About a year ago, when I was taking the bus down to San Jose every morning for my job, I subscribed to The Economist to have regular reading materials. I let my 6-month subscription lapse after noticing that every issue was filled with doom and gloom. At one point, though, I was going to blog about how little economists actually know and understand about how "the economy" works. I put it in quotes because what is it really? It's like the human body in that it's more complicated than anyone even realizes. We develop drugs to treat disease but because drugs only address symptoms, they have multitudes of side effects, some so severe that it's sometimes advisable not to even take the drug. Very little in medicine is holistic in that it addresses the health of the entire ecosystem (the body). This is how I see the economy being treated right now, like it has cancer and we're just going to give it a massive dose of chemo even though chemo has drastic side effects and, depending on the health of the subject, sometimes only makes things worse.
I had saved an in-depth interview with Ben Bernanke about the levers he was pulling a year ago. There must have been over 20 quotes that basically said that no one really knows how the whole thing works. He just either turns up or turns down the volume on various dials and sees what happens. The problem, he admitted, with that approach is that it takes time to see the results so every adjustment is followed by a period of growth or decline before another adjustment can be made. Even then, it's not reliable to assume that if raising interest rates was bad then lowering them must be good because everything affects something else. In every interview on NPR lately, I keep hearing that the system is far more complex than it used to be and "we're just discovering that now." The truth, I believe, is no one knows how it works. I wish I understood it just a little, because I feel like this whole thing is being grossly mishandled.
It eerily looks like the 9/11 scenario to me. In both instances, there were many warnings that a disaster was coming and nothing was done to prevent it from happening. I've been reading articles for a couple of years now about an impending housing crisis. These people making the loans knew there was a chance that the whole thing would blow up. They knew, but they didn't care. Why should they? There were huge profits to be made and like the Enron fiasco, some people still made out like bandits while the entire company lost their jobs and savings plans. Secondly, after the disaster, instead of investigating how it happened and figuring out how to prevent it from happening again, our leadership asked to have total control without any restrictions. This is no time for asking questions, they said! Instead, they invaded two countries, locked up hundreds of people without rights, restricted our civil liberties, skirted accountability and spent billions of dollars (not on our economy and infrastructure) and seven years later, we're still fighting the "war on terror" with no end in sight. How do we know this "bailout" won't be more of the same? I can't help wonder if this constant comparison to the Great Depression isn't just a way of scaring us into making a bad decision.
I heard the plan described as basically a way for these financial institutions to unload bad debt without any scrutiny and without having to make any promises in return about how they'll conduct business in the future. These are the same companies that have previously been treated with a "hands off" approach because the government shouldn't interfere, right? This is what we always hear about how the "free market" works and how it rights itself when unrestricted. Kind of like the explanation that when left to the market, the global warming crisis will just magically right itself without any interference from the government. So why does that approach suddenly get turned on its head when these companies, unfettered, behave badly and put everyone in a bad spot? Now they expect the government to bail them out? Bush says to just fork up the cash and not give any lectures. He threatens congress with being responsible for a total collapse of the economy if they don't ask fast enough, if they stop to ask questions or make demands, for instance. And yet no one's asking the question that should be asked which is why it's so difficult to afford a house in the first place.
There has been some speculation that Wall Street should just take the hit. People say that this could go on for much longer than we think. Bailout after bailout after bailout. Has anyone actually done an analysis on the long-term effects of this approach? Certainly, a parent could tell you that bad behavior that goes unpunished, and in fact rewarded, only encourages more bad behavior. Wasn't this the argument when last year, the government made it more difficult for individuals to file for bankruptcy? Why should it be easier for financial institutions to be bailed out while the executives make out with salaries of $10 million and more? Oh no, though, they say this is all for the taxpayer. It's to protect us from total disaster. But don't ask how it works.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Building a more secure world, with guns
The industrial war machine is one of those things that the people in power like to say is too complicated for us, mere citizens of the world, to understand. I've heard that wars boost the economy, or at least that's what we're told in the U.S., although I imagine it only works if your country is involved in a war elsewhere. War on a nation's own soil doesn't seem to boost anything except the death toll. The U.S. had made it a special kind of a habit to be continuously involved in a war somewhere, anywhere but here.
Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!
In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)
Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.
This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?
How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?
No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."
