During our FOL day in La Jolla this past Saturday, one of my Friends highly recommended a book she recently read, written by an author I, too, have read, so we stopped by the bookstore and I purchased a copy. Yesterday, I began reading the 728 page doorstop and couldn't put it down! I'm not sure what time I finally fell asleep, but I fought it because I wanted to keep reading.
Wally Lamb, the author of The Hour I First Believed, has written two other novels that I have also read: I Know This Much Is True and She's Come Undone. Lamb's one of those writers who writes the way I would write if I, too, were a writer. He tells the story with words that are exactly right both the way they are used and in the context. He creates characters who are real: noble sometimes and ignoble other times, flailing about to handle life as it comes at them. Often his flawed individuals seem to mature past their flaws, but the flaws always remain, waiting to unfurl at what could be either the most opportune time -- or the most inopportune time. Who we are is a result of who we've been, and we never really completely eradicate our past selves in our present selves, but sometimes we do learn to co-exist. Lamb constructs an engrossing and conflicted web of people, places and events, the threads of which weave a perfect finished product that simply has to be experienced by a reader.
The narrator, Caelum, is a teacher who's working on his third marriage. He's learned the lesson of the life-sucking force some students bring to school with them, but he's become jaded by his inability to interact with those students. Rather than setting boundaries, he tapes black construction paper over his classroom window, locks the door, and retreats to a corner so he can be alone, not realizing that any one of those actions would have worked and all three of them are over-kill. His third wife, Maureen, is a school nurse; there are problems with their marriage stemming perhaps from her affair with a colleague that resulted in the move to Littleton, Colorado and employment at Columbine High School, but perhaps more significantly relating to the lack of intimacy with her husband, who guards himself all too well from intimate relationships with anyone: students, colleagues, friends, family. Maureen needs forgiveness, but Caelum wants contrition, two mutally exclusive needs that become the impetus for an inexorable slide into a dead marriage.
When his beloved Aunt Lolly dies, Caelum flies back home to deal with what has to be done, leaving Maureen to make her arrangements and join him for the funeral. Every detail he needs to know about his Aunt requires him to call Maureen: he has distanced himself too well from the woman who raised him when his parents could not. The places he's lived open the windows to his past. As he's reacting emotionally to his childhood, he sees on the news that there has been an incident at Columbine High School -- and he recognizes the faces of both students and staff fleeing the campus. His first thought is that Maureen works on the first floor, so she could not possibly be in the second-floor library, which seems to be ground zero for the carnage; he calls her to assure himself that she is okay.
At this point, the story explodes, almost as if this transforming event is the catalyst Caelum needs to confront his deepest fears and come to grips with life as it is, not as it isn't.
I'm just about the half-way point, so I'll be reading this week: leave a message.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Quieting the Critics
Stephen Colbert, who is the epitome of a wise witty man reminiscent of Samuel Clemens in his political savvy, played the Obama clip again, the one where the President complains that one media outlet just won't cut him a break. Really? Just one? If the media were doing the job upon which this country is founded, ALL of the media would not be cutting him a break; rather, the media would be questioning, analyzing, making connections, probing not just what is said, but also what is not said by the new Commander-in-Chief. Obama should be assuring the public that the media is all over him, his appointments and his policies, keeping him not just honest in office, but doing the will of the people in the process.
Being President of the United States of America is not a high school popularity contest, like being elected ASB President: this is the highest office in the land, the one with all the power, prestige, and accountability to we, the American people -- even those who disagree with the person who takes the oath of office. When people are given a voice to speak freely, to ask questions, to seek answers, to offer alternatives, they have no need to demand one. A good leader listens; a poor leader fills in the silences, explains the inexplicable, justifies the actions, as well as the inactions, and attacks the critics who disagree with him/her for asking questions that the leader cannot (or will not) answer.
Is Judge Sotomayor the best candidate for the vacancy on the Supreme Court? Rather than refusing to debate the choice with the critics, tell them why she is based on her judicial record. It's a bonus that she's a female, that she's Hispanic, that she made an honest off-the-cuff remark several years ago in the comfort of a conversation with colleagues that makes a great sound bite, but does nothing to detract from a judicial record that justifies her appointment. Don't snipe at the snipers: playing the wah-wah-wah game only benefits the critics, not the presidency.
The President does not need anyone to like him, to accept whatever he says/does without comment: he needs to convince his most ardent opponent that his policies and practices are sound. If he cannot respond to his critics with credible answers from his heart and head, not the tele-prompter, then what he is doing needs to be re-evaluated. The best person to critique a plan is the person who is most likely to oppose it; if you cannot have that conversation, you are going to have to deal with the consequences in the media.
