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
« February 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
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

Friday, 20 February 2004

Topic: The Culture

Some of us think life is a bit too dukkha these days, but some of us don't...

As some of you know one of he constant arguments I have with my good friend "the conservative" centers on attitude. As I understand his position he maintains the one and the key determining factor in any kind of success in life his having the right attitude - a positive one, assuming things will work out for the best, and denying doubts. Never believe things won't work out. I argue sometimes they don't or even can't work out. Contingency planning is good, not defeatist. He says negative thoughts will produce negative results. We go round and round on this. And drink heavily. He claims I'm so damned European in this, and I say he's doing his "Babbitt" number - the delusional, blindly optimistic na?ve American. No one wins.

Next time we get into such talk I might mention this item by Karen Armstrong, a former Catholic nun's who wrote a short biography of the Buddha (Penguin Putnam 2001). This little essay here is quite curious.

See Look on the dark side of life: 'Positive thinking' can be a route to spiritual and political disaster
Karen Armstrong, The Guardian (UK), Saturday February 21, 2004

Armstrong begins with a discussion of children's literature, particularly the work of Jacqueline Wilson. But it's no matter if you don't know the realistically dark Wilson, the main point comes after that discussion:
... the best children's classics have always evoked the dark side of life. Alice's Wonderland reveals the arbitrary demands and heartless craziness of the adult world from a child's perspective. The sinister menace of the Wild Wood is a constant threat in The Wind in the Willows. In the novels of Frances Hodgson Burnett, children are regularly abandoned, bereaved, neglected and ill-treated. Some parents would prefer their children to read books that are more upbeat, but Wilson's success and the endurance of these classics remind us that children know instinctively what is best for them, and find that their worst fears become more manageable when they are made explicit. It seems that many children have not yet succumbed quite as fully as adults to the "positive thinking" that is fast becoming a social orthodoxy.
So what's this particular "social orthodoxy" she sees?
Increasingly it is becoming unacceptable to voice legitimate distress. If you lose your job, become chronically ill, or fall prey to loneliness or depression, you are likely to be told - often abrasively - to look on the bright side. With unseemly haste, people rush to put an optimistic gloss on a disaster or to suggest a patently unworkable solution. We seem to be cultivating an intolerance of pain - even our own. An acquaintance once told me that quite the most difficult aspect of her cancer was her friends' strident insistence that she develop a positive attitude, and her guilt at being unable to do so.

Every evening the television news beams images of anguish from all over the world right into our homes - we live on constant terror alert. We naturally want to keep what distress we can at bay. But while it is important not to succumb to despair, it is also dangerous to deny the suffering to which flesh is heir.

As TS Eliot said, humankind cannot bear very much reality.
Yes but what kind of balance between mindless optimism (denial) and despair can we achieve? Where do we turn for guidance.

Religion?
Some forms of religion encourage us to bury our heads in the sand to block out the suffering that surrounds us on all sides. The rich man in his palace can reconcile himself to the plight of the poor man at his gate by reminding himself that this is part of God's bright and beautiful plan; those who suffer poverty and oppression in this life will be recompensed in the hereafter. When thousands die in an earthquake, we can tell ourselves that God knew what he was doing.
Perhaps God knows. Perhaps not. We certainly don't know.

I do remember those lines from Pope's "Essay on Man" - "All nature is but art, unknown to thee; All chance, direction, which thou canst not see; All discord, harmony not understood; All partial evil, universal good; And spite of pride, in erring reason's spite, One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right."

Talk about cold comfort...

Armstrong recounts that at a literary festival, where she had been describing the fear that lies at the heart of religious fundamentalism, a man in the audience told her that he found this quite incomprehensible. If you have true faith, he argued, you cannot suffer. She suggested that if he lived in a more troubled part of the world (she was in Cheltenham at the time), he might find it more difficult to maintain his equanimity. But he seemed to regard religion as an anesthetic that would even numb the pain of a concentration camp.

Armstrong calls this lazy, inadequate religion. Over on this side of the pond it's called Christian, conservative Republican dogma.