Our country has been at war with one country or another since its inception with only short 5,10 or 15 year breaks, not including all the covert activities. In fact, the longest period of "peace" was after the Civil War, probably only because we were too broke and had too few young men to fight anyone. Not since the Civil War has there been war waged against the U.S., which probably makes us one of safest countries on the planet. We've never been invaded and yet our military spending far exceeds that of any other country. The entire world spent $1.2 trillion last year and the U.S. accounted for almost half of that. Apparently, though, we're so rich that it doesn't even constitute 4% of our GDP, putting us pretty low on the list of spending as a percentage of GDP. North Korea tops that list at a whopping 22%, yikes!
In the last two years, the U.S. has tripled the number of tanks, helicopters, missiles, jets and warships sold to the international community. At about $32 billion (so far this year), it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to the $583 billion we're spending, but likely represents quite a hike for the buyers. The biggest sales were to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Iraq and Pakistan. The Pentagon says the deals are to solidify relationships and make the world safer. We can only assume the arms to Afghanistan are to help fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda but 2008 has been the deadliest year yet for U.S. troops there. We've already lost more soldiers this year than all of last year so the proliferation of weapons doesn't appear to making anyone safer. (Poor Australia has probably had to stock up because they're sitting next to Indonesia, which is now a terrorist hot spot.)
Just as I don't believe violence as a strategy leads to peace, it's also hard to believe that having more weapons in the world makes it a safer place. Even a child could figure that one out. It does, however, seem to ensure that there is always a war going on. It would be difficult to wage war on your neighbors without weaponry. Selling our technology to other countries also ensures the need to keep innovating better weapons, to stay ahead of the curve, thus keeping the war machine alive. We have managed to lose far less soldiers in each war but the death toll remains frighteningly high for those whose country we occupy. The U.S. does not keep that count and the whole world is trying to figure out how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. The figures inhabit a terrifying range of 90,000 to 1.5 million civilians and combatants. The Bush administration maintains the lowest number, of course. "Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure" of 29,000 per year making our occupation more dangerous than Saddam's.
This latest round of wars, however, are different for the U.S. than previous ones. For one thing, we don't really know who the enemy is which makes it difficult to determine whether we're succeeding to defeat that enemy. Especially as this new kind of war seems to generate a steady supply of new enemies as it progresses; more effective war insurance! Another difference is the number of people who die from non-combat related causes. I just read that 16 soldiers were electrocuted to death because of faulty wiring in their living quarters. One while taking a shower, another while washing the humvee! The contractor responsible, KBR of Houston, who I have no doubt is boosting our economy, was paid "despite the problems, and was hired as recently as 2007 to repair its own faulty electrical work." Finally, because of the duration of the war and the relatively low death toll, most of young men and women are coming home and are physically handicapped and/or mentally damaged. What will be the long-term effect on that generation?
How do we know that the weapons we're selling to those countries will not fall into enemy hands and be used against us? How many times have we supported governments that have later become our enemies? We all know the story of how Osama Bin Laden came to power in the aftermath of being trained by the U.S. as a rebel to fight the Soviet invasion. Haven't we learned that lesson yet? It seems like the best way to defeat an enemy would be to disarm them by stopping the flow of weapons in their direction. Is that not something the international community is capable of?
No, apparently not. Russia and other European countries are also vying for big ticket sales to India and Brazil. In addition to the numbers above for "sophisticated" weapons, the U.S. also sells less sophisticated weapons and those numbers are already $96 billion this year, up from $58 billion in 2005. Then, added to that is the $4.5 billion in aid given to countries to buy weapons (presumably from us) and doesn't include the weapons we give away. According to this article, "The United States has long been the top arms supplier to the world. In the past several years, however, the list of nations that rely on the United States as a primary source of major weapons systems has greatly expanded." Expanded? Clearly, the world is buying because we're selling, not the other way around.
Again, I ask: Isn't it possible that the world would be safer if the U.S. didn't sell weapons to everyone else? It seems that we are in a unique position to stem the flow but the response from the Pentagon is if they don't buy from us, they'll buy from someone else. But countries are buying from us because we make the best and because we're selling. And what exactly would be the harm in the arms being bought from someone else? I would love to know. I think Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it best when he told a congressional committee Wednesday that the U.S. is "running out of time" to win the war in Afghanistan. "We can't kill our way to victory," he said, "and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone. It requires teamwork and cooperation."
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
No worse than the other guy
Sunday morning, someone asked me if I'd read the front-page article about Sarah Palin in the New York Times. "It read like an op-ed piece," she said, "not like a serious news article." Curious, I went home and read it, a five-page “expose” on Palin’s dealings with colleagues as gathered from "60 Democrats and Republicans." I didn't think it was very interesting, frankly, and it only confirmed what I already thought: This woman is not a contender for our highest office. (Although now she is reminding me more of Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For than Dolores Umbridge.)