When people know that they are being heard, they don't need to get louder. When people ask a question and it's answered fully and well, they admire the person who knows what (s)he is doing and why. By being Presidential, you assure your credibility; by being petty, you create a whole lot of unnecessary stress for yourself and your administration. Don't invite the fawning sycophant into the White House: invite your most passionate opponent.
That's a show I would watch!
Being President of the United States of America is not a high school popularity contest, like being elected ASB President: this is the highest office in the land, the one with all the power, prestige, and accountability to we, the American people -- even those who disagree with the person who takes the oath of office. When people are given a voice to speak freely, to ask questions, to seek answers, to offer alternatives, they have no need to demand one. A good leader listens; a poor leader fills in the silences, explains the inexplicable, justifies the actions, as well as the inactions, and attacks the critics who disagree with him/her for asking questions that the leader cannot (or will not) answer.
Is Judge Sotomayor the best candidate for the vacancy on the Supreme Court? Rather than refusing to debate the choice with the critics, tell them why she is based on her judicial record. It's a bonus that she's a female, that she's Hispanic, that she made an honest off-the-cuff remark several years ago in the comfort of a conversation with colleagues that makes a great sound bite, but does nothing to detract from a judicial record that justifies her appointment. Don't snipe at the snipers: playing the wah-wah-wah game only benefits the critics, not the presidency.
The President does not need anyone to like him, to accept whatever he says/does without comment: he needs to convince his most ardent opponent that his policies and practices are sound. If he cannot respond to his critics with credible answers from his heart and head, not the tele-prompter, then what he is doing needs to be re-evaluated. The best person to critique a plan is the person who is most likely to oppose it; if you cannot have that conversation, you are going to have to deal with the consequences in the media.
When people know that they are being heard, they don't need to get louder. When people ask a question and it's answered fully and well, they admire the person who knows what (s)he is doing and why. By being Presidential, you assure your credibility; by being petty, you create a whole lot of unnecessary stress for yourself and your administration. Don't invite the fawning sycophant into the White House: invite your most passionate opponent.
That's a show I would watch!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Romantic Comedy
I like watching films that are both fun and funny, and two that are out currently fit the marquee: My Life in Ruins and The Proposal. A good romantic comedy requires a strong female lead (think Doris Day; okay, Julia Roberts), as well as an adorable male (think Rock Hudson before we knew he was gay, back when every woman wanted him--or Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman), stirred up with a somewhat believable storyline in a gorgeous setting. After all, if it's going be make-believe, make sure we can believe it!
My Life in Ruins is funny, with the same tongue-in-cheek approach to the humor found in My Greek Wedding, which also stars Nia Vardalos, who plays the tour guide in the current film. The storyline is weak and the acting isn't very good, especially from the leading man, but the supporting cast props up an otherwise weak presentation. Richard Dreyfuss is almost not recognizable in the film (age + body mass), but he has a solid role that has to be played well for the film to work -- and he does the job. The romantic male lead, however, isn't all that attractive, lacks charisma, stumbles his way through the scenes he's in, and could have been better cast to be worth the effort of seducing him. Nia, of course, shines in her native environment and really sells the premise of being a tour guide in the land she loves. She also comes across pretty sexy when that's what her scenes call for, but the object of her affection? Well, he's just not that into her.
On the other hand, The Proposal is both fun and funny, with leading characters who complement one another and add the extra dimension of body language to a pretty cliche script. Sandra Bullock has been quoted as saying that she's tired of doing romantic comedies, that she wants something more in her career, but boy, does she sell the story, which, in the hands of a less-skilled actress, would have fizzled! In this film, she's the boss, a smart, demanding career woman whose male executive assistant seems to know his place in the hierarchy of the office. When she switches gears on him and maneuvers him into a sham marriage to obtain citizenship so she can keep her job, he seems almost sheep-like in his go along to get along reaction, an apparent character flaw that has its roots in Alaska. I don't want to spoil the story as what seems to be going one direction actually goes another, all the while maintaining its predictability. The end result is a great date movie and/or Sunday afternoon/rain/popcorn flick when it comes out on DVD.
If I only could afford one movie on the big screen, I'd go see The Proposal, but if I want to take a vicarious trip to Greece, I'd see My Life in Ruins again because the scenery is better than the actual film. The two friends with me have both been to Greece several times and assure me that's just what it looks like from the air, but when the tourist boots are on the ground, it's an entirely different story.
There's one more film on my to-do list, Julia/Julie, but I don't think it's been released yet. I may see The Hangover, but I can tell you right now I'd enjoy it a whole lot more if my son were here to share it with me and critique it over B-R sundaes!