Armstrong suggests Buddhism might be more realistic:
If we deny the reality of suffering, we will ignore the distress of others. At its best, religion requires the faithful to see things as they really are. In Buddhism, the First Noble Truth that is essential for enlightenment is that life is dukkha: "unsatisfactory, awry". The Buddha's father tried to shield him from sorrow by imprisoning him in a pleasure-palace, walled off from disturbing reality. Guards were posted to drive away any distressing spectacle. For 29 years, the Buddha lived in this fool's paradise, locked into a delusion and unable to make spiritual progress. Finally the gods intervened and forced the young man to confront mortality, sickness and decay. Only then could he begin his quest for Nirvana.

The Buddha's palace is a striking image of the mind in denial. As long as we immure ourselves from the pain that surrounds us on all sides, we remain trapped in an undeveloped version of ourselves
Ah, the conservative Christian right is just developmentally challenged! Cool.

Well, yes, sometimes life is dukkha: "unsatisfactory, awry". Shit happens. The point seems to be one should find the ideal and balanced center, which "enables us to face pain with equanimity and use our experience of dukkha to appreciate the sorrow of others."

Easy for her to say. But when you're running the most powerful nation ever to arise in history can you afford such "appreciation" of the pain of others? It's so very unpleasant after all.

No. Such appreciation might be useful.
The failure to confront unpleasant reality can also be politically dangerous. In the Bible, those preachers who told people to look on the bright side, that God would protect Jerusalem and that everything would work out for the best are condemned as "false prophets". The prophet Jeremiah has become a byword for excessive gloom, but if people had listened to his dire predictions, the Babylonian army might not have destroyed Jerusalem. He was not being "negative"; he was right.
Oh no! The former nun is using the Bible to say we need someone to stand up to Bush and Rumsfeld and the rest of the messianic imperialists who tell us we did a good thing in Iraq and things are or will be wonderful. We need some realistic gloom? My conservative friend would be getting really angry now.

Armstrong then adds this!
... In the past, we have sometimes pursued policies that have resulted in great suffering, telling ourselves that all would ultimately be well. We have let conflicts fester until they have become intractable. We have supported such allies as Saddam Hussein, ignoring the atrocities they inflict upon their people. We are now rightly outraged by his massacre of his Kurdish subjects, but at the time we ineffectually turned a blind eye. Today we are reaping the reward of our heedless karma. The pain that we ignored in some parts of the world has hardened into murderous rage.

... The First Noble Truth requires us to acknowledge the ubiquity of pain, even when we are happy and successful. If we get a coveted job, other candidates are disappointed; if our country prospers, it may well be at the expense of other nations that are languishing in poverty and despair. In our privileged first world, we have been living in a bubble of false security that is not unlike the Buddha's pleasure palace. On September 11, reality broke in. If we turn our backs on the suffering in our troubled world, it will come back to us, in a terrible form.
What a downer! She thinks BAD THINGS might happen again? Why is she so negative?

Yeah, well bad things might happen again. And we maybe could become a tad more empathetic in matters around the world. But that seems unlikely.

One suspects we will persist in our "heedless karma" - as it feels mighty good.

Posted by Alan at 19:36 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: Election Notes

A short election note...

Dean has dropped out of the race. What to say?

The internet candidate... and that was the problem. It's a lot like internet dating, about which I know quite a bit. You can trade all this email and reveal lots, but sooner or later you actually have to meet the person. And then, sometimes, something doesn't click. My emails a few years ago with a woman were great, and then we met - and I found out about her need to verbally abuse those she didn't consider worthy - waiters and coworkers and all that - because she was smart and well-read and they weren't. Not nice. And she has some odd, inflexible "rules" about life. The whole constellation of traits wasn't in the emails. Curious. So with Howard Dean. He was good on paper. Then we saw him in the flesh. Oh well.

Kerry is fine, if a bit stiff. I like Edwards too. He's got his act together.

