Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« April 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Wednesday, 28 April 2004

Topic: Election Notes

Selling ersatz personal responsibility to the masses...

Another item from James Benjamin, Assistant Professor of Psychology in the Department of Behavioral and Social Science at Oklahoma Panhandle State University. Yes, a minor school in an odd state. But the man is a psychologist, for whatever that is worth. Some readers know that my surly cat Harriet - and photographs of her appear regularly on this site - was named after a prominent psychotherapist here in Los Angeles - the author of Lethal Lovers and Poisonous People: How to Protect Your Health from Relationships That Make You Sick. The trendy psychotherapist Harriet is no longer with us, and the feline Harriet is no psychotherapist. But Benjamin is, indeed, a psychologist.

Anyway, here are Benjamin's comments on George Bush. Of course he's discussing how the mantra of the right, the conservatives whom we have gladly chosen to lead us in these troubling times, is personal responsibility. The essence of political theory, economic theory, and of morality, is contained one core concept - owning up to one's choices. Benjamin comments that time and time again, we find this is all empty words.

Here's his point -
Maybe it isn't so much that Bush failed to finish his commitment to the National Guard. Maybe the issue is broader: that the man has a consistent pattern of behavior that makes him far from presidential material. That pattern: using family and friends' influence for personal gain, failing miserably, and then getting said family and friends to bail him out. Over and over again.

If Republicans want to claim that character counts, that's cool. But, here's the rub: their guy in the White House has an enormous character flaw. He cuts and runs when the going gets tough or if it interfers with nap time or his golf game. And he hides behind his friends, expecting them to fix whatever he broke. In the lingo of counselors, psychotherapists, social workers, and leaders of self-help groups there is a word to describe those who consistently bail this guy out time and time again: codependent. Makes for very dysfunctional family dynamics. As we've seen these last four years, it also makes for very dysfunctional governing.
Ah, spoken like a true psychotherapist. GWB as codependent. Curious.

Benjamin then quotes John Kerry on the MSNBC show "Hardball" this week speaking on such matters:
"I've never begrudged people the choice that they made, but once you've made a choice, I think you have a responsibility to honor the choice that you made."
Say what?

There's something strange going on here. Kerry, what with volunteering for Vietnam and doing his duty, was acting the way George Bush says "good people" should act. Bush, and Cheney too, by ducking the Vietnam business in spite of their enthusiasm for that war, were not. But most people see Bush (and Cheney) as paragons of accepting personal responsibility (perhaps because they chat up the idea so much) - and thus Bush is sure to be elected to another four-year term. He says what he means. He does what he says. No one can change his mind - because of his rock-solid convictions and deep Christian faith. He knows he is doing God's will.

The fellow who actually did what he said he'd do and didn't ask for any favors? He's the fellow with no "personal responsibility." He even (gasp!) now than then changes his mind. He ended up thinking that war we had in Vietnam was a really bad idea. But he went, and he did his duty. Irresponsible? That's how he is being defined.

So Bush is responsible and Kerry is not. We've all seen the flood of television advertising telling us that. And people buy it - with relish. A neat trick.

How did that happen? This is just one of the wonders of careful, targeted advertising and well-thought-out public relations. It works.

Posted by Alan at 15:46 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Tuesday, 27 April 2004

Topic: Oddities

Nothing new here today

Here?s why ? the second day of this stuff:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA
530 PM PDT TUE APR 27 2004

...PRELIMINARY RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES FOR APRIL 27 2004...

Location - high today - previous record...

BURBANK 100 - 89 SET IN 1972
CHATSWORTH 102 - 96 SET IN 1992
LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN USC 102 - 94 SET IN 1881
LOS ANGELES AIRPORT 93 - 82 SET IN 2000
LONG BEACH 99 - 90 SET IN 1992
PASADENA 99 - 92 SET IN 1992
UCLA 98 - 84 SET IN 1992
This site, halfway between USC and UCLA as shown above, will reopen tomorrow.
It?s supposed to be cooler.

Posted by Alan at 21:43 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Monday, 26 April 2004

Topic: Oddities

The Revenge of the French Against America

See this item:
Joel injured in third car accident in 2 years
Slightly hurt; no evidence of alcohol or drug use, police say
The Associated Press - Updated: 9:28 a.m. ET April 26, 2004
BAYVILLE, N.Y. - Singer Billy Joel was involved in his third car accident in two years Sunday when he slammed into a house on a wet road on Long Island. No one was seriously injured.