Aside: I'm not sure why, but the theater was filled with males today; as a matter o' fact, far more males than either females or couples. I'm not sure why that is, but they really enjoyed The Proposal, laughing, making comments, and, at one point, applauding. Interesting; very interesting.
My Life in Ruins is funny, with the same tongue-in-cheek approach to the humor found in My Greek Wedding, which also stars Nia Vardalos, who plays the tour guide in the current film. The storyline is weak and the acting isn't very good, especially from the leading man, but the supporting cast props up an otherwise weak presentation. Richard Dreyfuss is almost not recognizable in the film (age + body mass), but he has a solid role that has to be played well for the film to work -- and he does the job. The romantic male lead, however, isn't all that attractive, lacks charisma, stumbles his way through the scenes he's in, and could have been better cast to be worth the effort of seducing him. Nia, of course, shines in her native environment and really sells the premise of being a tour guide in the land she loves. She also comes across pretty sexy when that's what her scenes call for, but the object of her affection? Well, he's just not that into her.
On the other hand, The Proposal is both fun and funny, with leading characters who complement one another and add the extra dimension of body language to a pretty cliche script. Sandra Bullock has been quoted as saying that she's tired of doing romantic comedies, that she wants something more in her career, but boy, does she sell the story, which, in the hands of a less-skilled actress, would have fizzled! In this film, she's the boss, a smart, demanding career woman whose male executive assistant seems to know his place in the hierarchy of the office. When she switches gears on him and maneuvers him into a sham marriage to obtain citizenship so she can keep her job, he seems almost sheep-like in his go along to get along reaction, an apparent character flaw that has its roots in Alaska. I don't want to spoil the story as what seems to be going one direction actually goes another, all the while maintaining its predictability. The end result is a great date movie and/or Sunday afternoon/rain/popcorn flick when it comes out on DVD.
If I only could afford one movie on the big screen, I'd go see The Proposal, but if I want to take a vicarious trip to Greece, I'd see My Life in Ruins again because the scenery is better than the actual film. The two friends with me have both been to Greece several times and assure me that's just what it looks like from the air, but when the tourist boots are on the ground, it's an entirely different story.
There's one more film on my to-do list, Julia/Julie, but I don't think it's been released yet. I may see The Hangover, but I can tell you right now I'd enjoy it a whole lot more if my son were here to share it with me and critique it over B-R sundaes!
Aside: I'm not sure why, but the theater was filled with males today; as a matter o' fact, far more males than either females or couples. I'm not sure why that is, but they really enjoyed The Proposal, laughing, making comments, and, at one point, applauding. Interesting; very interesting.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Eroding the Foundation
On the last teaching day of the year, another 170 teachers employed by a local school district received a surprise: lay-off notices! These teachers survived the first round of cuts and thought they were coming back in the Fall. According to the contract, notification must be served by March 15, but districts everywhere cover themselves by handing out non-hire notices by that date and then drop the bad news at their convenience. This group of teachers not only have to finish off grades and pack their classrooms, but they are turning in their keys and going home to stay. It's well past the time to look for another job, if, indeed, there were other jobs available. By this time all the part-time positions have been filled at the big box stores, which can only absorb so many overly-qualified employees with Master's degrees and teaching credentials.
During the campaign, I was promised change I could believe in; what I got were ongoing frantic efforts to save major corporations and major cuts in education, neither of which is change I believe in. Businesses come and go, especially when businesses engage in poor business practices: refusal to be on the leading edge of advancement, while continuing to price products out of a competitive marketplace. I drive Toyotas for one reason: they last beyond the payment coupons. Many people I know who purchase American brandname vehicles suffer from the Fix Or Repair Daily theory of operation, a cycle of spending that does not appeal to me even in a healthy economy. If American manufacturers want my business, they have to earn it by offering a quality product at a reasonable price. I am not one of those who will "buy American" for philosophical reasons if I can buy a better product at a better price from another manufacturing source.
America used to be a strong, competitive world market, but gave up its driving force to make a quick buck. You snooze, you lose.
During a huge tidal wave of immigration into America during the waning years of the 19th century and the opening years of the 20th century, American citizens realized how vital the education of all citizens is to this country's survival. We believe in what teachers call "Statue of Liberty schools," educational institutions that take our poor, huddled masses and educate them. In the smallest hamlets of this country, as well as the largest metropolises, immigrants went to school to learn the language, to learn the ways of this country, to learn the skills that would guarantee employment and fulfillment of The American Dream. Education was the foundation of a strong America and the businesses were a by-product of American knowledge and ingenuity.
