The Audacity of Hope

Yeah, I'm reading the book right now.

That's not what this post is about though.

What is most amazing me right now is this - http://www.peacetakescourage.com/page-about.htm.

If a home-schooled 16 year old girl from Alabama can create a movement that gets 30,000, hits a day - maybe there is hope for this country after all. Generational change. That's the key to ending the madness (and delusional fantasy life that Dick Cheney continues to perpetuate).

Oh, the book is good - lots of good points and all, but when I see what this girl is doing, it gives me far more hope that there is an awakened class of people than the musings of one politician, as charismatic and "articulate" as he is.

Long live (engaged) youth. Peace takes courage, maybe more courage than fighting, and if we had more courage about making peace and speaking up for peace, we might have a livable world someday.

Mad Scientist?

Doesn't this look like something out of a 50's sci-fi movie?? Who knows what's really in that jar and what mad schemes this group of creepy looking guys is dreaming of unleashing on an unsuspecting public.

2008 - Change or Status Quo

I've been vocal in my dismay on the attention already being forced on us about the 2008 Presidential election.

There was an excellent article http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=167536 that articulates a lot about the kinds of things we could potentially anticipate reading about and indeed measuring the landscape of candidates against.

Is the country really pointing towards a transformational change in the political structure and debate, or was this past midterm election a blip due to the massive unpopularity of Bush, Iraq and Republican indifference to real problems?

I'm going to have to keep re-reading this article and thinking about these things, but for now - read the article and see what you think.

A Simple Solution

I commute to work every day from Oakland to Redwood Shores. It's about a 35 minute drive with no traffic, but of course, on most days it can take me anywhere from that 35 minutes to over an hour to make the drive either way depending on the time I leave and the level of traffic, and whether there is an accident.

There are certain days of the year, like today, when it is a holiday for many people, but not for me, and I have to admit that I don't even mind working today because the traffic is so much lighter and easier to negotiate.

So, it got me thinking. Couldn't we start to solve two problems with one easy solution?

Let's stagger a number of mandated holidays throughout the year so that some large number of people are always off from work at various times. In this way we could reduce the number of cars on the road, cutting down on both greenhouse gasses and traffic congestion.

Another option would be mandated days to work at home, also meeting the criteria above and contributing to a solution for two problems.

Since we don't seem to have the political will or financial werewithal for large public transportation projects to get people out of their cars, and until we make it feasible to junk most of the cars on the road today in favor of hybrid technologies, electrical cars, alternative fuels, we could start down the road of easing climate issues caused by auto pollution and the frustration most of us feel at being stuck in traffic every day with this kind of a simple solution.

It would require some behavioral change and management change to allow or encourage people to work from home one or more days a week (and have that mandated - perhaps by company or last name or some systematic way), and would certainly take some managing to mandate people taking a holiday, but not driving, but you have to start somewhere, so why not with this.

Debating the Debate

So, once again, the Senate sneaks away, refusing to have a serious debate. The reality is, should we even care? It's obvious that the American people have made up their minds about the war as reflected in the polls that come out over and over again.

The question we might need to ask is, are we debating the right things, and looking at the situation through the right perspective?

Once again, the spinners and propagandists in the administration are trotting out their tired rhetoric about emboldening terrorists and questioning those they claim have "no stomach for this fight".

Is there one person in the Congress, much less the country, that has come out and said they are on the side of the "terrorists"? And as for having stomach for the fight? A complete red herring as far as I can see.

I have to wonder how the Democrats keep getting themselves boxed into this corner, when it seems to me that they could so easily reframe the entire question. Would we not be better positioned to fight "terrorists" if we redeployed troops to Afghanistan, forced Pakistan to make a choice on where they stand and get them to allow deployed troops into regions known to be occupied by Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, and took the "fight" to Iran and Syria by making strategic diplomatic moves that put them on record as to what side of the fight they are on?

To me, this is having as much "stomach" (if not more brains) for a fight than continuing with failed policies, propping up a government that is more interested in religious vengeance than governing a rational country.

The real problem, of course, which no one will willingly state is that Iraq has revealed, through our invasion and occupation the real battle that is going on in the Middle East, if not in the world, and that is the battle between religion and rationality.

We are confronted with people that really believe in the mythologies of their religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity - no difference) and it has clouded all attempts at creating a rational world in the Middle East as centuries old battles over beliefs and land continue to be played out, with our unwitting support

So, if we're going to have the stomach, and the brains, for a fight, we should start by acknowledging that it is not a war against terror in Iraq, it is not a civil war in Iraq, it is a religious war and a war against reason.

