Brilliant, Without a Doubt

On Tuesday, I went to McDonalds to rent a Redbox DVD because I was in the mood to watch Frost/Nixon and didn't want to wait several days for Netflix, especially when I don't have a single DVD ready to be mailed back yet. Redbox didn't have any copies available, so I looked through the selections and wasn't in the mood for anything else, until I saw Doubt and remembered that I had wanted to see that since it was released late last year. With Anderson Cooper on CNN recapping the Michael Jackson Memorial service, I decided to stay and watch the service highlights and returned home when Larry King came on. He was devoting his show to Michael Jackson, but I wanted to see the film I had selected.

I didn't realize until later how uncanny it was that I had decided to watch a film like Doubt on the day of Michael Jackson's Memorial service. The film is about an overzealous nun who suspects the priest might have acted inappropriately with one of the students. The film is based on a stage play that was performed on Broadway in 2004, if I'm not mistaken. The title of the play is Doubt: A Parable. The movie version drops the "Parable" part. The play had a cast of four, but the movie shows actual students and other teachers at St. Nicholas' school.

The film is set in 1964. Philip Seymour Hoffman is outstanding as the priest. He gives two really awesome sermons, which are definitely unforgettable with a take home lesson worth taking to heart. He sees promise in the kind of changes Vatican II proposed...a kind of loosening up of church to appeal to more people. He criticizes the principal of the school, played wonderfully by the always great Meryl Streep (I'm now convinced that she's the best actress of her generation). He believes the nuns are far too strict and punitive, scaring the students into a kind of authoritarian fear of behaving normally. Streep plays her role like a true school marm, always quick to pass judgment and hand out punishments. In a lot of ways, her character reminds me of my school marmish co-worker. I've been wondering when I would find a right character comparison to make with this difficult co-worker, and now I've found it. Though its not a 100% fit between the two, the excessive judgments and know-it-all attitudes are there.

The two other main characters include Amy Adams playing a young nun who has her suspicions about the priest and reports her impressions to the principal. Viola Davis plays the mother of the boy in question, the minority student in an Irish and Italian Catholic school. Those two ethnic groups tend to be the most hardcore Catholics you can think of. The priest takes a special interest in the boy, for sure, as a means to protect him from the possible hazing of others.

What I love about this film is how ambiguous it is. Did he or didn't he? Its the question you keep asking yourself as you watch the drama unfold. I could see both his points and the accusations by the principal. Its truly a tough bind to be in, especially for a school administrator. She wants to protect her student from a possible pedophile priest, but at the same time, are the snap judgments about him a reflection of a personal (non-related) dislike? Making a false accusation against someone is one of the worst things you can do to a person. Once you destroy another's reputation, it truly is hard to restore innocence. People will always have the question in their mind. This is so true, especially regarding Michael Jackson. We will never know for sure if he was a victim of an extortion through false allegations, or did he truly prey on children because of his own sexual dysfunctions?

As I watched Doubt, I was impressed by the back and forth drama as you learn more and more about the situation that is central to the film's plot. The acting is top-notch and now I understand why Viola Davis' small part was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. She really packed a big punch in her short performance. The piece of information her character gives truly throws you for a loop as you have to rethink the situation in a new light. By the time the film resolves itself, the ending was amazing and perfect. Simply put, this film is without a doubt brilliant and thought provoking.

The playwright who also wrote the screenplay and directed the film said in an interview that he wanted to write a play about doubt. The idea came after his initially vague idea of writing about that topic. Because he called his play "a parable", I wonder if this was somehow inspired by President Bush. The point of the play and movie is that sometimes certainty is not a good thing. Doubts are okay, too. Certainty can led us into making decisions that harm other people's lives. The more I think about it, the more it does seem to be a subtle dig at Bush's well-known "certainty" (Bush thought he made decisions based on his gut instinct and seems to be very uncomfortable with doubt, nuance, or complexity).

This is film is definitely worth seeing as well as discussing afterwards. To reveal anymore of the film is to give away its power to make an impression on you. Religious people, especially, need to see this film. There is way too much "certainty" in religion, especially in regards to unproven myths and claims. People who want a cut-and-dried movie will probably not like this one because of the inconclusive conclusion. But that's what gives this film its power.

Flashback Friday: Evita

I admit that I was inspired to feature the 1996 motion picture musical Evita for this week's Flashback Friday due to three recent events: Governor Mark Sanford's confession that he had spent five days crying in the arms of his Argentine lover in Buenos Aires, Governor Sarah Palin's resignation speech, and the death of Michael Jackson.

Okay, you're probably wondering...you can see the first connection, but not the last two. Well, of course, the first one is quite obvious. Who would've thought Governor Sanford would sing "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina"? Not that he did, but its funny to imagine it.

The second one (Palin) is more a comparison between Sarah and Eva, the First Lady of Argentina. When Palin first appeared on the national scene last August, the more we learned about her, the more she made me think of Eva Peron. I know that Madonna wants everyone to associate Eva Peron with her (a possible past life thing?), but the similarities between Palin and Peron are striking. Both used their looks to climb the social ladder into positions of power. Both had long-standing grievances against slights experienced at a developmental stage. With Eva, it was being born an illegitimate daughter to a man who had a wife (Eva's mother was his mistress). She was looked down upon, not only for her illegitimacy but also her poverty. She carried this grudge all the way to the balcony of the Casa Rosada. In fact, she practically looted the Argentine treasury to live a lavish lifestyle as well as bribe her "descamisados" (shirtless workers) with tokens (food, wine, soccer balls, bicycles, whatever works) for their votes and support. Nothing she did impressed the upper classes. They simply looked down their noses at her. She was little more than a slut who slithered her way to power by the men she slept with.

My favourite line in the musical is when Eva leaves the balcony to tell the snobby people that the masses of people outside love her. The retort comes, "Statesmenship is more than entertaining peasants." Gosh, I love that line!

