Celebrate

Today is Mozart's 250th birthday. Enjoy all things Mozart, Salzburg, classical, or prodigy. Pick your celebration. NPR's Talk of the Nation had a delightful show on Mozart's life. Listen in.

Me, I'm celebrating--in a state of shock--that when Brokeback Mountain went wide release, that included Beaumont, Texas. Yes, our one remaining movieplex in town (the other one is a victim of Rita) has four showings a day of the conflicted gay cowboy romance. I almost want to see the movie again in order to see who sees it. What's keeping me from doing that? Fear of homophobes. Not fear of their hurting or judging me, mind you, but fear of the deep sadness that comes over me when in the presence of hatred.

Pointed

Bumper sticker spotted in Houston yesterday made me simultaneously laugh and cringe: Republicans for Voldemort.

Apparently it's an old joke and I missed it. The original comic strip that inspired subsequent stickers and t-shirts actually isn't all that funny. The counterpart at the time was Muggles for Dean. So, who won?

And on an entirely different subject (though I came across it during my investigation into above--I'll let you discover the connection), I found what right now is my favorite avatar (the little picture someone uses to represent them in blogs and chats). It's for some guy named Will. Let the thing run its course. [UPDATE: Sorry, folks, if you are just now coming across this posting. The guy's avatar has changed. It's still fun, but not as fun.]

And while I was in LiveJournal-land, where I actually have another blog (sort of), I made a post. It's pretty amusing, so check it out.

Getting it

To pass judgment is bad. To judge in a discerning way is good. This is what I have recently learned. Well, I suppose I knew that already, but it has been confirmed to me by various religious websites. I was looking for reasons not to be upset with the local NBC affiliate for refusing to air even a single episode of The Book of Daniel. Apparently, KBTV4 is being discerning. So, does the Bible say anything about discernment on behalf of others being bad? Hmm, I'm not getting very far with my arguments. Ironic that I am becoming agitated over the lack of support for my judgmentalism against a station for exercising judgment. Me, who supports acting from your principles and being and doing good. Can anyone say hypocrite?

But I do think it was a closed-minded decision of the station to decide on behalf of its viewers that the show is so offensive as to be harmful. I mean, it must be more offensive than The Biggest Loser (which casts aside its outvoted wieght loss participants and then follows up on their pitiful failures later) and Joey (which is just plain stupid) for the station to take such drastic action.

Okay, I do actually get it, the station's rationale and sense of doing right. They don't see Joey as harmful, fine. And The Biggest Loser harms only itself; viewers might learn something (big stress on might). The Book of Daniel presents a hugely fallible clergyman as worthy of contact with Jesus, who overlooks the man's egregious errors in judgment; some see the comedic stretching of that as disrespectful and the wrong message. I also get that the subject of Christianity is too important to the local affilliate's management to touch, both morally and financially. The untouchable nature of religion makes me uneasy. *sigh*

Why is it so wrong to have fun with cherished parts of our life? Is it not good to laugh at ourselves from time to time? Hey, here's an idea for television: Make a show based on The Life of Brian or Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. An alternative look at the life and times of Jesus with a sense of humor built in. Neither would change my faith or beliefs; they'd just be fun.

I did my student teaching at a religious school and worked under a fabulous nun, Sister Cathy. Not having been raised religiously (funny, that) she was my first meaningful contact with clergy types. She was smart and caring and faithful. She was also irreverent and hilarious. I have a feeling that a show like The Book of Daniel would be must-see TV for Sister Cathy. Not because she would find it funny (I have a feeling the show is not as well written as it could be) but because she would want to give it a chance. She'd take the mocking of religion in stride--she too had qualms about problems in organized religion--and find some humor in the situations. She'd form a thoughtful argument for watching or not and tell her students to do the same.

This seems so right to me, to think. Think about what you do and why you do it. My current bumper sticker says "Don't believe everything you think". Is this so difficult a concept or practice to undertake? Okay, some things I don't get.

UPDATE: Apparently, NBC is removing The Book of Daniel. I suspect controversy did nothing for its ratings or uneven quality.

Standards

Education Week ran a Live Chat with Diane Ravitch this week on the subject of national standards. Ravitch is a conservative analyst and she favors solid traditional schooling that meets needs of every child. She's got high standards for education and all involved. Although politically I might often disagree with her, in educational terms I think she often makes excellent points. Her book Left Back is one of my favorite education texts. Anyway, this week's Live Chat with Ravitch focused on subject standards. The following comment struck me because it is a particular petpeeve of mine. I've got a phone book-sized copy of all the subject standards. To expect that all students--or even any student--would learn all that is contained therein is preposterous. Ravitch's answer points (I think) to a lack of leadership and common sense. Not to mention any appreciation for balance or boundaries.

Question from Lisa Ross, Federal Policy Director, Former Chief Counsel on Education to the US Senate: It's my recollection that when model national standards were developed for various subjects that so much content was included in each subject area that teaching just one of them would take up the whole school day and year. They were developed by groups of subject matter teachers but they were not realistic. How would you propose developing national standards for all subjects that fit into a school day?

Diane Ravitch: I was involved in that earlier effort and I am well aware of everything that went wrong. The effort to create national standards started in the last year of the first Bush administration. The grants were awarded then, but when the standards were written, there was no entity in a position to review them, send them back for revision, insist on paring them down, look at them all together and acknowledge that the amount in them was simply overwhelming. Having participated in standard-writing in various states, I know that one of the biggest problems is what to leave out. There is a lot of old-fashioned log-rolling, where everyone agrees to cut nothing. But if we had a serious and sustained national conversation about what our kids need to know in math, science, history, literature, the arts, etc., then we would also need some oversight, some coordination from the top to make sure that the standards were reasonable as well as geared to high performance. When they are overwhelming in bulk, they can't be taken seriously. Then they are just a wish list.