There was no evidence that alcohol or drugs were involved and Joel was not suspected of any crime, said Nassau County police Officer Joan Eames.

Joel suffered a small cut on a finger but refused medical attention, Eames said.

Joel was alone in the car, and no one in the house was injured, police said.

Thomas Phillips Jr. was on his front lawn when he heard the crash and went over to see what happened.

Joel "seemed embarrassed that he lost control of the car," Phillips said. "He said, `I can't believe I got in another accident.' He was just going out to get a pizza."

A call to Joel's publicist, Claire Mercuri, was not immediately returned.
Well, here's the real reason for this crash - an odd French car, actually a classic. No wonder he was embarrassed....


Posted by Alan at 09:43 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Sunday, 25 April 2004

Topic: The Culture

Religion (Christ and the Pythons)


I have sent a note to my friend in Chicago that she should keep an eye out for something at the Shubert Theatre there in December - the stage adaptation of the "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" film, in its pre-Broadway work-out-the-rough-spots run. As it is, Eric Idle of the Monty Python troop lives near me out here in Los Angeles and writes today about his other legendary film, "The Life of Brian," about to be re-released - and of course he comments on Mel Gibson's Jesus film, wishing Mel Brooks had made it, not the odd Gibson fellow.

See Recalling the view, such as it was
Monty Python's messiah relives his days on the cross, as "Life of Brian" returns to the big screen. Call it crucifixion lite.
By Eric Idle - Special to The Los Angeles Times, April 25 2004

Idle opens with this:
I was crucified once and frankly I don't recommend it. It's a scary experience, especially when you find John Cleese next to you, and there's that odd Graham Chapman smoking a pipe, and Terry Gilliam is complaining about the shot and Michael Palin is nattering away to everyone in particular.
Idle goes on to explain that even though he was singing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" that there was something a bit chilling about turning up first thing in the morning and finding a cross with your name on it.

No doubt.

Idle discusses filming "Life of Brian" in Tunisia and how it came about. It seems George Harrison, hearing that the Monty Python group had been dumped by EMI, mortgaged his home and put up all the money because, he said, "he wanted to see the movie." It was a whim, so to speak.

But the movie is back.
Now, thanks to Mel Gibson and his holy snuff film, you're going to get a chance to see the second coming of "Life of Brian," a movie that was made during the lifetime of three popes. (Two died and two were elected during the eight weeks of location shooting.) I haven't seen Mel's film "The Passion of the Christ" -- I am a lapsed anti-Catholic -- but I gather that Mel doesn't handle the comedy too well, and he seems to totally ignore the singing opportunities of the crucifixion altogether.

... Personally I think that the wrong Mel made it and that it should have been done by Mel Brooks, though I suppose if Mel Gibson had done "The Producers" we would have had to sit through 40 minutes of Nathan Lane being flayed alive. How appropriate that Mel's long and violent film should be replaced at the box office by a horror film ("Dawn of the Dead"). Actually we were planning a rerelease long before the whole Mel thing, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the movie, for which reason Vanity Fair recently photographed us all in our coffins.
And Idle gives more detail of how this Grail of the Pythons movie came about - which is, of course, idle detail. (Sorry.)
Brian began life as a bad joke at the opening of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" in New York. When asked what our next movie would be I ad-libbed glibly "Jesus Christ, Lust for Glory." This struck a chord in the collective unconscious of the Pythons. It was such a naughty idea to even contemplate a comedy about religion that it was virtually irresistible. For a start there was a totally clean palette. No one had done any biblical gags since the Medieval Mystery Plays. Secondly we had all been dragged up in British schools with compulsory attendance in the Church of England and had been subjected to the peculiar tedium and hypocrisy of that church, founded by an adulterous king to escape a tedious wife. This would be a wonderful way to get back at our tormentors.
So, is Idle anti-religion?

No. Not really.
Now I have nothing against Jesus Christ; what he says is actually great: forgiveness, love one another, peace on Earth, turn the other cheek -- all are excellent principles, and if only more Christians would practice them the world wouldn't be in such a mess today. Our current crusaders, with their anxiety to strike the other cheek, first seem to be closer in philosophy to Reg the Revolutionary: "What Christ fails to realize is it is the Meek that are the problem." Oddly enough, although almost all religious bodies came out and attacked the movie, thereby ensuring it was a hit, the Communists and Lefty Revolutionaries left us alone, although the French did complain a lot about our movie not being blasphemous. But then they are Catholics.