My, how times have changed: we're flooding failing businesses with unbelievable amounts of money while shutting down schools.
I'd like to see change I can believe in, with a laser focus on one change that will turn this country back onto the path that it began to walk when courageous immigrants arrived on the shores and pointed their footsteps in a direction no other country dared to walk. I'd like to see education become the foundation again, the patient parent teaching the child what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, rather than a bastard step-child to big business begging for recognition and funding. I'd like to see each citizen doing a fair day's work for a fair wage, setting the industry standard, rather than being a victim of it. I'd like to see pride in ownership, rather than a disposal economy that varies with the whims of the rich and famous and/or the demands of the ignorant and indigent.
I'd like to see society recall that no one owes you a living: it is up to you to get the education, to get the job, to do it well and to live within your means. If you cannot accomplish those goals, so be it. The role of government is not to prop up the weak, but to support the driving forces that keep the nation growing -- and that includes education.
Here's change I can believe in: let the businesses fail and be rebuilt stronger by people who actually care about the product and services the business offers, rather than the comforts of their 401k's. Put our faith back into the educational system and strengthen it so teachers can do the job that has to be done for any country to survive: educate the children to become productive adults.
During the campaign, I was promised change I could believe in; what I got were ongoing frantic efforts to save major corporations and major cuts in education, neither of which is change I believe in. Businesses come and go, especially when businesses engage in poor business practices: refusal to be on the leading edge of advancement, while continuing to price products out of a competitive marketplace. I drive Toyotas for one reason: they last beyond the payment coupons. Many people I know who purchase American brandname vehicles suffer from the Fix Or Repair Daily theory of operation, a cycle of spending that does not appeal to me even in a healthy economy. If American manufacturers want my business, they have to earn it by offering a quality product at a reasonable price. I am not one of those who will "buy American" for philosophical reasons if I can buy a better product at a better price from another manufacturing source.
America used to be a strong, competitive world market, but gave up its driving force to make a quick buck. You snooze, you lose.
During a huge tidal wave of immigration into America during the waning years of the 19th century and the opening years of the 20th century, American citizens realized how vital the education of all citizens is to this country's survival. We believe in what teachers call "Statue of Liberty schools," educational institutions that take our poor, huddled masses and educate them. In the smallest hamlets of this country, as well as the largest metropolises, immigrants went to school to learn the language, to learn the ways of this country, to learn the skills that would guarantee employment and fulfillment of The American Dream. Education was the foundation of a strong America and the businesses were a by-product of American knowledge and ingenuity.
My, how times have changed: we're flooding failing businesses with unbelievable amounts of money while shutting down schools.
I'd like to see change I can believe in, with a laser focus on one change that will turn this country back onto the path that it began to walk when courageous immigrants arrived on the shores and pointed their footsteps in a direction no other country dared to walk. I'd like to see education become the foundation again, the patient parent teaching the child what to do, how to do it, and when to do it, rather than a bastard step-child to big business begging for recognition and funding. I'd like to see each citizen doing a fair day's work for a fair wage, setting the industry standard, rather than being a victim of it. I'd like to see pride in ownership, rather than a disposal economy that varies with the whims of the rich and famous and/or the demands of the ignorant and indigent.
I'd like to see society recall that no one owes you a living: it is up to you to get the education, to get the job, to do it well and to live within your means. If you cannot accomplish those goals, so be it. The role of government is not to prop up the weak, but to support the driving forces that keep the nation growing -- and that includes education.
Here's change I can believe in: let the businesses fail and be rebuilt stronger by people who actually care about the product and services the business offers, rather than the comforts of their 401k's. Put our faith back into the educational system and strengthen it so teachers can do the job that has to be done for any country to survive: educate the children to become productive adults.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Justice for All?
A few months ago, an 18-year-old pregnant woman and her boyfriend went to the movies; afterward, the woman started across the street to wait for the bus to take her home. She never made it because a driver hit her and kept going. Both the woman and her nearly full-term baby died within an hour of the accident. Investigators had good leads that took them to a home in Palm Springs; however, no one answered the door. The next morning, the investigators returned to the home and documented the extensive damage to the vehicle parked in the closed garage. The female driver was taken to the police station, allowed to post a $25,000 bond, and returned home.
She has not been seen nor heard from until today.
To say that the family and friends of the victims of the hit and run were stunned would be putting it mildly. To say that citizens were astounded that the driver, whose husband works for the district attorney's office, was given preferential treatment would be understating the reaction. Two people killed as a result of a hit and run by a woman with a previous DUI should have resulted in a bail of $200,000 and a trial. Although the public has been assured repeatedly that the investigation is on-going, to date no specific charges have been filed against the driver.