What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.
Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.
This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas
I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.
I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania
Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas
Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ
I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.
Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.
The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.
I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY
While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.
Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.
It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI
I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS
You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york
i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge
Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.
In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."
Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.
I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California
I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.
What I found more interesting than the article, though, were the 1,051 comments (before commenting was closed). There were three types of responses. Those from people who already didn't like Palin and this just confirmed it, those who weren't sure what to think and are now horrified and those who think Palin is unjustly being crucified by the liberal press. The last category is of the most interest to me because it exposes the questions.
Some people simply cannot tolerate the ugliness of politics and I am one of those people so I understand that they may feel compelled to stick up for the person they feel is being picked on. But Sarah Palin seems to be a bully in every sense of the word, not someone to feel sorry for. It is precisely seen as one of her strengths, like it was for Hilary Clinton, a woman who can fight with the men. Then there are those who say the article is just a gossip piece and scoff at the Times for spending so many resources to only come up with this. I have to agree with this although I’m inclined to believe it’s because Palin doesn’t have much to offer but gossip. Mayor of a town only twice as large as my high school and governor of a state the size of the county I grew up in, it’s hard to believe she has much substantive experience to really dig into.
This isn't a news story, just a waste bin of mindless small town gossip. You could write a story like this about every mayor in America.
— White River, Arkansas
I'd love to point to Mayor Villairagosa in Los Angeles who has tackled issues the magnitude of which are actually comparable to those of a higher office. But what I find most troubling is the pervasive belief that all politicians are corrupt. An alarming number of comments sarcastically feign horror at a politician who "hires friends" and "fires enemies" and so in that regard, she is no different than Obama.
I am a registered Democrat and don't see Palin as being any more or less qualified than Obama. They both have huge experience holes. I do believe that the transcendent issue of our time is ENERGY. She seems to be the only person in the group of four who understands how to truly produce more energy.
— Bill, Pennsylvania
Sarah Palin is no worse than anyone on the other side. In fact, I think she may be better. So I will vote McCain with her on the ticket.
— Roy Pendergraft, San Antonio, Texas
Do you think your favorite Democrats are different or better???
— S charles, Northern, NJ
I actually interpreted what was being questioned is how one comes to BE labeled a friend or an enemy, not whether it makes sense to hire friends and fire enemies. Can you imagine the new ads for McCain/Palin: "No worse than the other guy, maybe even better." I suppose it is naïve of me to expect something better from the President but I don’t intend to simply relinquish the standards of our government laid down by our constitution because “that’s just the way people are" and refuse to believe that this type is behavior is required in our current government.
Well it appears that Palin runs a very tight ship. I am not at all surprised about the findings in this article. I am a teacher and my previous school underwent a change of guard in my last year. When the new principal came in she brought new cronies, new policies, and singled out her favorite teachers. Some of the teachers deserved the accolades and some didn't. Some policies were absurd, some weren't. Most of the cronies were incompetent.
The bottom line is that business is not as professional as anyone would like to make it seem. Especially in the government. Taxpayer money is the easiest checkbook to throw around. I'm not letting Palin off the hook, I'm just not surprised. A lot of people get jobs because they "know" somebody.
I'm sure we have all been victims of workplace unfairness at some point or other. I'm sure most of us have even participated in it. Most of this behavior is human nature. Do I think Palin will act any differently if elected to the White House? No. Do I think that she will be the first president or vice-president to use her power to get back at people? No again. I don't want Palin in office at all. But this article isn't making me like her any less. I'm more concerned about her policies.
— Toussaint, NY
While I agree that corruption is not a new idea, it’s certainly not ideal. We’re supposed to have a choice here! Are we not? And while I’ve been in really frustrating and annoying work situations where incompetent people were rewarded, good ideas were shot down and people played dirty, I fought them. I didn’t just say “that’s the way it is” and go about my business. To my detriment, perhaps, but I didn’t vote those people into their positions and the future of our country was not at stake. To compare the Vice Presidency to a teacher’s job or my marketing job is a joke. To say that it doesn’t matter how she behaves only what she produces is also absurd. I learned first hand that no matter how good a person’s direction, it is meaningless if we cannot learn to achieve these things in a way that is respectful and that builds roads and bridges to more progress.
