I've been doing some reading on our Supreme Court Nomineee, Sonia Sotomayor. During a speech she gave in 2002, addressing the topic of race and gender among the judiciary branch of government, Judge Sotomayor indicated that she felt a person's ethnic and gender background could be enriching to the process of justice.
The opposite position, that of striving for pure neutrality, was something she believed was not actually possible.
Which leads to the Sunday question:
Do you think neutrality is the highest ideal for an individual to strive for in dealing with others? Or do you agree with Judge Sotomayor that the individual histories we bring with us inform our approach and enrich it?
Or do you propose a third way?
I've got three things buzzing around my mind this vle-post chemo day.
1. Newsweek's Redesign: Having concluded that "news" is being covered by the 24/7 blogosphere and news channels, Newsweek has been in the process of reinventing itself as a news outlet. Instead of being a "current news" delivery device, they've moved in the direction of offering commentary, in-depth interviews and profiles.
I like the thinking very much but believe they will be better able to engage their audience in this new format if they break things up a bit more. Intersperse commentary (and woo Quindlan back for heavens' sake) with more in-depth articles. Sprinkle the social commentary fluff-stuff throughout the magazine instead of saving it for the end. A few little tweaks and Newsweek may be onto something. Sorta wish Meacham had been in charge of the automotive industry this last decade or so.
2. My at long last viewing of Shut up and Sing, a documentary about the Dixie Chicks and the "long road" they took to come back from lead singer Natalie Maines' off the cuff comment in London, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, that she was embarassed that the President of the United States was from (her home state) of Texas.
The backlash from that comment (mainly from Country Music fans and the stations that used anti-Chick backlash to whip up some publicity) was brutish, ill-informed, and (as it turned out) dead wrong about the war being the right decision.
The film follows these three incredibly talented performers as they navigate the fallout of Maines' comment and their subsequent choices. There are some interesting nuances to the argument about free speech. It seems like the producers of the film were all for Natalie's free speech but not so much for the free speech of those who disagreed with the Chicks. I've been there, to a much lesser degree, when I wrote about abortion rights and came home to a hateful call on my message machine about being a baby killer. It's hard to support someone's right to free speech when it gets personal.
3. Jon Meacham's interview with President Obama. In it, Obama describes his process for deciding to surge troops in Afghanistan. Listening to the way he approached the problem--taking into account historical contexts and lessons learned by other super powers who ventured there, gathering together people from every agency with something to add to the discussion, listening and asking questions, then demanding answers before making a decision--how refreshing in a Commander-in-Chief.
Those Dixie Chicks, they were right on.
 Earlier this week, I sat down to watch The Broadway Melody, winner of Best Picture from 1929. My review in a nutshell is this: The movie is a must see for cinophiles and film historians or fans of the principal actors. If you don't fit into one of those two categories, you might consider taking a pass.
The reason the film is fascinating from a historical perspective is that it is one of the first "talkies"--so it's located very close in time to silent films and makes a fascinating snapshot of that transition. Some conventions from the time of silent films remain while other issues arise from the relatively new process of sound for film:
1. Scene Cards: Some modern films still use a version of this, giving us a date, time, place stamp to help us locate where we are and when we are. But these are done in the silent film tradition where the screen goes black and a card comes up telling us where the next scene will be located. Interestingly, this is not done for every scene. From this I surmise that the film's director felt the audience might need more help in one place or another.
2. Histrionics: One hallmark of silent films was the tendency to portray emotions in an over the top manner. Again, I surmise that this was done to compensate for the lack of dialog. Since The Broadway Melody was filmed so soon after the transition to talkies began (indeed, it was the first sound film to win Best Picture), it's only natural that the acting needed to convey emotion on a silent screen bled over into the first talkies.
3. Abrupt Cuts: Although this is more due, from my small amount of research, to the fact that cameras were still largely stationary, the film carries over the convention of isolated closeups where the actor is "in" a group scene, but we cut to a shot of them where no other actors are visible while they react to bad news, unwelcome advances, etc.
4. Sound: For the modern viewer, sound quality is very spotty in the movie. Most noticeably, there are instances where loud events are taking place just next to the actors, yet there is no background noise. During some scenes, there are long periods of silence as an actor emotes. And more than a few lines are lost in general hubbub. Again, this all makes sense given the historical context of the filming.