So please, spare us from the tired rhetoric and restating of what constitutes "progress" in Iraq and recognize the reality of the situation. Until we have leaders willing to do that we will continue to be mired in an unwinnable war and an untenable view of the world, and will fail to create real strategies for changing the face of how to deal with fundamentalists of every stripe and their desire to test the theories of questionable belief systems by imposing Armageddon on the rest of us.

The Trouble with the Symphony

I love classical music, and I like hearing it live, but I often really can't bear going to the symphony to get that musical experience.

For me, music is about passion and movement. Almost every kind of music makes me want to move, even if I am sitting and listening to it.

Going to the symphony (and really, most all classical music venues) are pretty much passionless affairs. Even with some of the most stirring music in the world (Karen and I were at the symphony last night - for Valentine's day- and heard some great pieces - Bach, Mozart, Britten, Shostakovich and Piazzolla), the audience may as well have been at a funeral. People just sit there and though I do everything I can to restrain myself, I can't help tapping my feet, fingers and just moving however I can, because the music moves me and I just can't help myself.

Probably annoys the hell out of the people around me (many of whom look like they might just deop dead on the spot, the audience is so old at these things), but, I go for it anyway.

For me, almost better to just stay home and listen to recordings so I can get up and move, conduct, dance, whatever. And it's a shame, because the musicians are world class, the music is great, it sounds great played live, but I can't stand the overall experience.

One thing I will say is that more and more these days I'm enjoying going to smaller venues to hear chamber or chamber orchestra music. I like the intimacy and immediacy of it more than the grand scale of the symphony hall.

Ah, if only they could marry the passion and high of a Grateful Dead concert with the grandness of symphonic music in a similar environment. Now that would be very cool.

Obama - Do We Have The Capacity For Change?

First of all, congratulations to Senator Obama for the boldness and audacity of taking on the politics of fear with a message of generational transformation.

We hope that the country has grown weary of the political football of the Bush and Clinton eras and is ready to be awakened to the possibilities of a different style of leadership - one that relies on integrity, knowledge and the trust that the United States can still be a positive force for leadership and change in the world. A country that is willing to make the hard choices on security, energy, healthcare, education and diplomacy to take the longer generational view of the world and begin to plan for a future of peace and prosperity that does not look to the myths of the past to be the only guideposts for humanity.

There is much to be done and I would encourage Senator Obama to align himself with people of common sense in both the business community (www.sensiblepriorities.org) and the true majority of Americans that want compromise and action over words (www.truemajority.org).
There are people of both parties and no parties with good ideas and good expertise that have been ignored for too long and need good reasons to step into the fray and offer some workable solutions to tackle the problems of energy, education, healthcare, and many others.

I call on Senator Obama to seek these people out over the next year and introduce them to America as a part of his team that he will bring to the country to help lead us into the 21st century.

And, while I think we will rue that we are being forced to endure two years of presidential politics, I understand the need to declare now and only hope that Senator Obama does not lose sight of the fact that he will need to both continue to exhibit leadership on important issues like Iraq, energy, healthcare and education as a member of the US Senate as well as out on the stump.

I also hope that Senator Obama will pledge early on to not participate in a politics of negativity and disparagement, but will continue to push his own agenda and message and differentiate himself from the politics of fear and cynicism and lead from a position of strength based on hope, ideas and possibilities for the future.

We must finally begin to break the cycle of war that has dominated this country and the world. We must finally begin to understand that Dwight Eisenhower had it right when he warned of the temptation of becoming seduced into a close link with the military-industrial complex and begin rethinking our approach to the defense budget and the setting of budgetary priorities in this country.

Government cannot accomplish everything, but it can accomplish many good things when the right priorities are established and the right ideas are given the light of day and debated in a meaningful way. I would hope that this candidacy will bring out those good ideas and not let those that would have us continue to fear the future prevail.

What Are We Really Looking For?

Well, it's been almost two weeks since I got on my soapbox and ranted about the general state of the political world (feels like such a breath of fresh air to write about other topics).

But, well gee, there's only so long one can go without commenting on some of the ridiculousness that passes for political discourse or debate these days.

Actually, I thought I would start off by responding to my friend, Tom Bestor, who has an excellent blog of his own (http://www.rationalfeast.blogspot.com/). Tom wrote a blog recently conjecturing whether Rudy Giuliani would make a good President and extolling some of his virtues.

A couple of points of disagreement - while Rudy may be a socially more open-minded Republican than many, he has still been a consistent supporter of the war in Iraq, has consistently been pretty much in line with the Republican point of view on taxes (I don't think he sees tax cuts for the rich as much of a problem), and publicly stated on Fox News a couple nights ago that he would likely appoint judges much like Roberts and Alito (both opposed to a woman's right to choose).