None of that happened -- and none of that is going to happen.
After endless delays and no comment responses to questions at the DA's office, the woman driver was scheduled to appear in court this morning to hear the charges against her. However, once again she called the shots, pleaded guilty to DUI vehicular manslaughter for the death of the pregnant woman, not her unborn baby, and will probably serve (a maximum of) 15 years (10 years for the manslaughter; 5 years for leaving the scene) according to the terms of a plea bargain wrangled out of the public eye. Believe it or not, she was also given until August 14 to surrender because she may need surgery in the next couple of weeks -- and walked out the front door of the court house.
UPDATE: the judge had no prior knowledge of the case, including the fact that the woman was pregnant with a baby due 2 weeks after its death. He said the case was dumped on his desk this morning and hurried through the system. Boy, are there a lot of angry people in the Valley this fine day.
Adding insult to injury, allegedly the driver and her husband, who is an investigator for the DA's office, got into a fight at their PS home following the hit and run. Allegedly, the woman took a handful of pills and had to be taken to the hospital to have her stomach pumped, thus obscuring evidence of being under the influence at the time of the hit and run. Allegedly, the DA's office has not been involved in either the investigation or the legal machinations that led to today's stunning court appearance. Allegedly, the DA's office has done everything in its power to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest and/or favoritism.
This whole situation reeks. There is a dead woman, a dead baby, and damage so extensive to the vehicle driven by the admitted driver that it looked as if she had run into a wall. There is no way that she did not know she had hit something, and there is no way her husband did not know it when she arrived home. She may have taken pills to either kill herself or obscure evidence, but her husband could have called the cops to the hospital to arrest his wife, cuff her to the hospital bed, and take her to jail when she woke up.
He may not have been driving the vehicle, but he's driving the cover-up.
The victims' family is in shock at today's court appearance. They wanted to confront their daughter's killer and at least get an explanation for why she didn't stop and, perhaps, an apology for not just killing their child, but their grandchild. Instead, they are victimized again by the court system that promises "justice for all," unless, of course, you work for the system and know how to make the system work for you.
She has not been seen nor heard from until today.
To say that the family and friends of the victims of the hit and run were stunned would be putting it mildly. To say that citizens were astounded that the driver, whose husband works for the district attorney's office, was given preferential treatment would be understating the reaction. Two people killed as a result of a hit and run by a woman with a previous DUI should have resulted in a bail of $200,000 and a trial. Although the public has been assured repeatedly that the investigation is on-going, to date no specific charges have been filed against the driver.
None of that happened -- and none of that is going to happen.
After endless delays and no comment responses to questions at the DA's office, the woman driver was scheduled to appear in court this morning to hear the charges against her. However, once again she called the shots, pleaded guilty to DUI vehicular manslaughter for the death of the pregnant woman, not her unborn baby, and will probably serve (a maximum of) 15 years (10 years for the manslaughter; 5 years for leaving the scene) according to the terms of a plea bargain wrangled out of the public eye. Believe it or not, she was also given until August 14 to surrender because she may need surgery in the next couple of weeks -- and walked out the front door of the court house.
UPDATE: the judge had no prior knowledge of the case, including the fact that the woman was pregnant with a baby due 2 weeks after its death. He said the case was dumped on his desk this morning and hurried through the system. Boy, are there a lot of angry people in the Valley this fine day.
Adding insult to injury, allegedly the driver and her husband, who is an investigator for the DA's office, got into a fight at their PS home following the hit and run. Allegedly, the woman took a handful of pills and had to be taken to the hospital to have her stomach pumped, thus obscuring evidence of being under the influence at the time of the hit and run. Allegedly, the DA's office has not been involved in either the investigation or the legal machinations that led to today's stunning court appearance. Allegedly, the DA's office has done everything in its power to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest and/or favoritism.
This whole situation reeks. There is a dead woman, a dead baby, and damage so extensive to the vehicle driven by the admitted driver that it looked as if she had run into a wall. There is no way that she did not know she had hit something, and there is no way her husband did not know it when she arrived home. She may have taken pills to either kill herself or obscure evidence, but her husband could have called the cops to the hospital to arrest his wife, cuff her to the hospital bed, and take her to jail when she woke up.
He may not have been driving the vehicle, but he's driving the cover-up.
The victims' family is in shock at today's court appearance. They wanted to confront their daughter's killer and at least get an explanation for why she didn't stop and, perhaps, an apology for not just killing their child, but their grandchild. Instead, they are victimized again by the court system that promises "justice for all," unless, of course, you work for the system and know how to make the system work for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)