Several readers suggest that the Times has yet to do such in-depth reporting on Obama, because surely they would find the same kind of gossip about him. Some simply dismiss the Times as pro-Obama and say they "will do anything to make this woman look bad." Two readers end by saying "no wonder your stock is tanking" and "look at your revenues," suggesting that the paper is going bankrupt because of their unfair reporting. Isn't it contradictory to accuse the paper of being biased and then making reference to their financial status? If fairness were truly the bottom line, their finances wouldn't matter.
It is nice but who is reading your paper, only the people who would rather vote for a pig than for a Republican. Have you ever done such a lengthy research on Obama's record?
— Igor Dolgachev, Ann Arbor, MI
I look forward to seeing similar in depth investigation of Joe Biden and, for that matter, Barack Obama.
— Dennis from the Bronx, NYS
You know there are times when I really feel like just saying goodbye to the NYT! You cannot simultaneously deride her lack of experience and also meticulously cut up her record. I am not saying that she is the most experienced but I have never read an article like this as critical of Obama or excoriating him like you did Palin. Your bias is so clear it is despicable.
— tom, Bronxville, new york
i will donate $1,000.xx to the charity of JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN AND MICHAEL POWELL's collective choice if they can point me to a New York Times story in the last twelve months similar in tone, depth, length and quotes from critics about either Senator Obama or Senator Biden.
— michael schrage, cambridge
Clearly, it isn't more in-depth articles people want, they just want the bashing to be even. Don't make Sarah Palin look bad if you aren't going to equally discredit the other candidates. Is it really our desire to see all of our candidates dragged in the mud until it’s impossible to believe in a leader that we can respect? It's funny because I doubt these people are as upset about McCain bashing Obama because that's just fair politics for one candidate to trash and lie about another. I, for one, am more upset about our presidential candidates engaging in this type of behavior than I am the press. The press has always been inflammatory. I might be wrong but I thought it was their role to ask the brazen questions and uncover the truth, not to present a fairly balanced scorecard of all candidates with equal amounts of ugly and pretty. Our candidates, however, are supposed to convince us why we should vote for them. It is NOT their job to slander the other candidates.
In another article about the investigation into a firing by Sarah Palin that several Republicans are suing to halt, one of the attorneys says:
"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."
Good lord! It's no wonder the public is so confused, these people can't stop talking out of both sides of their mouths! They want the investigation to stop because they think it's going to unfairly affect the election? But they ALSO think it's somehow totally unrelated and the public doesn't need to know the truth about her until AFTER the election? I am sickened by the ever-present reference that politics is inherently dirty and, according to the above quote, the OPPOSITE of fair. It seems to confirm that people really believe there is no difference between any candidate, they’re all corrupt egomaniacs, so it really is a mere popularity contest. If it doesn't matter what a person stands for and what they've actually accomplished, it only comes down to is whether you personally think they're neat. Which is so interesting in light of McCain's claim that the Obama supporters are just a bunch of glassy-eyed sycophants, implying that his supporters are meat-and-potatoes issues people. From the fainting spells the Republicans are having over Palin I'd say the opposite is true, but of course she wasn't in the picture then.
I just watched the Sarah Palin special on CNN: sorry, but I can't see anything wrong or that would disturb me - seems to be just a fine woman, and with a spine! So would you please stop bashing her now?
— Richard Streiff, California
I agree. I’m tired of hearing about her! On another note, I caught a little speech by Jill Biden who comes across as a truly lovely person — genuine, likeable and intelligent. She is the perfect antidote to all this ugliness.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Stretching for peace
I found myself in a yoga class tonight, here in the suburbs, and it occurred to me that I've been in a yoga class every September 11 since 2001. I think unconsciously I gravitate towards a place, towards people, that I know are peace-loving. It's a funny term, given Bush's constant use of "freedom haters" and "freedom lovers" when he should have been talking about peace. Freedom doesn't mean much when people are killing and dying for it. Anyway, I find it interesting that yoga is always the same. In every country, in every town, a yoga class is always about finding inner peace and radiating it out to the world. Yoga has become one of the largest counter-culture communities in a world that prefers war and violence to peace and love. It is amazing web of individuals who travel all over the world spreading that message of love and peace. Even if the towns are different from one another, within the walls of a yoga class, everyone is the same. A woman in the class had on a shirt that said "My religion is simple, my religion is kindness." Her husband's shirt simply said "peace." It was exactly the place to be on this day.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Just as the past seven years have been, the week was filled with irony as "In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department’s inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes." Whoa, the second largest source of revenue? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. It sheds quite another light on the idea that this country is addicted to oil. Even more ironic is our pal Palin's comment in an interview tonight that she is ready to lead and in fact, ready to be president! She says "“You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war.” What kind of reform is she talking about I wonder. Moral reform? I think that's the platform George W. Bush rode in on and look where that got us. Enron, Guantanamo, and now this, "a culture of ethical failure, a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."