Here's Bill Maher on Kerry this week -
One thing you have to give the president: people are "comfortable" with him, they want to have a beer with him - but it's too late for that.

John Kerry doesn't really give off that same appeal, that same "comfort" level - and in a week when Congress was looking into how Janet's boob made us all "uncomfortable," I would like to know when it was that Americans got it in their head that if they were jarred out of their comfort zone for two seconds, the terrorists win.

The Super Bowl was a typical American overreaction to a threat that didn't really exist - it wasn't about sex or nudity, but about COMFORT - the god given American right to never have anything be UNCOMFORTABLE!

And now I'm hearing a lot of people say they don't know if they're "comfortable" with Mr. Kerry. To which I would like to counsel: Who cares if you're "comfortable!" He's not running for national game show host. You don't have to fuck him, just vote for him. Even if he's a prick - I hope he is a prick, if he's a prick who gets things done, who makes the right decisions - I would love a prick like that in the White House. In fact, I think that should be his slogan: "A prick in the White House!"

PS: Representative Wilson was fuming mad at the Viacom guys because her constituents riled her when their comfort level got breached, and that is sort of the way the system works: she is a representative, and the people want her to represent how they feel. It's just a shame the people are such pathetic bunch of simpering schoolgirls.
Kerry will do.

Posted by Alan at 09:15 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: The Economy

Fixing the job situation in an otherwise booming economy...

This is curious.

See In the New Economics: Fast-Food Factories?
David Cay Johnston, The New York Times, February 20, 2004

Here's the concept:
Is cooking a hamburger patty and inserting the meat, lettuce and ketchup inside a bun a manufacturing job, like assembling automobiles?

That question is posed in the new Economic Report of the President, a thick annual compendium of observations and statistics on the health of the United States economy.

The latest edition, sent to Congress last week, questions whether fast-food restaurants should continue to be counted as part of the service sector or should be reclassified as manufacturers. No answers were offered.

In a speech to Washington economists Tuesday, N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said that properly classifying such workers was "an important consideration" in setting economic policy.

... "When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" the report asks.

"Sometimes, seemingly subtle differences can determine whether an industry is classified as manufacturing. For example, mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

... David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.
Indeed, it would produce such statistics.

I myself have managed the system shop at a General Motors factory where they pumped out locomotives and light armored vehicles - using complex mainframe MRP (manufacturing resource planning) systems. We had four to six programmer-analysts keeping that creaky old MRP system running. Sean led a team to design a warehouse pick-list system to get parts to the assembly line on time. Steph and Tim were working on accounting systems, while Rhona was a key DBA (database administrator) keeping things in order on the mid-range Unix boxes tracking all sorts of things. Then there was linking to the big mainframe in Plano to track ten of thousands of parts for NAFTA certification so the finished products could cross borders with minimal tariffs.

Just like MacDonald's and Burger King? Maybe. Maybe not.

But if you want to improve unemployment statistics in regard to manufacturing, this could work. Perhaps I should trot my r?sum? down to the local In-and-Out Burger place on Sunset. My experience could be of use to them?

It strikes me that one reason the economy is booming, with profits soaring and the market rising, and productivity jumping better than it is has in forty or fifty years, is precisely because there may be almost ten million folks out of work. This depresses wages, keeping them quite low - what with everyone worried about being laid off or having their job outsourced to Lahore or Bombay. Pressing for better wages or better benefits would be insane, and collective labor actions foolish. You don't want to roll those dice.

Profits thus rise when labor costs are decreasing dramatically. The current situation keeps workers "in line" and benefits owners and investors. No kidding.

The problem for the current administration is that not just investors and owners vote. Workers vote too. The trick will be convincing these workers that they are in great shape manufacturing useful things for their fellow countrymen.

Well, burgers are useful.