So, what about Palin? Ever since her public debut, she faced the scorn and ridicule of the media elites in sophisticated New York. You can hear it in her speeches, the way she talks about "real Americans" versus the fake ones, or blames the media and liberal bloggers for making fun of her. Her rallies last fall were scary in a way that even seemed to creep out John McCain. She appealed to the worst and basest instincts of her followers...those people who are also fed up with being looked down upon for their choice to remain ig'nant. She'll show those snotty literati types! But, didn't she know..."statesmenship is more than entertaining peasants"?

Both Eva and Sarah spent gobs of other people's money on clothes. It was all about fashion and making sure both women looked good for the people who supported them. Peron understood that the poor class saw her as one of their own, so they bought into her dramas as she fought "the oligarchs" for their wealth, power and prestige. Same with Palin. She is the embodiment of the hopes and dreams of many an uneducated redneck woman with an unwed pregnancy. Palin was proof that you don't need to waste time learning in fancy universities. You could increase your societal standing by looking good and winking and flirting with powerful men who will open doors for you. Hinting at sexual availability is just one way to the top.

Finally, the connection with Michael Jackson. Well, Michael changed the format of music videos from a pretty bland and unimaginative visual for a song (as most videos were before 1983) into a mini-movie with bigger budgets and a storyline with some mesmerizing visual effects and dance sequences. After stunning MTV with "Billie Jean" and "Beat It", he moved into short film territory with his 14-minute "Thriller." Since then, there have been many artists who have copied his style and made essentially mini-movies (Madonna, Duran Duran, Janet Jackson, George Michael, Paula Abdul, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey to name only a few).

Well...the motion picture Evita is essentially a two hour long music video. The film has very few moments of actual dialogue. The brilliance of the film is the ability to tell the story completely through a diverse range of songs. The lyrics are important, and each song sounds unique.

I'm generally not a fan of musicals, but because I liked the majority of the songs in Evita, I prepped myself into seeing this film by thinking of it as a superlong music video, which it most certainly is. Since I've had it on DVD, I usually only watch the scenes of the songs I like. The film is great for the first 2/3rds of it. When the story finally crests as Eva's health problems causes her to slow down and ultimately die an untimely death, the movie really loses steam. Can't really complain, though, because the film arcs quite nicely that way.

My favourite songs are: "Oh What a Circus!", "Eva Beware of the City", "Buenos Aires" (would've made a great single), "Another Suitcase in Another Hall", "I'd Be Surprisingly Good For You" (I love when both Eva and Juan sing to each other simultaneously), "Peron's Latest Flame", "High Flying Adored" (great melody, especially. Madonna looks radiant in this scene), "Rainbow High", "Rainbow Tour", "Santa Evita" (love the children's choir), and "The Money Kept Rolling In." The famous song, "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" is the show-stopper (though I like her dance remake of the song much better). There's no other way to describe this music style other than "rock opera."

My favourite musical remains Les Miserables and I would love to see that make it to theaters (I saw the Broadway road production of it in Atlanta in the mid-1990s). And my all-time favourite film is none other than The Sound of Music, the classic I never get tired of (the music can always put me in my happy place). Finally, there's only one other musical I like and that would be Sarafina! The Sound of Freedom.

When Evita came out in late 1996, I thought it was interesting that Madonna was starring with Antonio Banderas, who played the all-purpose narrator Che. Just five years earlier, in Madonna's notorious Truth or Dare documentary, there is one scene when her Blond Ambition Tour is in Spain and she makes a play for Antonio Banderas in full view of his wife. She loved him from watching Pedro Almodovar movies (the Spanish director who made Penelope Cruz famous). There's a scene in which Madonna is in the bathroom after having faced the scorn of Banderas' wife and she laughs nervously with one of her female dancers about how embarrassed she was to discover that Antonio was married. Its a hilarious scene as she tries to think of a way to re-enter the party (who should she flirt with next?) with some "dignity", but then she belittles Antonio to her friend by saying that she doesn't think he's such a great actor after all, as well as speculating on the size of his manhood. Shameless, that Madonna.

Anyhow, when I watched Evita, I couldn't help but wonder if Antonio Banderas had seen Madonna's documentary and what he thought of her comments about him and his wife. His marriage didn't last, though, as he fell for another American lady: actress Melanie "Working Girl" Griffith, who was married to Don Johnson of Miami Vice fame. If there was any friction between Madonna and Antonio Banderas, I didn't notice it in the film.

I consider the film to be Madonna's best acting performance because she truly does capture the essence of Eva Peron, based on what I've seen in videos and an Argentine biopic about their controversial First Lady from the 1950s. The film had long been in pre-production with actresses Meryl Streep and Patti Lupone (who played the role on Broadway) attached at one time or another until Madonna sent a personal letter to the director stating that only she could play Eva Peron (I'm sensing that there might be a past life connection between Madonna and Evita). I'm glad that the role went to her, even though Argentine Peronistas were livid. Many hate the film because of how it portrays their beloved Evita.

After seeing the film, I read a few biographies about Eva Peron just to get a more factual account because I couldn't tell if I actually liked Eva or if I was liking Madonna as Eva (big difference!).

This is a photo of the actual Eva Peron. She was pretty in her day and its hard to imagine that she rose to become the First Lady of Argentina by age 26. I can't recall offhand, but she might've died before she turned 40. She had cancer, which prevented her from running for president.

The photo on the right shows a rather stylish Eva Peron, who was not only a Peronista, but also a fashionista (and an outright fascist).

In college, I wrote a paper (in verse) about Eva Peron. The assignment was to write about a political leader or historical figure and compare their qualities with what Machiavelli wrote in The Prince. For me, it was easy. Eva automatically came to mind due to a line in the song "Rainbow High": "It's vital you sell me, so Machiavell me!" Basically, the Perons, like other right-wing dictatorships, looted the national treasury and left Argentina (once a growing economic power) in financial ruin. Their economic policies did not make sense. For example, Eva required everyone to give up one day's pay each month to go into her Foundation. She would draw a lottery to give prizes to people, so they feel like they won something from her. And you know she skimmed money off the top.