Reports describe government employees taking gifts and accepting vacations, having sex with and taking drugs with oil company employees. Sounds fun! All this while taking in the second largest haul for the government. Suddenly people are wondering if pushing for offshore drilling is such a hot idea and Palin's talking about drilling in Alaska. This is one of those stories that makes me think, finally, people will hear the truth. Finally, people will see what a mess Bush has made. Palin called them "blunders" as if someone tripped over the dog or spilled milk. I wouldn't describe what's happened in our country for the last seven years as a series of blunders, I'd call it a culture of ethical failure.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Back to school
It's well into September already and I only posted three measly times last month, my all time low. I intend, this month, to get back on track. It's so hard to do. Everything worth doing has be done all the time: eating healthy, exercise, loving your friends/partner/family, forgiving yourself, writing and even gardening. Without practice and dedicated attention, these things wither - body, relationships, mental health, passion and the plants. I'm settled now, for the time being, in the suburbs. I have a one bedroom apartment to myself and although it's quite nice, I'm still very aware of not wanting to get comfortable, or maybe to not get too used to not having to work. What if making a living is like those other things and without practice I will cease to do it?
The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.
I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.
Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.
Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.
The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.
The suburbs are dreadful and even my mother thinks so. She's here because of me. In 1980, my parents got jobs in this area and bought a house in the place they could afford that was also a good area to raise kids. Many of the parents of the kids I went to school with left when the kids graduated. The others, like my mom, still work for the Navy and have to stay until they retire. Many stay here after retirement but a lot of them are anxious to go somewhere else. The food is dreadfully average and if you ask a barista if they have organic milk, they look at you like you just vomited. It's always been Republican country but the demographic seems to have changed. People drive huge SUVs with license plates that say "LUVRKIDS," right next to a sticker of a little girl praying. Many of my friends don't believe the stories of people here chopping down mature trees and paving the front yard in order to park the boat, RV or 4-wheelers there. Every night someone buzzes by one of those "mini motorcycles" and we can hear it coming for ten minutes before it passes by. It's a concrete paradise! Some of the American flags in the yards are bigger than the one at the USA gas station.
I went to the Farmer's Market on Saturday and made a lot of new friends. It wasn't as fun as the one in San Francisco but that's to be expected. One of the vendors told me that more people are coming to these days, that it's in vogue. The checker at Trader Joe's told me more people bring their own bags these days too. So I'm encouraged by that. I brought home from the Farmer's Market, the sweetest tomatoes, the crispiest cucumbers and the tastiest chard I've ever had. I also found pastured eggs (for half as much as they are in San Fran), raw milk cheese and homemade avocado cilantro hummus (yum!). I'm going to try the yoga studio soon and check out the new pool at the community center and, yes, I'm going to blog about something interesting. I'm kind of floored over this Sarah Palin thing and still formulating what to say about her except the fact that she is Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter. Ironic, considering that she tried to ban the Harry Potter books from the library in the town she was mayor of.
Dolores Umbridge, if you don't recall, is the woman who showed up from the Ministry of Magic in the last film and dismantled everything that was good about Hogwarts. Under the guise of spreading the truth, her main objective was to put to bed the rumors that something bad was about to happen. She took over the Dark Arts class and banned the useful books that actually taught magic and insisted that they instead study from these 1950's style books with innocuous illustrations. She took over the school and fired teachers that she didn't like and established hundreds of rules limiting the freedom of the kids, including free speech and the right to assemble. It's precisely what Sarah Palin has already done in her "leadership" positions.
Umbridge, played with delightful malice by Imelda Staunton, was adorable. She smiled and wore pink and had an office decorated with kitties but behind closed doors was not above torturing students to get to the truth. Nor was she above pitting the students against each other, turning them all in to spies, or lying to get what she wanted, kind of like what Sarah Palin did at the Republican Convention. See, most people don't really want to know the truth, they WANT to believe what they're told. You can tell them out-and-out lies and they won't look it up online to see if it's true. Even if it's later revealed to be a lie in the media, they'll chalk it up to the fact that the press is liberal (another Republican "distortion") or liars themselves.