In response to a later question about barriers, Ravitch acknowledges, again, some common sense problems with no easy solution.

Diane Ravitch: There of course is strong political opposition, based on fear that the standards will be taken over by "them" (whoever you happen to disagree with). The left mistrusts the right, the right mistrusts the left. All of which is reasonable, unless it is possible to create a national entity with real integrity. Having been on the NAGB board, having seen so many people who were dedicated to the well-being of America's children, I think it can be done. But I do not question how hard it will be.

I agree with her, but no one asked me. Nonetheless, I can and do make a difference in this debate. I believe that the little things I do, the people I choose to publicly support, the questions I ask, and the standards of behavior that I uphold and practice, these do make a difference, regardless of who is "in power". It seems to me that people are absurdly afraid of cooperation, hard work, and prioritizing. All I can really do about that bothersome fact is to counteract it.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. -- St. Francis of Assisi

Amen to that.

Measurability

From the introduction to Levitt and Dubner's highly readable book Freakonomics comes this whopper of a statement: Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work--whereas economics represents how it actually does work. Economics is above all a science of measurement.

Anyone out there care to comment?

Pathos

Sometimes the funnies aren't that funny. In the world of editorial cartoons, laughter is the farthest thing from the mind of the artist. Sad chuckles, yes, hearty gut laughs, no. Anyway, the three editorial cartoons I read daily, by Toles, Oliphant, and Sargent, all were good today. But not funny. If you enjoy a good sad laugh with a decidedly left tilt from time to time, check out Santa Cruz's own Comic News. And if you prefer your funnies the old fashioned way...okay, not in the newspaper, but the standard titles and contents, even classic Peanuts is included--go to the Comics.com website. Come on, laugh a little.

Awards

I'm going to create my own awards listing for the movies I've seen that were released in 2005. My top ten:
1. Crash
2. Capote (best actor = Phillip Seymour Hoffman, by far!)
3. Brokeback Mountain
4. Syriana
5. Munich
6. The Squid and the Whale
7. A History of Violence
8. Broken Flowers
9. Off the Map *
10. Pride and Prejudice *

Mind you, I've not seen all the big movies of the year. Here's the list of other 2005 releases I saw:
War of the Worlds
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Wedding Crashers
The 40-Year Old Virgin
March of the Penguins
The Aristocrats
Serenity
Fever Pitch
Kung Fu Hustle
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Thus my top 10 could be adjusted. I can catch King Kong, The Chronicles of Narnia, or Walk the Line in theaters this weekend if the urge hits me. If I hurry and drive around Houston I might still catch Transamerica. I think I've missed theater viewing of Rent and Good Night and Good Luck, and I don't think they'll be out on DVD before Oscars. But a few others I have added to my Netflix queue. Cinderella Man, The Constant Gardener, Junebug, Hustle and Flow, and (woo hoo!) Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Wererabbit. I've got several documentaries on the list too: Parrots of Telegraph Hill, Murderball, and Grizzly Man will likely all see nominations. I could see Woody Allen's London-based adultery drama Match Point in theaters but somehow I have zero desire.

So what are your top 10 movies, of those released in '05? If you need help, check out the official list of Oscar-awardable movies for the year.

*UPDATE: I saw The Constant Gardener and Cinderella Man on DVD this week. I'm not sure where they fit in my list. They are both fine movies, but not top 5. Okay, they become my new #9 and #10. Sorry ladies, it's just not your year in the movies.

FURTHER UPDATE: Hated Match Point. As in, it physically pained me. Walk the Line is interesting but not great. The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill is fabulous--really, I recommend it to everyone. Rent was fine but tolerance for musicals must be high. I just didn't feel all the love for Good Night, and Good Luck. Solid basic history, but not all that interestingly (or clearly) told. IMHO.

Does anyone even care? :)

Jeopardy

Not that you asked, but...
I'll take promises for a thousand, Alex. Apparently all those pent up postings evaporated with the California rains. Contentment could be the cause--I don't have as much to say when I'm content. That seems sad. Is it true that when I talk it is largely a reaction to discomfort? I am often frustrated or wanting when I speak to people. Sometimes even my quiet is riddled with discomfort--the talking is in my head. In social situations I either shut up or babble. It all made me think about when it is that I am truly comfortable. In California it was that the demands placed upon me personally were flexible but clear. I had a lot of quiet time, without the TV or required reading or chores. I suppose it's easy to be content when you're on vacation in an otherwise vacant, fully furnished house with car. There was little if anything to be doubtful about. I had things I might have wanted to get done, but not getting them done would not and has not posed any kind of a problem for me. I recognize that I enjoyed the vacation and do not question my accomplishments during the time. So my contentment seems related to acceptance, pace, simplicity. The first two are fairly easy to incorporate into my daily life. Simplicity might require a bit more work.

A thought for the day (courtesy of Buddha): Wherever you live is your temple if you treat it like one.

Stills

Not that you asked, but...
My eye keeps twitching.
It's rained almost every day of my Nor Cal vacation, and still it's lovely.
I've still not seen Syriana, King Kong, Narnia, or Brokeback Mountain.
My attempt to read Proust faltered after only a few pages.
With all the rain and wandering in and out of houses not my own, I've taken to removing my shoes indoors. It has brought to my attention the fact that I brought with me very few pairs of socks.
My lack of procreation has left me far behind the Joneses.
The pictures in my mind are of a much better quality than the ones I take with any camera.
I am neither redeemed nor rewarded for my taste in end of year cards and gifts, but still I'm pretty proud of my choices this year.
California is not just a state; it's a state of mind. And it's my home.