To this day, Eva Peron has fans and detractors. Is she a villainess or a working class heroine? Its the same question I wonder about Sarah Palin. Is she using her base of redneck idiots to propel her into higher realms of power, or does she genuinely want to improve their lives?

So, if you want to see a highly visually attractive film with some great music, as well as learn about politics in another country, watch Evita. It's simply a classic film that has even more relevance today than it did more than a decade ago when it hit movie theaters and a decade before that when it played on Broadway.

Funeral of the Millennium

Okay, so I called it wrong. Michael Jackson's funeral was bigger than the funeral service for Lady Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales. After all, the King of Pop had his memorial service at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, where over a million people put their names in a lottery for eight thousand some pairs of tickets.

The Staples Center! Site of the 2000 Democratic National Convention, where Gore gave his wife Tipper a passionate and lengthy kiss. It was also the site of Michael Jackson's last rehearsal in preparation for his London concerts. In fact, he was doing high dance routines and showing the younger dancers how its done the evening before his death. So much for reports that he was frail and weak! Video footage (of some 1,000 hours available) proves that he's not some bed-ridden skeleton as some people would have it. So, what was the purpose for the drug cocktails he was taking?

But, this post is not going to be about speculations on the cause of his death. Nope. I wasn't even sure I was going to write yet another post about Michael Jackson, but a recent disagreement with another blogger over the spotlight Michael Jackson has commanded since his death kind of compels me to do it. Mostly because I think a lot of people who complain about the media's excessive amount of airtime devoted to this death JUST DON'T GET IT. I heard all these complaints before, most memorably when Princess Diana died, followed almost immediately by Mother Teresa's death. Comments I heard others make was that Diana received more coverage than "the more deserving" Mother Teresa. Then when John F. Kennedy, Jr. died, again there were these critics who complained about the amount of media attention on Kennedy's death. Like I said...they argue but THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.

These individuals touched a lot of lives around the world. Whether you like them or not, many people have a strong emotional reaction to the deaths of these popular people, and the outpouring of grief is worldwide and universal. In fact, in 1963 when President Kennedy was assassinated, the grief truly did go around the world. My mother was a teenager in Thailand and she heard about it and remembers the sadness her fellow Thai people in a town like Ubon felt upon hearing the news. She even remembers that it had rained that day, and that Thais thought of it as the tears of God! Did any of these Thai people meet President Kennedy? What is it about certain people that capture our imaginations? I'm talking universally. Because let's be honest...the day someone like George W. Bush dies, there won't be an outpouring of grief in most of the world the way there was for someone like Kennedy.

These critics remind me of the cool kids in school, who disliked anything that had popular appeal. If a student or singer was extremely popular, they'd naturally "hate" or trash talk that person. They want others to think that they are above the tastes of what they view "the mediocre minds" liking. They're simply "too cool" for that. Its fine if they feel that way. But its hard to ignore that some individuals do indeed affect the lives of millions of people. The grief over Jackson's death shows that. To ask if Paul McCartney will receive such attention on his passing, or Sting, or Neil Armstrong, or William Shatner, or even Bill Clinton on theirs is to miss the point. Michael Jackson's impact on popular culture is far more reaching than any of those named individuals. It is not "hyperbole, sensational vulgarity, or pathological vanity" to recognize the impact someone like Michael Jackson had on our culture. Are there more who deserve the honour? Perhaps, but their sphere of influence is smaller. Remember, thousands of black Americans marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and went to jail with him, but he gets the fame, attention, holiday, and monuments in his honour. There were many who refused to give up their seats on segregated buses, but Rosa Parks caught the media's attention.

Spiritual guru Wayne Dyer often says in his talks: "nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Some people achieve glory where others serve anonymously. Is there anything wrong with that? Is it hero worship to honour the contributions of a man who was not a "so-so talent"? In the two weeks since his death, I've tried to come up with another "icon of popular culture" that is of the same level as Michael Jackson, and I simply cannot think of one. In music, only U2 and Madonna come close, but even then, the gap is still pretty wide. Maybe its because I lived in Europe as a teenager and bought German and French music magazines. Michael's songs reached the top of the singles and albums charts throughout mostly white Europe. Everywhere he went, he had the same reaction. Japan, China, throughout Africa, Australia, South America. What is it about him that achieved such stratospheric success?

I know the blogger whose post I have quoted above in his critique of Michael Jackson would disagree with me strongly, but this is what I believe about Michael Jackson...

He was a definite child prodigy, which is an indication that his musical talent was developed in a previous lifetime or lifetimes. One author who wrote "Return of the Revolutionaries" even theorized that Michael might have been the reincarnation of one of Sally Hemings' children with Thomas Jefferson, who was known for being a singer, dancer, and entertainer. There's no way to prove or know if that theory is true, of course, but when you analyze talent, there's no mistaking that Michael Jackson had a singing and dancing talent that surpasses many superstars. Part of his appeal, as well, is rooted in the mythology of the American dream...the Horatio Alger story of a person born into poverty and achieving wealth and success through a combination of hard work and talent. In comparison to today's Reality Televised world of entertainment, people can be famous just for being talentless idiots.

I also believe that Michael Jackson is part of the spiritual generation that is born to transform our world. The world of spirit is a world where race, gender, age, nationality, or religion doesn't matter. Through some odd operations, Michael's physical evolution seems to indicate that. We don't think of him as a typical man like his brothers became. He wanted to live in this fantasy world of Peter Pan, refusing to grow up. For all Michael's laments about his abusive father, a question he should have asked himself was about the tradeoff. His father might've been a hard-assed stage parent, but if he wasn't, would the world have ever heard of Michael Jackson? The music and videos he created, the wealth that followed, the opportunities money gave him to recreate a childhood in adulthood...I wonder if Michael ever stopped to think that maybe his father was doing the best that he could to get the family out of poverty. What a success!