And while he certainly stepped up and exhibited some leadership in New York, both as mayor on a number of issues, and after 9/11, I haven't seen a lot from him in terms of making a case for how we need better leadership on homeland security when it comes to protecting ports, public transport or a realistic defense policy that gets us out of the supplication to the military-industrial complex and outdated and unnecessary weapons systems and a look at what is needed from a troop, troop support and intelligence level to ward off 21st century threats, here and abroad.

I think I see Giuliani as more of a cheerleader type leader than someone who has really substantive, innovative ideas to lead the country in the 21st century.

Now, I will agree with Tom that I would like to see a candidate (from any party) step up and talk about the issues in a way that centers on a more pragmatic and less partisan approach than we normally see - and while I continue to find the whole process of picking presidential candidates tedious, too time consuming and too beholden to money and narrow partisan basesof the parties - I am not sure that I agree that someone like Barack Obama does not have enough experience yet to lead the country.

I would have to argue that Obama has a far broader world view and understanding of different cultures, different points of view and insights into the workings of the federal governement than George W. Bush ever had or ever will have, even after eight years in office. And, I would argue, far more foreign policy experience than Giuliani.

What he is lacking at this point is enough substance to his message and his policy positions, though he has been a consistent critic of the war (who else running can actually say that?), and has staked out some very centric and pragmatic positions on a number of issues, including healthcare and energy - two vital issues in the next election.

What I would like to see from Obama at this point is less politicking and fundraising, and more leadership on issues in the Senate that differentiates him from Clinton, McCain, everyone else. This is how I think he could win the primaries and win the next election - by actually exhibiting leadership, rather than talking about it.

Part of the problem we have (and David Brooks wrote about this in his column in the New York Times today), is that there are people, both in and out of government, who have very reasonable approaches to problems, have the ability to debate them rationally (and even admit when their argument is fallible), and have the ability to work with those they fundamentally disagree with and still come up with a workable (albeit sometimes flawed) compromise that actually addresses common problems for the country.

The problem is that the way our democracy has evolved has created a situation where those looking to get elected, or stay in office, persist in taking any little advantage they can of a specific political situation if it creates an advantage for their side, or party. This leaves little room for real, rational debate, where in public forums people are willing to admit mistakes, misgivings, or just plain wrong thinking on serious topics, and gives us debates on Terry Schiavo and a host of other irrelevant topics to the workings of a federal government. We get pork and earmarked laden bills on top of disingenuous (see Bush's latest budget) budgets that don't call out the real numbers, focus on tax cuts for the rich and leave the middle and lower classes holding the bag and in security hell as they try to make it through life without getting sick (since, if the Republicans had their way, we'd get rid of affordable healthcare and government run healthcare altogether).

So, what are we really looking for in the next President, and in political leaders in general??

Leadership, to be sure. But, leadership with an ability to produce innovative and substantive ideas for the country, and the ability to work with people that want to debate issues in a less partisan way, actually produce results and willing to be held accountable for their decisions by remembering that they work for all the people of this country, not just those that have the most money and influence. (Or only accountable to their dog and their vice-president).

That's how I would want us to judge the various candidates as we slog through the next two years of never ending political speeches, partisan bickering and officious posturing.

Cabinets of Curiosity

Back in the sixteenth century it was common for the elite (mostly in Western Europe) to collect oddities - little pieces from nature, art objects, just curious items and keep these cabinets of curiosities for their own amusement and to show off to friends.

Some people, like the English architect John Soane, turned his whole house into a kind of cabinet of curiosities, or more literally a museum. (If you are ever in London - do make a point of going to the John Soane House - it's a fabulous little museum, with some quirky things that make it really fun.)

So, that is my preface to a report on the art I saw in New York last week. It got me to thinking about the role of museums and how they can sometimes turn into, not cabinets or places of curiosities (though there are many curious things in museums these days), but can be places of curiosity - places to increase one's scope of the world and increase the level of curiosity in just the thinking and creative process altogether.

I always seem to come away from these short bursts of art packed into a day or two with new ideas and new worlds to explore. And, while all of the art is not good, there are enough ideas there to generate new avenues of ideas for myself, that the whole experience is very worthwhile.

Martin Ramirez - American Folk Art Museum

Well, this was the surprise and the highlight of my two days in New York (after 3 days of working earlier in the week).

The story behind the artist is fascinating enough. A Mexican migrant who left Mexico at age 30, came to the US to try and find work, ended up on the streets, homeless and penniless, was put into mental institutions, where he spent the rest of his life. He began drawing while institutionalized, was discovered by an art professor doing a sociology project on art of the mentally ill, and was then intrdouced to the public.