From an artistic point of view, I found little to recommend the film. The only noteworthy song, in my opinion, is "You Were Meant For Me." History bears me out as I believe this song is still frequently performed while most of the others in the film are not. "Give My Regards to Broadway," which is found in many versions of this film, was alas not in mine...and it was an add-on to the musical rather than part of the original.
There is one noteworthy performance during one of the big production numbers, a tap-dancing ballerina who was fascinating to watch.
Of the acting, the only performance I found remotely interesting was that of Bessie Love, the smarter of the two sisters in the "sister act" come to Broadway that the film is purportedly about. Although she has a loyal following, I found Anita Page to be alternatively bland and over-the-top in her performance. Lead actor Charles King did absolutely nothing for me...I couldn't understand why either sister would love him, let alone both.
I enjoyed watching the film as an example of an art form in transition. I'll be very interested to compare it to The Jazz Singer in the weeks to come.
Hello Peeps!
As the topper to my whirlwind non-chemo week, Dan and I played golf with Renee' and Tom today. It was not my most stellar round...and I got a LOT peeved for about 2 1/2 holes...but managed to pull up before a full-fledged blow out.
And even with the anger management issue, it was an enjoyable morning. (I'm allowed to get mad these days. Such a nice change of pace and bit of grace to give myself.)
The weather was cloudy and cool until the last two holes. We ate a great lunch at the club, parted ways and then Dan and I came home to find Bob here. We chatted till Erik got back and pretty much chatting sums up the rest of the afternoon.
We're going to build a meal communally in a few moments (pasta with pesto chicken for me and marinara chicken for the rest) along with sweet potatoes, broccoli and whatever other veggies we can scrounge up.
Tomorrow, Chemo on Tuesday. Which will have joys of its own...seriously. I'll get to see the folks at the office (they're amazing, cheerful, funny folk) and I'll get some reading and maybe even a snooze in.
And I'll remember this past week's awesome memories. Too cool. Hope all of you are having an equally stellar day.
 No backstory behind today's question. I just woke up wondering what I would put in a time capsule. Something that people could look at in 100 years and say, "Ah, I get a sense of the person who put this here and the world that (s)he lived in."
What would be your contribution to my time capsule that communicates a sense of who you are and where we all are on this planet?
Dan and I drove down to San Diego yesterday (after playing golf with Renee' and my brother, Dean...we had a great time playing and I'm pretty sure Renee' beat me even though she didn't gloat). The traffic getting into town was pretty terrible but we managed to be only an hour late hooking up with my chum from Jr. High/High School, Jean Marie.
I was there specifically to see her sweet peas...which had decided to give up the ghost that particular week, according to Jean Marie. But there were still plenty of beautiful flowers and I could envision the sea of sweet peas that she was describing from earlier conversations. And there were more than enough to make a posy for me, which I quite enjoyed. We got to meet 3/5th's of her wonderful family, too. They're all quite delightful.
From there, we hopped on over to Dad and Sally's house, had a little Mexican food with them, and then chatted until a fairly early bedtime. Dan left early this morning to join Dean; Dean's son-in-law, Tim; and our nephew, Matt, for a round of golf.
Dad and I snuck out for a bagel and coffee at Einstein's Bagels. By the time we got back, my other brother, Darrell, was at their house hard at work on putting in their new porch. We got in a nice talk (and threatened to board Dad into the new stairs--we only tease because we love, Dad) before I had to "shower for the Shower."
Then it was the main event--Deanna's Baby Shower. Little Brooklyn Grace is well set for bedding, onesies, fun things like purses and tee ball sets, car seats, diaper bag and a gorgeous handmade decorative cake stand with little faux cupcakes on it. I got to sit with Sally, Pat, June, Candy and Jeanne--all Baldridge gals of one sort or another--and it was very festive. June kept us quite entertained with stories of her bird and of her kids--Ainsley and Avery. The shower was tons of fun and laughs...and the afternoon could not have been lovelier.
We hung out for several hours there and back at Dad and Sally's before tackling the drive home. I drove us back for the first time in quite a while and did just fine. It's a gorgeous early summer evening here...the breeze coming over the hills from the ocean and the sun just about to set.
Which is good timing, since I'm just about to "set" myself. What a wonderful weekend it's been already...and only half over. Hope everyone out there is enjoying their barbeques and beach days...out of town visitors or just hanging with the home gang.
Happy Shower, Deanna (and Tim). Looking forward to welcoming Brooklyn really soon.