In my spiritual beliefs, I can very well see the possibility of the soul who was Michael Jackson choosing to be born into a low-key family that allows children plenty of playtime in some future lifetime. He achieved success beyond anyone's wild imaginations, and perhaps even his own. Of course, with the life review comes the areas in life where you affected other people for the worst. If he did molest those boys, the life review will be a painful experience for him as he experiences the situation from their perspective. However, if he did not molest those boys (and if they were in fact after his money), then society as a whole has failed him. That's probably one of the worst things you could ever be accused of being (supposedly, child molesters in prison have to be in isolated cells due to endangerment to their lives by other prisoners). If he's innocent, the people who made the false accusation truly deserve to go to hell for what they did.

The other blogger commented "it is impossible to measure degree of influence anyway, so why bother?" I think the proof is apparent in the worldwide outpouring of grief in the past two weeks and with the memorial service on Tuesday. Did Adolf Hitler garner this much grief when he committed suicide? Did Jerry Falwell have this many mourners when he passed away? Will Nelson Mandela have as many people at his funeral some day (his funeral will most likely be another huge one)? How can one man bring together such a diverse group of people in celebration of his life, music, and legacy? To dismiss his influence on changing our culture is to not understand the power of popular culture in our world. In fact, before the Iraq War, there have been reports that recruitment for suicide bombers was tough because of the popularity of American popular culture in the Middle East. Mullahs in Iran call America "The Great Satan" in part because they know that our popular culture is irresistible and would undermine their traditional values. Hell, evangelical Christians in our society knock popular culture all the time and have even tried to counter it by offering up Christian versions of it.

Baby boomers fought the frontlines of racial integration, but it was our generation that grew up on MTV and Michael Jackson videos. I remember in sixth and seventh grades when classmates in lily white Nebraska wore one sequined glove or Thriller or Beat It jackets to school. Our generation and the one right after saw white kids buying rap albums and trying to act black, whereas a generation earlier to be called a "nigger-lover" was an epithet most wanted to avoid. So, yes, I credit Michael Jackson as the prime force who broke down the cultural wall between black people and white people. Dr. King might have done it politically, but it took someone like Michael Jackson to transform our culture even further, to bring America closer to the Dream that King envisioned. When Obama got elected, I saw a quote that said: Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Barack could run. Barack ran so that we could fly. I would amend that to: Rosa sat so Martin could walk. Martin walked so Michael could dance. Michael danced so Barack could run. Barack ran so we could fly.

It's not hyperbole to recognize the genius of Michael Jackson's music and legacy. If one has doubts, there's this question to pose. Is our world better because this person had lived? To that, I have to say YES. Absolutely YES. A million times YES! Fortunately for us, his music will live on for eternity. I never tire of listening to many of his songs. They simply make you feel good. What's the point of human existence if we had to be serious all the time? Why not indulge in the feeling offered by a classic pop song? We are at our best when we are inspired and act from that level of being. For that, I will always appreciate the bright shining star in the cosmos that was Michael Jackson. Rest in peace!

Tuesday evening, I went over to McDonalds to rent a DVD and ended up staying for an hour because of Anderson Cooper's recap of Michael Jackson's memorial service on CNN that I didn't get to watch due to my being at work when the event occurred live. I was very impressed. Now that's a funeral! Perhaps the best damn funeral, ever! Maybe for an entire millennium (how's that for hyperbole?). No other artist deserves it more, though, because I doubt that our planet will ever experience another individual like Michael Jackson. The music industry is too fractured now for any singer or group to reach such a wide-range of fans across the world with numbers in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. Its the same reason why the final episode of MASH remains the highest viewed show in history. We have more choices in our entertainment now that a show or artist simply isn't going to get the numbers that Michael Jackson enjoyed. In fact, U2's latest album still hasn't sold 1 million copies in the U.S., yet in 2001, Jackson's last album was panned by critics and still managed to sell 10 million copies. It was his worst selling album, but even his worst is better than the best of other singing superstars (Madonna, for example can't seem to break beyond 2 or 3 million albums sold since the early 1990s).

Above is Brooke Shields and Magic Johnson. It was great to hear Brooke's remarks about her friend Michael. They've been friends since childhood, as both bonded over their shared experience of being childhood stars. I was stunned how gorgeous Brooke still looks now. I don't think I've seen her picture since the media spat with Tom Cruise over her taking medication to combat post-partum depression. If I'm not mistaken, she was Michael's "date" to the 1984 Grammys, where he collected 8 awards. She had joked about not wanting to hold his gloved hand because the sequins pressed into her skin. She also compared him to Le Petit Prince, which I had read in French for a college French class. I remember thinking that book was weird, but in the context of Michael Jackson, it makes perfect sense now.

The finale to the memorial service, where people got onstage to sing "We Are the World" which featured a cool effect on the overhead screen (various religious symbols would form letters to the words in the lyrics being sung).

A golden casket befitting the King of Pop. I wasn't shocked by that gaudiness. It was kind of expected, really. A person who lived in the extravagence of Neverland couldn't very well have his corpse in a humble wooden coffin, could he?

The brothers all paying tribute to their most talented younger brother. All of them wore a single sequined glove. Its a tribute to a person's personal power that he or she could start a fad just based on an idiosyncracy (illustrated perfectly in Patrick Dempsey's 80s film Can't Buy Me Love). I often wondered if the single white glove was accidental. As in, Michael was about to go on stage and he couldn't find one of this gloves, but rather than taking the other one off, he decided to go with the flow...and voila! Instant fad.

Janet Jackson with Michael's three children: Prince Michael Jackson I, Paris Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II ("Blanket"). Paris gave a short, heartfelt statement in the end, saying that her father was the best dad in the world. She teared up, so I think she really meant it. I wonder how his children might view him. They will be interesting to watch, because perhaps some day, they'll want to know who their biological parents are (if for nothing else than genetic inheritence issues).