He's still not well known, and indeed if Karen had not told me about him I would not have gone to see this exhibition. Thank goodness she did.

The art is mesmerizing, fascinating. While Ramirez used limited media and limited themes in his work (mostly due to not having access to materials and with a limited life experience), he manages to convey many universal truths and experiences just drawing on pieced paper with mostly pencils and crayons.

The work is bold and inspiring, while at the same time, you wish this man had more at his disposal so that you could get even more insight from the work. Drawing from his experiences and remembrances of life in Mexico and then from what he could see just from his hospital window, Ramirez imagines and creates whole worlds of intrigue and social commentary, while at the same time being incredibly personal.

He uses line in bold and precise ways to reinforce his themes - creating stage like vignettes that showcase the particular idea of that drawing.

If you are not familiar with Ramirez's work - look him up and check out his art. You'll be fascinated.

Spanish Painting from El Greco to Picasso - "Time, Truth and History" - Guggenheim Musuem

This interesting exhibition explored the juxtaposition of Spanish painters of different periods centered on a variety of themes rather than in linear fashion, which made the exhibit that much more interesting.

It also raised the compelling question (for me anyway), of just how we perceive history - is it even a linear progression, or are events so intertwined that we take some steps forward, some backward throughout our histories and do we draw references from different periods to comment on our current one.

This exhibit, as stated above, was focused on a number of themes inherent in Spanish tradition and culture from the 16th to the 20th century. I don't remember all of the themes, but they were things like bodegones (this was essentially still life painting, but bodegas or pantries where food was stored was more the focus); crucifixion, nudes, royalty, knights and ghosts, etc.

Is history then just a series of themes to be explored, and how do they juxtapose from age to age? It's an interesting question to consider in these times.

As for the art, well, you can't go too wrong with painters like El Greco, Velasquez, Murillo, Goya, Zurbaran, Gris, Miro, Dali and Picasso all in the same show - and there were a number of pieces I had not seen before, so to see them grouped in these interesting ways and make the connections made this a very successful show.

Terence Koh/Kiki Smith - Whitney Museum of American Art

Probably the least interesting of the art I saw on this trip, but as I said, even in less interesting shows there are ideas worth considering and things that open up new avenues of thought and interest.

The Terence Koh exhibit was essentially a one piece installation that was "brilliant" in the literal sense as it consisted of one room, painted all white with one extremely blinding light placed at the back of that room so that it was very difficult to look into the room, but when you turned your back on it, the light projected through the lobby of the museum onto the opposing wall, creating silhouettes of everyone that walked through. It made for a somewhat seductive, but inaccessible diorama of sorts that evoked the oppositions of light and dark; inside and outside; memory and loss; pain and hope. Interesting in some way, but the inaccessibility made it difficult to really draw me into the piece.

The Kiki Smith exhibit was work from 1980-2005. Smith is especially interested in and concerned with portraying the human form in various ways and with various types of media. When the piece works (and a number of them did for me), then it is engaging and you could spend a good deal of time with it. When it doesn't, well then I don't get it and don't see the point. In some ways (and this will likely sound sexist), some of the work might work best for women as it explores a certain kind of approach to the world that seems to me uniquely feminine in nature. I'm sure Smith would completely disagree with that sentiment, but that's what came up for me when viewing the work. I liked some of it, and disliked others - but again, it raised ideas and a different way of looking at things, so maybe it was worth seeing after all.

Douglas Aitken - "Sleepwalkers" - Museum of Modern Art (MOMA)

Projected onto the walls of MOMA nightly from 5 pm -10 pm, this series of five short films creates little worlds and stories that share imagery and are intertwined, yet each is unique and different.

Each film is a story of it's own and has one actor (the actors are Donald Sutherland, Tilda Swinton, Chan Marshall (Cat Power), Seu Jorge and Ryan Dowoher). You see each of them as they wake in what appears to be the very early hours of the morning, still dark out, go through the preparations for the day (of work) - showering, dressing, puttering around the house alone; then going out into the world and taking some form of transportation to a place of work. You then see some elements of their work come into play and the "stories" never really have a definitive ending, but transition into the next loop or replay of the story.

There is shared imagery in each film and you can have different experiences of watching the films - in linear fashion, one after the other on the wall above the main museum entrance; side by side, two stories at once on walls in the alley between the front and back of the museum; or all five stories at once on five different spaces viewed in the sculpture garden at the back of the museum. All are interesting ways to view the films, and all evoke different responses to what you are seeing.

Seeing it in the rain made it all that much more topical, feeling the loneliness of a sleepwalker about to enter into another realm.

So, all in all, a good two days of art. I've just given snippets here, but encourage those with curiosity (my theme for this posting) to explore further on the various museum websites and other resources.