Posted by Alan at 08:26 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Thursday, 19 February 2004

Topic: The Culture

DEEP THOUGHTS (sort of) - and an odd questionnaire...
Terry Teachout lives in Manhattan. He's the drama critic of the Wall Street Journal and the music critic of Commentary - and you find the most interesting things on his site About Last Night - like this:

The source is an essay called "Morality and Literature," first published in Cahiers du Sud (January 1944). However, the following quotation, tracked down by one intrepid reader, seems to vindicate my memory without contradicting the above. Here Weil claims that the greatest literature is that which manages to make good interesting, and thus comes closest to a particular kind of realism:
Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating. Therefore 'imaginative literature' is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art - and only geniuses can do that.
This can be found in an essay called "Evil," reprinted in The Simone Weil Reader and Gravity and Grace.

Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring?

I'd like examples to prove this. I once spent an afternoon at the Pentagon chatting with people in the office of one of the assistant secretaries of defense, and met Frank Carlucci. That may be a good example. Now? A day in the White House, perhaps?

_______________

Then I came across these questions which I found puzzling....
(1) What book have you owned longest - the actual copy, I mean?
(2) If you could wish a famous painting out of existence, what would it be?
(3) If you had to live in a film, what would it be?
(4) If you had to live in a song, what would it be?
(5) What's the saddest work of art you know? And does experiencing it make you similarly sad?
How to answer these?

(1) A translation of Camus' l'?tranger from back when I was in early high school, or Alan Watt's The Way of Zen - both handed me by my crazy uncle. I think he must have meant me harm. But I see I still have Brooks' and Warren's Understanding Poetry from those high school days (sort of in tatters now) - and that's a book which led me to fall in with the "new criticism" which led to semiotics and deconstructionist ideas and other evils.

(2) Keep every one of the Monet haystacks, I suppose. Oh hell, keep them all. Even the dogs playing poker.

(3) Which film? Not Alphaville or Fast Times at Ridgemont High either. If I lived in a film The Music Man wouldn't do - although listing to the Buffalo Bills (the barbershop singers, not the football guys) do "Lida Rose" always makes me feel good. I guess I'd settle for An American in Paris, or maybe Casablanca - where I'd be one of the guys in the white tuxes in the band, I suppose.

(4) How can one live in a song? Would it be the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations or something else? I always got a kick out the chord changes in Dizzy Gillespie's A Night in Tunisia and could play it for hours. The weepy old torch song Long Ago and Far Away might do. But I'll settle for Charles Trenet's La Mer - which always makes me smile.

(5) The saddest work of art I know? Pick any of the surreal stories by Donald Barthelme - "The best way to live is by not knowing what will happen to you at the end of the day..." But there is that e-minor prelude of Chopin - which I used to actually be able to play. Do such things make you similarly sad? Not really. Just thoughtful, or something like it.

Your turn for these questions....

Posted by Alan at 20:18 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Thursday, 19 February 2004 20:54 PST home


Topic: For policy wonks...

Musical Chairs - Colin Powell loses...

I was at West Point in June 1990 for my nephew's graduation and the commencement speaker was Colin Powell. The president had spoken the previous year and the tradition was that it was to be, that year, the vice president. But I suspect someone thought the idea of Dan Quayle inspiring these new young officers was a little implausible. So they sent the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - and that is about as high up in the military as one can go. Colin Powell wasn't even a West Point guy. He came up through ROTC, curiously. And the speech was fine.

Now he is our secretary of state and has been, shall we say, effectively neutered and rendered mostly harmless - and certainly insignificant.

How did this happen?

Fred Kaplan offers an analysis today in Slate that is pretty good.

See The Tragedy of Colin Powell: How the Bush presidency destroyed him
Fred Kaplan, SLATE.COM, Posted Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004, at 9:56 AM PT

Kaplan recounts Powell getting testy last week in a senate hearing when an aide started smiling and shaking his head at something Powell said - and Powell reprimanded him.

Kaplan's view? Colin Powell melting down.
Here is a man who faced hardships in the Bronx as a kid, bullets in Vietnam as a soldier, and bureaucratic bullets through four administrations in Washington, a man who rose to the ranks of Army general, national security adviser, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and secretary of state, a man who thought seriously about running for president - and he gets bent out of shape by some snarky House staffer?