At work, I had mentioned that there is no way that any of the three are Michael's children. My know-it-all School Marm co-worker jumped into the conversation I was having with someone else to let me know that she knows a black person who had white kids. I'm well aware of the Punnett Square, thank you very much...but I think its not out of the box to suggest that these children do not carry any of Michael Jackson's DNA. Its believed that Michael changed his face to look less like his father and more like Diana Ross. The last thing he might want is children bearing his father's DNA or maybe even for his children to inherit his talent. I read a comment somewhere that said: "isn't it funny that Madonna ended up with black kids and Michael Jackson ended up with white kids?" (*Madonna does have two biological children of her own, though and there's no mistaking that Lourdes physically resembles her mother).

As for Janet, I really hope that she records a deeply personal and awesome album in the aftermath of this sorrowful event. Her last great album was 1989's Rhythm Nation 1814. Ever since the mid-1990s, she has recorded one hoochie mama album after another, to dwindling record sales. Note to Janet (and Britney Spears): overkill on sexual innuendo is not helping your careers. Take a page from Santana, who revived his career in the late 1990s with Supernatural and Shaman. He went spiritual and deep to find new success. A spiritual and deep album from Janet might bring her career back to the heights she enjoyed in the late 1980s. Doesn't hurt. She is, after all, the family's most talented member now.

Now that the funeral is over, I hope they release this service on DVD as well as Moonwalker finally. Heck, why not put Captain EO out on DVD as well? Three of his albums are the top sellers of the week according to Billboard magazine. As a cynic once said: death is a great career move. Elvis sold more records dead than during his lifetime, so there's no reason to suspect why Michael won't as well.

Happy Seven Eight Nine Day!

My brother told me this joke a few years ago...and he wondered why I didn't laugh. Um...because I heard it in elementary school! But, I give him credit. He tries hard to make me laugh. Unfortunately, my humour is more satirical, snarky, and ironic. I love laughing at absurdities. For example, I'm still laughing my ass off about the joke McCain unleashed on the American public. Didn't Republican voters know that the joke was on them? Get a clue, people! Sarah Palin is a never-ending joke and you still take her seriously!

In fact, a USA Today poll found that 7 out of 10 Republicans would vote for her in 2012. I've read liberal comments and blogs in which many want her to run and win the nomination, so that President Obama can have an easy reelection. However, given our history (Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush), I've learned not to laugh too hard. Those three politicians were deemed "unelectable" by the arrogantly elite and sophisticated people...yet we ended up having all three for president. All three won reelection, too (two of them in the biggest landslides, one by the closest margin ever by a sitting president). I know from personal experience of having lived in Europe for six years that Americans don't value intelligence as much as Europeans do. Proof of that can be found in the 2000 election. Gore was viewed as a condescending, intellectual snob, while Bush was the charming and folksy guy voters would love to have a beer with.

What scares me even more is the possibility of Democrats crossing over to vote in the Republican primaries just to help Sarah Palin win the nomination. If some scenario occurred where she became the President by fluke or fraud, would these liberal Democrats still be laughing? All I can say is that if someone as moronic as Palin could end up as president, I'm getting the hell out of the country. I love America, but the Bush years were painful and my impression is that Palin is so intellectually vapid that she makes Bush look downright genius. In fact, I'd rather have Bush for president again than Palin.

I read an article which claims that Palin allies are blaming Mitt Romney for digging up dirt on Palin's background. I've thought that myself, when he was passed over as McCain's running mate in favour of this unknown neophyte in Alaska. However, Romney should be thankful that his political fortune was not tied to McCain's defeat. The history of Vice Presidential candidates on losing campaigns don't bode very well (they never get the nomination the next round: 2004 - John Edwards, 2000 - Joseph Lieberman, 1996 - Jack Kemp, 1992 - Dan Quayle, 1988 - Lloyd Bentsen, 1984 - Geraldine Ferraro, 1980 - Walter Mondale, 1976 - Bob Dole, 1972 - Sargent Shriver).

Another history in Romney's favour is that Republicans have the tradition of backing the candidate who ran in a previous primary cycle: John McCain ran in 2000, Bob Dole in 1980 and 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush in 1980, Ronald Reagan in 1976, Richard Nixon in 1960. In 2000, George Walker Bush bucked the trend, but only because he was the son of the previous Republican president and not only bore the same name, but looked a lot like him and had qualities that some thought were better than his father (extroverted personality and more conservative). So, with that in mind, Mitt Romney's biggest challenge for the 2012 Republican nomination appears to be Jeb Bush.

So...you hear me liberal Democrats who think supporting Palin for the Republican nomination will help Obama to reelection victory...don't even go there! We simply cannot afford to take that chance. Too many previous liberals laughed at the possibility that America would elect someone as paranoid as Nixon, an actor like Reagan or a buffoon like Bush. The end result is that the Republicans always had the last laugh, and our country has suffered greatly for it (remember Watergate, Iran-Contra, and everything about Bush's reign of errors?). We simply cannot afford even the remotest possibility of Palin being on the general election ballot in 2012.

I will be doing my part to help Mitt Romney secure the nomination in 2012, though I'm hoping Florida Governor Charlie Crist will run just to make that race interesting. Crist seems like a reasonable guy and not morals obsessed like most of his party. Then again, he supposedly has a reason not to be.

The photo below is from a recent issue of Runner's World magazine, where Governor Palin does her beauty pageantry poses and claims that she could beat Obama in an actual race because she has endurance. The magazine issue could not be more timely! That's like the funniest thing I heard. Miss Quitter is talking about endurance and thinking she has more than Obama, who truly did not wilt under pressure during his two year run for the White House. I think Billy Ocean should remake his hit song and dedicate it to Sarah Palin: "When the Going Gets Tough, Sarah Palin Gets Going."

Happy 7 (Ate) 9 Day, everyone! Tell a good joke and save the bad ones for the Republican Party.