... I'm an Alzheimer's agnostic: I can't remember whether I don't believe in anything or not.

However I do believe religions are the cause of most of the problems in the world today and there should be a moratorium on the use of the G-word. I think it should be replaced by something less controversial that we can all agree on. Like Chocolate.
Well, the whole item here is cute in this way. Some won't see it as cute at all.

I suppose the Times will now get a flood of angry letters and the pious, born-again, love-Bush, love-the-war, love-Jesus, hate-the-Muslims crowd will cancel their subscriptions. Let them. We don't live in a puritan theocracy just yet.

Posted by Alan at 22:15 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Saturday, 24 April 2004

Topic: In these times...

Looking Back and Looking Forward

On January 25, 2004 in Just Above Sunset there is a review of a new book - see 1968 - Annus Mirabilis - except for the riots and assassinations...

The book is this:

1968: The Year That Rocked the World
Mark Kurlansky, Ballantine Books; 1st edition (December 30, 2003)
Hardcover: 464 pages ISBN: 0345455819

David Aaronovitch just read the book and seems to think we're there again.

See this:

Year the music died
In 1968 we thought we could change the world. But we didn't change that much.
David Aaronovitch, The Observer (UK), Sunday April 25, 2004

Here's take on the year...
These days, 1968 is principally remembered as a year of street demonstrations and hipness. It was the year of the Guevara icon, the year that the Yippies turned up to the Democratic convention in Chicago planning party games such as 'Pin the Rubber on the Pope'. It is fascinating now to see how, in so many places, the cause was different but the cast was similar.

In France the May student revolts (which killed practically nobody) seem in retrospect, says Kurlansky, to have been as much about the boredom of life in a wealthy, provincial democracy, run by an elderly, arrogant war hero. The 'revolution' was sexy, creative and largely without demands. It was as much about the end of deference as anything else. Over in China students were also having fun at the expense of their professors, tying hats to them, covering them in paint and forcing them to denounce themselves as part of the great Cultural Revolution.

Forty-nine per cent of the French, one year after the Six-Day War, thought that Israel should annex all the land it had conquered. Only 19 per cent thought that it should give everything back. In Poland protesters waved Israeli flags, because their government was pro-Arab - in Berlin they burned them because their government was pro-Israeli. In London we protested against an American war, in Cairo students demonstrated in favour of an Arab one. Only in Czechoslovakia that spring was anybody demonstrating in favour of their government.

Just as in 1956, there was a cold war symmetry. The Russians suppressed the quiet Czech revolt, and put an end to the illusion that there was any radical potential remaining in states ruled by 'existing socialism'. And the Americans began 1968 to the sound of the Tet Offensive, which showed that there would never be a settlement on their terms of the conflict in Vietnam; 14,000 Americans were killed that year.
Yep, that's how I remember it too.

Aaronovitch says that reading Kurlansky one sees both the parallels and non-parallels with Iraq.

Really?

There's "the danger of believing what you want to believe, that all opposition is communist or Baathist, that if you just hold out a while then things will come good."

I wish that didn't sound so familiar. But Aaronovitch points out there is no North Iraq, no coherent Iraq Liberation Front, and no great desire on the part of Iraqi people that there should be one. "The lesson could be that Iraq isn't Vietnam, but if the coalition does all the wrong things, it could become Vietnam, complete with its own My Lai massacres. In its consequences at least, Fallujah has come close."

Is this our Vietnam and is this 1968 all over again?

Man, this is all a bad dream.
The year ended, not with an anti-war Democrat, but with Richard Nixon in the White House, and with Cambodia yet to come.

It ended with the French Right winning a landslide in the post-?v?nement elections, with Labour entering a period of crisis which culminated, 18 months later, in a Conservative government.

Twenty-one more years had to pass before a new Prague spring, and Mikhail Gorbachev blamed 1968 for putting the cause of reform in the Soviet Union back by more than a decade. It saw the death of liberal republicanism in the States, and the beginning of the process whereby the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland was to be supplanted by 30 years of killings and murder. It was the year of Enoch Powell and a 30-year fear of even the word 'immigration'. It was the year that the great hopes of non-violent change, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, were murdered. This violence found its way into the language. As Kurlansky puts it: '"Motherfucker" was everybody's word that year'.
Okay, then... here we go again.

Plus ?a change, plus c'est la m?me chose.... ? boire ou je tue le chien!

Posted by Alan at 20:54 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 25 April 2004 16:10 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older