The good news is that Dolores Umbridge was eventually sacked, after people started to believe Harry that you-know-who was back, but things got really bad before that. The bad news is that the religious right doesn't watch Harry Potter movies (magic is evil) so they won't see for themselves how dangerous Ms. Palin aka Ms. Umbridge is. Nor will their children learn the valuable lesson of how important it is to think for (and stand up for) yourself. The one thing I know most people can understand, however, is the potential for malice in politics. Just because Palin is on McCain's team, recruited to help him win, doesn't mean she's on his side. Look what happened to Kennedy! All I'm saying is that McCain should watch his back, I wouldn't trust that woman. If I were McCain, I would be sure to resist seduction by Palin and I sure wouldn't go hunting with her.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The last stretch
It takes a while to get settled in a new city and I know that San Francisco could have been amazing for me if I were here doing what I loved. Now, I'm racing in fourth gear towards the finish line with a growing list of things to do before I leave. Saturday, after the usual trip to the farmer's market, I bought the most amazing cookies to support Obama from a local bake sale (and made a new friend!) Then I drove down to Santa Cruz on an absolutely gorgeous day, to pick up a good friend of mine visiting from L.A. On the way back, we actually saw the fog blowing to the coast from San Francisco and returned to a sunny city!
Over the weekend, we shot monologues for this goofy contest. We spent time in the sun in Sausalito, walking along the water and indulging in midday drinks and food, sitting by the Bay. We laid in the grass at Golden Gate Park where the flowers in the Conservatory lawn almost blinded us with their color. I got a ticket on the way home for an illegal left turn but the cop apologized profusely for having to give me a ticket. We saw the international space station while lounging in yet another park and watched it twinkling along its orbit for at least 15 minutes. Something shot off from it and went on its own trajectory, and we wondered if it was a spacecraft on a mission. Both former competitive swimmers, we watched with glee as Michael Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time. And we saw a fantastic film, Man On Wire, about a guy who, after eight months of plotting, illegally tightrope walked between the twin towers of the World Trade Center "for no reason."
In the last week, I pulled my fourth gray hair and wondered how long I have before plucking is no longer an option. I was passed over for the job that I talked myself out of and was proposed to by a toll booth operator on the Bay Bridge. An interesting combination of events! I have a string of visitors, finally making it up from L.A. before I leave. Tomorrow I'll be volunteering with one at a community supported kitchen (CSK) - they make fresh, local, healthy food and deliver it to your door - and then attending a Full Moon Feast on Saturday.
I'm also volunteering for a number of projects that are more interesting than any I'm usually paid to do. Yesterday, I interviewed an autistic teenager who, after taking violin lessons for a year, starting reading and writing for the first time. She had a bright, sweet face and a smile that sparkled when she spoke. Inspired by her favorite band, Bôa, she finds music that she hears on TV and in movies and brings it to her lessons to learn. She's also a huge Manga fan and draws them herself, attracting her own fan club of readers. She's also an archer and has studied a bit of Japanese and is going to ask her school if she can take classes at the local college. She wants to travel to Japan after graduation. Joy and inspiration are infiltrating my life despite the hectic schedule and sore neck that accompanies it.
Over the weekend, we shot monologues for this goofy contest. We spent time in the sun in Sausalito, walking along the water and indulging in midday drinks and food, sitting by the Bay. We laid in the grass at Golden Gate Park where the flowers in the Conservatory lawn almost blinded us with their color. I got a ticket on the way home for an illegal left turn but the cop apologized profusely for having to give me a ticket. We saw the international space station while lounging in yet another park and watched it twinkling along its orbit for at least 15 minutes. Something shot off from it and went on its own trajectory, and we wondered if it was a spacecraft on a mission. Both former competitive swimmers, we watched with glee as Michael Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time. And we saw a fantastic film, Man On Wire, about a guy who, after eight months of plotting, illegally tightrope walked between the twin towers of the World Trade Center "for no reason."
In the last week, I pulled my fourth gray hair and wondered how long I have before plucking is no longer an option. I was passed over for the job that I talked myself out of and was proposed to by a toll booth operator on the Bay Bridge. An interesting combination of events! I have a string of visitors, finally making it up from L.A. before I leave. Tomorrow I'll be volunteering with one at a community supported kitchen (CSK) - they make fresh, local, healthy food and deliver it to your door - and then attending a Full Moon Feast on Saturday.