Sue Me, Baby, Sue Me!

Last weekend, after Governor Palin's resignation bombshell, there were news reports that she plans to sue bloggers and journalists who have "unfairly" gone after her and wrote "false" rumours about her life. This, coming from a woman who has called Obama a "socialist" and accused him of "palling around with domestic terrorists" and referred to David Letterman as a "pedophile." The lady can dish, but like Rush, can't stand the heat when its on her.

The more I learn about her, the dumber she appears. She's a public figure, so libel laws are harder to prove. Hillary Clinton has been subjected to far worse accusations than Palin could ever dream of enduring. Remember...Hillary has been called a lesbian and a murderer. What could be worse than that? To the Secretary of State's credit, I don't recall ever hearing Hillary dignify those rightwing accusations with any kind of response. Palin, on the other hand, too easily gets into a tizzy when she feels unfairly mocked or has taken satirical jokes to be serious accusations. Late night comedians use politicians as punching bags all the time! Both Clinton and Bush had far worse jokes said about them than Palin.

Okay, so maybe Letterman went a little too far joking about her daughter being a slut, but Palin was the one who put her children on public display and continually uses her children as props (such as her resignation speech when she had them standing up front by her and mentioning that she had polled her children about her decision to leave the governor's office). I believe it falls under the "fair game" category. If a politician is going to use their children for a political agenda, then they waived their right to complain how their children might be perceived in the public sphere.

After the election, news came out that Palin had criticized liberal bloggers, blaming us for wrecking her carefully crafted public image. She seems to have a real chip on her shoulder about people questioning her intellect. I suppose its her biggest insecurity. Its the fear of being perceived as an empty-headed beauty queen (a stereotype enhanced further by the notorious Miss South Carolina--"US American" and Miss California--"opposite marriage"). Palin thought Katie Couric was mean to her because the newscaster dared asked her a "gotcha question" about what magazines and newspapers she read. Palin is someone who doesn't like being revealed for who she really is: ignorant and way in over her head. If she can't answer simple questions posed to her, how can she answer the complex questions to show some kind of depth? The biggest sign of her insecurity about being perceived as ignorant was her response after she learned that she had not been talking with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but that the phonecall was a radio prank. She sounded like she was about to cry as she handed the phone to her assistant.

It's apparent to me that she got a free ride to where she's at, and she probably got by on her winks and charm. When I watched her first interview, with Charles Gibson, I was shocked by her flirtatious manner of speaking with him. She winked, licked her lips suggestively, touched him, and giggled. Her entire demeanor wasn't one that demanded you take her seriously and listen to what she had to say. She truly came across as a big come on, playing like she's available if the chemistry's right...so long as you give her what she wants. In the debate with Joe Biden, she winked and flirted with the camera, for all those red-blooded All-American rednecks out there who love their "broads" dumb and sexy.

In my last job in Atlanta, I knew a lady like her. One lady I worked closely with had retired. I was sad to see her leave, as I knew that she was good at her job and I enjoyed working with her. When they announced her replacement, I was shocked. The young lady was clueless about the programs and difficult to work with. She was nowhere near the best person for that position. However, there was a rumour circulating that she had an affair with the head guy. Some claimed that they didn't think there was an affair, but there was something going on. This young lady was pretty cute and whenever she wanted something from me, she knew how to flirt and act sweet and helpless. I fell for it a couple times before I learned her true nature. She would barely talk to me unless she wanted something. I supposed that she was this way with the head guy. There are women out there like that, as well as men in powerful positions who fall for it. While I don't know if an actual affair took place or not, I do know that she was promoted into a job she was not qualified for and she even admitted to a guy I worked with that she felt way in over her head and couldn't believe that management thought she qualified for that position.

To me, that's the only thing that explains Sarah Palin's quick rise in the Republican Party. If the only thing we changed about her was her looks, there is simply no way she would have made it as far as she did. She had the telegenic looks, conservative background, and family life that fit all the points of the Republican dream candidate sheet. The only thing lacking was a brain.

There is speculation on some blogs and websites that Republican Party operatives might have been the ones to have presented her with damaging information that would be released unless she resigned. They know that she's not good for the future viability of the party, which would show that they learned from the disaster that was Bush. Its fun to speculate on what the real reason behind her resignation is, because it could be any number of factors. Knowing the truth would help us to understand not only her, but the Republican Party, and various interests within that party. I've read some people's comments thinking that McCain might be the culprit to get revenge for the way she cost him the election. However, I don't buy that rationale, because I have a feeling that he didn't really want to be president (his behaviour last year was oddly out of character). Had he won in 2000, though, I have no doubt that our country would be much better off today.

The reasons for the speculation on why Palin resigned are deciphered through facts that we know for sure: husband Todd was called back from a fishing trip to attend that press conference; Palin's press secretary was on vacation in New York at that time; Palin's rambling speech and demeanor seemed nervous and afraid. She spoke at length about how defending herself from lawsuits have cost the Alaska taxpayer over 2 million dollars (which was far above what the real cost was: $300,000 to investigate Troopergate). Perhaps any day now, the truth will be revealed. Unless its a blackmail situation where someone told her that they had information on her that would be released to the public unless she resigned. As much as I dislike her, I hope its not a blackmail scenario. She should finish out her term of office like the voters elected her to do.

I know a few Palin fans. My supervisor at work always defends her whenever I criticize the Alaska Governor's experience or intelligence. The lady from church that I had a falling out with earlier this year was a Palin supporter (because Palin's just like her and the people she knows!). I don't understand why people who don't give a rat's ass about politics and governing think its a good thing to elect equally ignorant and disinterested people to public office. I guess I have a personal motive for this view, as I studied hard in college in my focus on international politics and my neverending goal is to get a government job. I've done my homework and I care about our government and want it to be the best in the world.