Powell's outburst is a textbook sign of overwhelming stress. Maybe he was just having a bad day. Then again, he's also been having a bad three years.
Well, that is what happened.

But Kaplan says we should consider the circumstances:
As George Bush's first term nears its end, Powell's tenure as top diplomat is approaching its nadir. On the high-profile issues of the day, he seems to have almost no influence within the administration. And his fateful briefing one year ago before the U.N. Security Council - where he attached his personal credibility to claims of Iraqi WMD - has destroyed his once-considerable standing with the Democrats, not to mention our European allies, most of the United Nations, and the media.

... Powell must be frustrated beyond measure. One can imagine the scoldings he takes from liberal friends for playing "good soldier" in an administration that's treated him so shabbily and that's rejected his advice so brazenly. That senseless dressing-down of the committee staffer - a tantrum that no one with real power would ever indulge in - can best be seen as a rare public venting of Powell's maddened mood.
Kaplan says this is all "a tragic tale of politics: so much ambition derailed, so much accomplishment nullified."

Perhaps so.

The story?
From the start of this presidency, and to a degree that no one would have predicted when he stepped into Foggy Bottom with so much pride and energy, Powell has found himself almost consistently muzzled, outflanked, and humiliated by the true powers - Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (Bureaucratic battles between Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon have been a feature of many presidencies, but Powell has suffered the additional - and nearly unprecedented - indignity of swatting off continuous rear-guard assaults from his own undersecretary of state, John Bolton, an aggressive hard-liner who was installed at State by Cheney - for the purpose of diverting and exhausting the multilateralists.)

One of Powell's first acts as secretary of state was to tell a reporter that the Bush administration would pick up where Bill Clinton left off in negotiations with North Korea--only to be told by Cheney that it would do no such thing. He had to retract his statement. For the next nine months, he disappeared so definitively that Time magazine asked, on its cover of Sept. 10, 2001, "Where Is Colin Powell?"
Indeed.

Well he won one over Cheney and Rumsfeld when he finally got Bush to go to the UN for some sort of vote on the war - as if that mattered. And of course Powell's objections to Ariel Sharon's departure from the Israeli-Palestinian "road map" were overridden by a White House where Eliot Abrams had been put in charge of Middle East policy. When Bush had to send someone there to calm the folks there down he sent Condoleezza Rice - to show he was serious. Powell wouldn't do. Fix the problem with all the debt Iraq had accumulated over the years. Send Powell? No. Use the family friend, James Baker.

Kaplan does point out one interesting win:
Last September, Powell met with President Bush in the Oval Office to make the case for presenting a new UN resolution on the occupation of Iraq - and to announce that the Joint Chiefs agreed with him. This was a daring move: Rumsfeld opposed going back to the United Nations; Powell, the retired general, had gone around him for support.
Yeah, but it didn't work. We got no help there.

North Korea? Kaplan reminds us Powell said we'd continue the Clinton idea supported by the South Korean government - talk this nuclear-weapons program out. Cheney and Rumsfeld opposed even sitting down for talks. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld shut him down and he took it back - Powell said he really didn't mean it. But curiously, now we're talking a bit.

And yes a few weeks ago David Kay proclaimed that Iraq probably didn't have weapons of mass destruction after all - so Powell told a reporter that he might not have favored going to war if he'd known there were no WMD a year ago. He almost instantly retracted his words. Bad boy! Now roll over and play dead.

The man is out, any way he turns. The Republican Bush administration neutered him and the Democrats know him as a shill for the neoconservative maniacs who want us to abandon girly diplomacy altogether for manly war and silence. Real men don't talk. They act.

Think of that musical chairs game. Fifteen people and fourteen chairs. The music ended. Everyone found a place to sit down, and he didn't. So it goes.

Kaplan says Powell's best option, after January, may be to abandon his ambitions for further public office, nab a lucrative job in the private sector, and write the most outrageous kiss-and-tell political memoir that the world has ever seen.

Like after the Suskind book we need another?

Posted by Alan at 17:44 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Newer | Latest | Older