about is fundraising and head-to-heads.  Once the race can be examined from the angle of aggregate attitude then I’ll renew my political junkie membership.  It’s going to be a long campaign season. 

Newsweek's CW

I really like Newsweek's CW this week so rather than provide a link to it I am re-posting it here. 

Newsweek

July 16, 2007 issue -

       

Bush Old CW: Don't need advice, Poppy, I know best. New: Hey, Dad, can Vlad and I come to Maine for a summit? Cheney Bad enough that (as Wash. Post nailed) he's totally in charge. What's worse is he's always wrong. Libby Loyalty pays off. No jail time for grand-jury lying, and Dubya leaves open the idea of a full pardon. Sweet. G. Brown New British P.M. projects calm at the helm during terror crisis. A soothing presence after stoked-up Tony. Bonds Voting surge puts slugger Barry in All-Star Game at home stadium. If he parks one in the bay, will Selig walk out? Pixar "Ratatouille" gets boffo reviews, but box office is short of Shrekdom. Maybe rats aren't lovable. Paging Mickey.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

SPURN 777

My opening night with Spurn went really well.  It was incredibly fun.  I was nervous right before the show but once it began I just had fun with it. 

Although I rarely combine my political studies with my theatrical pursuits, I cannot totally divorce the two mentally.  After the show I heard a lot of feedback from friends and other audience members I had just met.  Much of what was said was filtered through my own politically infused perspective. 

In any political climate there are always acceptable targets.  From decade to decade, era to era these targets change.  Who was once a favorite punching bag can transition to a taboo protected category.  The rich and powerful are almost always acceptable targets - such as the pile of spite heaped onto to poor Paris surrounding her incarceration - but other identifiers are more transient. 

For example, in the early 90s it was very frowned upon to criticize Asians.  Following the Rodney King riots there was a lot of pro-Asian sentimentality and Asian Americans were almost equated in their plights to African Americans.  Now, it is still known that you need to be careful making fun of black people or using black stereotypes (ahem, Imus) but Asians by and large tend to be an acceptable target of humor.

Now, I have to pause and say my style of humor is based in that which is offensive.  I think it's funny to play with social taboos and say things you know you're not supposed to say as long as I'm not actually hurting someone.  I.e. I think it's funny to make a silly comment about fat girls in the right context but would never call attention to a friend who is self-conscious about her weight.  I also think art is supposed to offend because offense makes you think.  I'm opposed to pretty much any form of language policing and think the political correctness trend of the late 80s early 90s is a dark mark on free-thinking intellectualism.  In brief, I like to make others uncomfortable.

Several Asian friends came to see the show last night and they picked up on something I had not been aware of even though I had rehearsed the show for a month.  According to them, there were a lot of Asian jokes.  In one scene a group of Asian schoolgirls comes to attack an ex-girlfriend.  In a video clip a Chinese baby doesn't know what flavor of Jello he is eating.  And in another scene Asian girls are elevated to a higher level of desirability and a preferred subject of masturbation.  All of this is presented very humorously and only the most over-sensitive Chinese baby would feel offended.  But it did set off an interesting discussion later of identity politics and why some jokes about some groups are automatically funny and others make you squirm a bit more. 

To simplify social research the general population is divided into various group identities.  No one ever has just one group identifier so analysis of this sort is only used to make very limited statements.  One can look at the voting behavior of labor union members vs. managers or Jews vs. Christians but few predictors can be made at an individual level because we're all singularly too complicated.  However, since Reagan identity politics has been an increasingly effective political tool with new categories created to self-fulfill political predictions.  A few examples of these are "soccer moms," "Nascar dads," and "security moms."  Who will get the Hispanic vote or who will get labor's endorsement are all important elements of any campaign.  Much of identity politics has to do with victim status.  There's a hierarchy of who has had it the worst in history and that feeds heavily into who is more deserving of jokes at their expense. 

Throughout the 20th century Asian Americans had high immigration rates and faced a lot of prejudice and bigotry.  The Chinese Exclusion Act wasn't repealed till 1943.  The Japanese internment during WWII is another good example.  However, today the stereotype is that Asian Americans excel in lots of high paying fields and generally enjoy no discrimination or generational perpetuation (the idea that discrimination against a minority group repeats through generations even when formal, legal inequality is repealed).   As such, Asian jokes are less  controversial and, even if there are a few in a show, they can go unnoticed by a cast member.  In today's political climate an Arab joke would stick out a lot more and may generate more discomfort or more laughter depending on how it was delivered. 

Spurn is enjoyable and effective because it plays with the cringe-inducing like a kitten with a ball of yarn.  It's not malicious as much as it is puckish.  It's not safe but it also isn't cruel.  During the rehearsal process I never considered the degree to which it picks at identity politics.  However, after the comments last night I'm thinking more about what makes something funny and how much of that is a reflection of current politics.  By Tuesday I'm sure I'll conclude I'm over-analyzing but for now I'm still  kind of surprised how much identity-based humor my Asian friends picked up on.  It amazes me because I always thought Asians were better at Math than literary analysis.  I guess some things are just clearer through slanty eyes.