That's why I see as a threat these anti-government types who want ignorant people just like them in power. Most of these people probably never been out of the country, so they have no idea just how bad our education system is. Europeans are pretty highly educated and their news broadcasts are very substantive, so how is it doing our country any favours if we elect the village idiot to dialogue with highly educated sophisticates? Don't these ignoramuses understand that our Founding Fathers were some of the most intelligent people of their era? Now, they want to be led by morons like Bush and Palin, all because they don't want an intelligent president to remind them of their own ignorance?

So, Sarah, if you happen to be reading this or any other post I've done on you for the past ten months...yeah, I don't like you. I think you're a shallow, phony, ignorant, petty woman with nothing going for you except your looks. You might have been able to charm your way to power with a bunch of horny old men opening doors for you that have been denied to more worthy individuals, but you've been found out. There's no chance you'll ever be president because liberals and independents don't like you and neither do the financial backers of the Republican Party. All you got is your ignorant base of rednecks, where the men dream about sleeping with you and the women wish they could be like you. If you don't like what I have to say, then you can sue me, baby. Sue me! I welcome a good debate with you in the Courts. If what I say is libelous, you're going to have to prove that you're not an ignorant phony.

Remember this photo, Sarah? You put your hand on the Bible *((THE BIBLE!))* and swore to uphold the duties of the office you were elected to in November 2006. How can you go back on your word now? You swore it to God, of all people! Does that not mean anything to you, Miss Pentacostal Apocalypse? Good riddance, Governor Palin. Your Warhol mandated fifteen minutes are officially up. Exit stage right and don't make a scene.

Music Video Monday: George Michael

In honour of our just completed Independence Day weekend, today's music video is by none other than George Michael and his song "Freedom '90," featuring supermodels Linda Evangelista, Naomi Campbell, and a few others I don't remember at the moment. This song and video was an act of rebellion by George Michael who was attempting to be taken more seriously as an artist (it came from his album Listen Without Prejudice, Volume 1, which was the follow-up to his mega-successful Faith, that made him a sex icon to millions of teenage girls everywhere).

I guess George Michael got tired of being a musical gigolo, shaking his ass and acting like a male sex fantasy for teenage girls (I still remember which girls in high school were lustily dreaming about him instead of doing their class assignments). He wanted us to believe that he had no control over his image during his Faith days. However, his career proves that "sex sells" (to a point, I'd add) in our culture. Girls loved him when he sang sexually explicit songs and had provocative videos, but as soon as he got serious with his follow-up albums, he essentially killed his career until he got outed in a public bathroom in the late 1990s (doing the Senator Craig thing way before Senator Craig was caught doing it himself).

Back in the 10th grade, a friend of mine and I made fun of the songs titles on the Faith album. The girl who loved George Michael had argued that most of his songs weren't sexual in nature. My friend and I refuted her claims as we went song by song. Even "Monkey" wasn't immune ("why can't you do it, why can't you set your monkey free? Do you love the monkey or do you love me?"). This was the guy, after all, who recorded a song called "I Want Your Sex." Not only that, he had three different versions of the song (Rhythm 1 was called "Lust", rhythm 3 was called "A last request"). Other suggestive songs include "Father Figure", "One More Try", and "Kissing a Fool." Even the video to "Faith" was suggestive. The most popular girl in the class raved that watching the video made her want to "eat his ass." This was a tenth grade girl we're talking about! When it was revealed in the mid-1990s that George Michael was gay, it made me wonder what all these teenage girls I knew in high school who swooned over him thought. Back in high school, the boys were calling him gay to the girls denials.

Record companies might have some controlling demand over an artist's image, but I never bought George Michael's complaints about being sold as a sex symbol. He didn't seem to mind it much when the money kept rolling in as his debut solo album became the biggest selling album of 1988. His problem was that he got way too serious with a more mellow sound and his fan base grew up.

I consider "Freedom '90" to be his best video...because he's not in it. I did have a thing for Linda Evangelista for awhile because of this video...and I generally am not attracted to supermodels. Like him or not, his best songs always had a dirty funk to them ("Everything She Wants", "I Want Your Sex", "Happy", and "Fastlove"). His jazzy tunes like "Kissing a Fool" or mellow "Praying for Time" simply put you to sleep. But, he wanted his freedom and he got it.

**Sorry...the video is out of sync with the music. The other versions on YouTube are unable to be embedded to my blog, so this will have to do.

Dead Fish Don't Flow

I had originally planned to devote Sunday's posts on a new theme: Synchronicity. So, in keeping with my alliteration for Music Video Monday and Flashback Friday, we shall now have Synchronicity Sunday. Deal with it.

However, in Sarah Palin's resignation speech on Friday, she said a curious thing that only reiterated her complete ignorance to me. She said: "Only dead fish go with the flow." In her mind, she sees herself as swimming against the current. She's such a mavericky politician that way. Always going against the current, fighting every stroke of the way. Boy, does she have it totally wrong!

In many spiritual books I've read, the same theme presents itself (from various writers). Its the idea that when your life is on track and you are flowing with the current, that's when you feel like you are living the life you are meant to live. If everything is off track and you're always struggling or fighting, it means you are wasting your energy and not living the life you are meant to be living.

As one who has experienced the best and worst of that idea in this decade, I can attest to the truthfulness of that idea. For me, the best four months of my life were the four months I was a BYU Intern in D.C. Everything flowed! I was living my wildest dreams and loving it. I had many strange little coincidences and met interesting people. I had the ability to "manifest" many of the things I had wanted for years. No one had to tell me what "flow" was. Things just happened without any effort on my part.

Since then, I've had ups and downs. Most recently, I've been in the opposite feeling. I feel like I'm fighting against the current. My desires aren't manifesting so much. I still have no idea why it was so easy for me to meet Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton last year during their visits to Portland, but I am as yet unable to manifest a job that is more in line with my value system, passions, and capabilities. Why am I stuck with a bunch of miserable Mormon women who have major control or emotional issues, thus making the office environment a living hell for their dysfunctional dramas? Did I ask for this? Life is so not flowing right now.