I'm also volunteering for a number of projects that are more interesting than any I'm usually paid to do. Yesterday, I interviewed an autistic teenager who, after taking violin lessons for a year, starting reading and writing for the first time. She had a bright, sweet face and a smile that sparkled when she spoke. Inspired by her favorite band, Bôa, she finds music that she hears on TV and in movies and brings it to her lessons to learn. She's also a huge Manga fan and draws them herself, attracting her own fan club of readers. She's also an archer and has studied a bit of Japanese and is going to ask her school if she can take classes at the local college. She wants to travel to Japan after graduation. Joy and inspiration are infiltrating my life despite the hectic schedule and sore neck that accompanies it.
Friday, August 8, 2008
An artist in corporate clothing
Last week I interviewed for job I'm still being considered for here in the Bay Area. It's another one of these marketing meets filmmaking type positions, that in reality is all project management with enough marketing for me to convince myself it's a creative job and enough connection to filmmaking to convince myself that it's related to what I'm really interested in. They told me that two people would be selected from this round to meet the SVP of Marketing and then the decision would be made. I got an email right away that I was one of those two.
This is the job that I gave the presentation for and had a sick feeling afterwards. I thought they were they were not enthused with my ideas, I thought they were grilling me because they didn't think I was qualified. Neither was true. I'm realizing now that everything that happens, is happening inside me. What I see on the outside is only a reflection of what's happening in my mind. It may or may not even be happening!
It occurred to me that I still didn't know why I was even continuing to interview for it. I wondered if it was because I don't like to leave things undone and I didn't want to walk away from an opportunity without understanding fully what the opportunity was. Maybe I thought if they made me a good offer, I'd stay for a little while and do my thing later. "Do my thing later?" Then I realized I didn't even know what the salary range was for this position. When the HR assistant emailed me to set up the next interview, I asked. The salary range was far below what I was expecting and what I would have asked for. Interesting.
Now, all of a sudden, it seems easier to walk away from this position. It becomes the final vote to do my own thing. But it wasn't! Somehow this threw me into an even crazier loop because it made me start to understand that it really doesn't matter whether I have a job or how much the job pays. I reviewed the benefits for the company: Three weeks vacation, over a week of holidays and the time between Christmas and New Year off, free gym and classes, free lunch twice a week, flexible work weeks, free counseling, first time home buying assistance, a $5,000 rebate if you buy a hybrid, paid jury duty and volunteer hours, discounts, free tickets, on and on and on. This is why people want to work there. This is why they can hire people who are over qualified and pay them less than they're used to getting. It's not a stepping stone to something else, this is a lifestyle.
After a talk with the HR gal, she said she could add $10k to the top end of the range and with the potential 20% bonus, it was within $8k of the low end of my range. I felt my throat clench and my stomach turn. I felt myself in danger of considering this job (that I haven't been offered yet) even as everything that came out of my mouth was meant to get them to go away. It was like when I was trying to break up with the last guy I dated: he was perfect on paper but he made my stomach turn. I decided to go to the last interview anyway, wait for the offer and then consider it. The SVP asked me very directly why I wanted the job. My answer was weird, weak and unconvincing, even to me. I couldn't think of a reason in the world why anyone would want this job. All of a sudden it made sense why they keep asking me that question.
A friend of mine asked me the same question only an hour earlier and my answer to her was honest. For this and the last three jobs I've considered, I wanted them "because of the potential that it could help my film career." That was my only answer. I couldn't believe it. How absurd! I'm too afraid to pursue what I really want so I look for it in a job. There's a part of me that wishes I could just get a job in a great company like this one, buy a house, meet a guy, get married and make a bunch of babies and friends who like to ski and camp and take trips together. As the years pass, however, more of me begins to accept that I'm just not that person. I'm an artist. I have more ideas than could ever be utilized in a job and at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to me is expressing myself. I can live without the other stuff but living a life without sharing my ideas and creating art with like minded people isn't living; it's dying a slow, comfortable death. I've spent the last three years discovering what came to me yesterday afternoon in an instant. I *don't* want that job, I never did and no one is convinced that I do, even if they see how my ideas and energy could benefit their company.