A quick blog and then I'm "outie" (as in, headed for bed). It's been a great two days. Yesterday, we were joined by a table-full (a BIG table full) of friends at Shelter Partnership's annual fundraising dinner. Great friends, a good cause, and a night of dress up. All good except for the high heels...and I didn't get blisters so even that was not bad! How I used to wear heels all day and never get blisters (and we're talking HIGH heels), I'll never know.
Today was about recuperating...I was so keyed up last night I couldn't get to sleep until about 2:30 a.m. So I slept in until about 7:00...had a leisurely breakfast over Vanity Fair's article about Bernie Maddox...chatted with Erik (a tremendously fun phone call as we talked about everything and anything)...and then went for a five-mile walk/run where I jogged the most since the surgery. 1200 paces for those keeping score at home.
There were birds everywhere. I saw a Snowy Egret fishing, a Common Tern and a Common Moorhen (with most uncommon coloring...green legs that are red at the top, a red bill with a yellow tip...black everywhere else) along with awkward teenage goslings and gorgeous little ducklings. The walk/jog took me 70 minutes and it felt just great!
This afternoon, I worked on some reading (a friend's novel which has been a joy to read and critique, had a chat with Cindy and fixed dinner for Dan and our friend, Mike. Then we were joined by Jay, Amy, and David...had a blast (which is still going on for them) but I'm off to nighty-night.
I've got some pending research to do on Obama's stance on a few things, courtesy of my friend Steve...with whom I often disagree on things political...so I should blog about Obama's stance on the Gitmo Internees sometime in the near future.
But tomorrow holds more fun. Golf. A visit with my best friend from Jr. High/High School. Down to Dad and Sally's in preparation for my niece Deanna's baby shower. (The real one this time.)
So if I don't blog, don't worry. I'm out having fun. Hope you are, too!
Not to schedule 3 doctor's visits in one day if I can avoid it! Phew. I am beat.
However, there is good news (preliminary) on the scan front. According to a phone call from the tech to the doc, my liver mets (tumors) have continued to shrink. It wasn't quite as dramatic as last time, but shrinkage is shrinkage.
I had a great session with my therapist today also. The lovely Anne Arnold. She really makes me think and inspires me to "high heights" on the ways I'm reshaping my world. Very fruitful.
And yet, the day yesterday ended with Barium and today started with it...so I am down for the count, my friends. And on election day in California, too.
Tomorrow's agenda includes a benefit dinner for Shelter Partnership (driving to LA for that with friends Tom and Renee'). I think I better rest up for the shindig. See you on the flip side!
Driving back from my hour walk with Hal and Charlie this morning, I heard just a bleat of Rush Limbaugh this morning. I could barely believe my ears. Limbaugh was, as usual, trying to get a purchase on Obama's character for assassination. The best he could come up with in the short time I listened was to criticize Obama's urging of young people to "give back" to their communities by opting for government or nonprofit jobs rather than private sector jobs.
If Limbaugh had left it at that, I suppose he could have had a minor point. These kids haven't really earned much yet, so they may not want to give back until they have a few dollars in the bank.
But Limbaugh went on to question the whole concept of giving back. According to him, it's all some sort of guilt trip based on the idea that
a) You cheated somehow to get ahead or
b) You don't deserve what you earned.
Here's a newsflash for Limbaugh and the ditto-heads: Giving back is NOT about guilt or unworthiness. It's not an evil conspiracy to get into your pockets.
People who choose to share their skills, talents or money with those members of our society who need it most are more often motivated by a sense of compassion, of generosity, and a common sense of shared humanity.
Yes, Rush. That's right. You share humanity with all those terrible folks upon whom you look down from your lofty heights. In you, that seems to motivate disdain. In others, it motivates humanity.
We had some house wrens building a nest up in our patio this past week. We knocked down the beginnings of the nest last weekend (because it's just outside our back door and the bird poop doesn't seem like a good idea given my current situation). The birds ignored us and rebuilt.
Yesterday one of the wrens sat and chuffed at Dan as he got rid of this second effort. It feels mean in a way, to deny these birds this place...but we've got a nest out front already with little ones ready to test the air. And health concerns come first these days.
Which leads to the Sunday Question: We read and hear a lot about "boundaries" in today's self-help literature. What does it mean to you to have healthy boundaries?
|
RSS Feed
My StumbleUpon Page