Thus, I have been reading a few spiritual books. One is about how to increase flow and synchronicity in my life. The other is about finding what my soul's assignment is. In fact, in this second book (by Chris Michaels), I was shocked when I came across the following passage:

"For whatever reasons, some people would rather be right than be happy! People, who have been diminished or devalued excessively in life, perhaps through constant criticism from an authority figure in childhood, have a strong need to be right. They've been condemned so much that they just can't stand it one more time! They can't stand to make an error or be made to feel wrong again. So they absolutely insist on being right!

"...They're tormented souls who can't bear the slightest imperfection. They see each admitted mistake as a personal attack on their own integrity. And if this condition is left unhealed, the victims will create a life that spins in a vicious cycle of trying to be perfect and never feeling like they've done anything good enough. It is a life of self-torment and internalized hatred."

When I read that passage, an alarm bell rang in my head: DING DING DING DING!!! It totally described my troubled co-worker (the school marm, Helpful Hannah, tattle tale). She does have an obsession with being right and thinking she's right. She has never apologized after falsely accusing me of missing paperwork that was found on her desk or of using her locker at work and other such ridiculous accusations. Anyone who meets her can see how unhappy she is. She hasn't made the connection that her need to be right all the time has isolated her from the entire office and contributes to her misery.

My friendship with Nathan taught me the importance of friendship over ego. He and I have had some intense disagreements about politics and religion. There were times when I didn't even want to be friends with him anymore, but I always let that feeling pass because his friendship was more important than our differences in how we see the world. He wouldn't have been one of my best friends all these years if I let my need to be right interfere with my desire to be happy. A life without good friendships is not a happy life. I see that quite clearly in this co-worker, who does not appear to have any friends at all. She only talks about her sister and her sister's children. Its obvious that her young nephew might be her only true friend in this world. Just wait until he's a teenager and too embarrassed to be seen in public with his unpleasant aunt!

Anyhow, moving on from that...On Wednesday, I went to Powell's City of Books to browse the bookshelves for anything interesting. I had the most amazing experience of pure delight when I saw a book I had never heard of by an author I had never heard of. Yet it was a book that I have been looking many years to find. The book is called A Chant to Soothe Wild Elephants by Jaed Coffin. The writer has a Thai mother who married a white American during the Vietnam War and moved to live in the USA. For years, I've been seeking a book written by a person who shares my growing up experience of having a Thai mother and white father. I have a few books by writers who are half Vietnamese and half Caucasian American. I thought maybe I might one day write such a book, but someone beat me to it. I'm reading the book now (its only 200 pages) and have laughed each time he relates an experience from his youth that completely describes mine.

The writer, Jaed Coffin, decided as a young man that he wanted to experience life in his mother's country for awhile...as a Buddhist monk. So, he joined a Temple in his mother's hometown to learn Buddhism and what it means to be Thai. Like him, I grew up in America and was immersed in my father's Midwestern, white culture. Even the church I was raised in is predominately white. I remember when we lived in Utah when I was 8 and attended the congregation in Ogden, a teenage boy called my brother and me "Cheech and Chong." I didn't know who they were but just their names clued me in that this was not a compliment. Other times, kids would approach me with fingers stretching the corners of their eyes and speak in a sing-song gibberish that was meant to sound Chinese. I never understood the hostility. I've been told to "Go back to...", with the name of whatever country they heard of: Vietnam, China, Japan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Korea, Mexico, and even Jordan. Truth is, like this writer, I always thought of myself as a white person. I don't know my mother's language, culture, or customs. Last time I was in Thailand was when I was 3 or 4 and I only remember bits and pieces.

Lately, I've been feeling like I need to do something major with my life before I turn 40. Spending three months in Thailand on my church's WoRLDService Corps is something I'd love to do, but I have too many debts I want to pay off first. However, if there is a will and a way to do it, I would love for God to show me that direction. I truly feel like I need some experience in Thailand as a man to understand my mother's heritage. A heritage I had denied for so long because of the shame involved. I don't know where the shame came from. The bitterness Americans had with the defeat of the Vietnam War? This shame is apparent in the fact that I see many Asian women dating white men, and even half-Asian women (with half-Caucasian mixed in) preferring to date white men. I've heard some Asian or half-Asian women say that they would not date a man who was half-Asian or Asian. There was another book I discovered a few years ago that mentioned this strange "phenomenon." Men with Asian heritage end up feeling like they are not desireable to women at all. Maybe that's my problem. I don't know. Its just frustrating, the whole dating game.

The other day, I saw a lady on the Streetcar that I found attractive. I assumed that she was Vietnamese. She was with a talkative friend, so I didn't approach her. But our eyes caught each other a few times. I have dated an Asian lady in the Navy (half Thai, half Vietnamese) and got angry when guys accused me of having an Oedipus thing for my mother because of that. So, does that mean white men who marry white women have an Oedipus thing for their mothers? Her personality was so Americanized and extroverted, she reminded me nothing of my mother.

In high school, there were a few Vietnamese girls I found attractive, but because of the shame and denial I felt for my Asian heritage, I did not ask any of them out. I wanted a perky white woman that all the guys wanted! Now, I'm open to any and all races. Any relationship with a woman who shares my spiritual interests is what I desire.

As for another development in my life, I have felt a need to meditate more. On Thursday evening, I went to the Unitarian Church to participate with a group meditation for ninety minutes. Its a good start that I intend to make a habit. Every Thursday now, that'll be my thing. I was going to go the previous Thursday, but Michael Jackson had died that day and I wanted to hook up my digital converter box to catch any news about it. Hopefully, once this group meditation becomes a habit, I will find it easier to meditate on my own each evening. These small steps I'm taking will hopefully lead to a major change in my life before the summer ends. I'm so ready for a change.

I'm ready to be the fish that flows with the current. Those fish aren't necessarily dead. Proof that Palin is clueless about spirituality. You have to go with the flow for your life to experience synchronicity.