Starting my own business is also, I realize, not a means to financial independence in the usual sense. I'm not looking for a business idea that will make me rich. Living in this world of tech startups and VC capital has made me think that I probably could. I certainly have the ideas and smarts and enough talented friends to make it happen, but it isn't what I want. What I want is to make movies. That's it. Documentaries, shorts, features, low budget, big budget, webisodes, it doesn't really matter, as long as it's a film. I had a boss once who said my problem was I have "too much potential." He said that it would be hard for me to stay committed to art because I was capable of too many other things. He said that in 2002. It's true that choice can be paralyzing. It is extremely difficult to intentionally give up the earning potential of a steady career to be an artist. There's no clear path, no guarantee of success and no automatic respect in title.
When I get emails from actor friends, desperate for a job because they're flat broke, or when I hear filmmakers talking about spending everything they have on a film that didn't pay out, it scares me. This is a life of poverty and uncertainty, sometimes temporary, sometimes not. All of this time I've been accusing myself of running away from security, responsibility and commitment because I didn't have a solid career, a husband and a house. It turns out, I'm not not running away from anything, I'm just fumbling towards where I belong. The truth is, I do want those things, but not at the cost of giving up who I am.
This is the job that I gave the presentation for and had a sick feeling afterwards. I thought they were they were not enthused with my ideas, I thought they were grilling me because they didn't think I was qualified. Neither was true. I'm realizing now that everything that happens, is happening inside me. What I see on the outside is only a reflection of what's happening in my mind. It may or may not even be happening!
It occurred to me that I still didn't know why I was even continuing to interview for it. I wondered if it was because I don't like to leave things undone and I didn't want to walk away from an opportunity without understanding fully what the opportunity was. Maybe I thought if they made me a good offer, I'd stay for a little while and do my thing later. "Do my thing later?" Then I realized I didn't even know what the salary range was for this position. When the HR assistant emailed me to set up the next interview, I asked. The salary range was far below what I was expecting and what I would have asked for. Interesting.
Now, all of a sudden, it seems easier to walk away from this position. It becomes the final vote to do my own thing. But it wasn't! Somehow this threw me into an even crazier loop because it made me start to understand that it really doesn't matter whether I have a job or how much the job pays. I reviewed the benefits for the company: Three weeks vacation, over a week of holidays and the time between Christmas and New Year off, free gym and classes, free lunch twice a week, flexible work weeks, free counseling, first time home buying assistance, a $5,000 rebate if you buy a hybrid, paid jury duty and volunteer hours, discounts, free tickets, on and on and on. This is why people want to work there. This is why they can hire people who are over qualified and pay them less than they're used to getting. It's not a stepping stone to something else, this is a lifestyle.
After a talk with the HR gal, she said she could add $10k to the top end of the range and with the potential 20% bonus, it was within $8k of the low end of my range. I felt my throat clench and my stomach turn. I felt myself in danger of considering this job (that I haven't been offered yet) even as everything that came out of my mouth was meant to get them to go away. It was like when I was trying to break up with the last guy I dated: he was perfect on paper but he made my stomach turn. I decided to go to the last interview anyway, wait for the offer and then consider it. The SVP asked me very directly why I wanted the job. My answer was weird, weak and unconvincing, even to me. I couldn't think of a reason in the world why anyone would want this job. All of a sudden it made sense why they keep asking me that question.
A friend of mine asked me the same question only an hour earlier and my answer to her was honest. For this and the last three jobs I've considered, I wanted them "because of the potential that it could help my film career." That was my only answer. I couldn't believe it. How absurd! I'm too afraid to pursue what I really want so I look for it in a job. There's a part of me that wishes I could just get a job in a great company like this one, buy a house, meet a guy, get married and make a bunch of babies and friends who like to ski and camp and take trips together. As the years pass, however, more of me begins to accept that I'm just not that person. I'm an artist. I have more ideas than could ever be utilized in a job and at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to me is expressing myself. I can live without the other stuff but living a life without sharing my ideas and creating art with like minded people isn't living; it's dying a slow, comfortable death. I've spent the last three years discovering what came to me yesterday afternoon in an instant. I *don't* want that job, I never did and no one is convinced that I do, even if they see how my ideas and energy could benefit their company.
Starting my own business is also, I realize, not a means to financial independence in the usual sense. I'm not looking for a business idea that will make me rich. Living in this world of tech startups and VC capital has made me think that I probably could. I certainly have the ideas and smarts and enough talented friends to make it happen, but it isn't what I want. What I want is to make movies. That's it. Documentaries, shorts, features, low budget, big budget, webisodes, it doesn't really matter, as long as it's a film. I had a boss once who said my problem was I have "too much potential." He said that it would be hard for me to stay committed to art because I was capable of too many other things. He said that in 2002. It's true that choice can be paralyzing. It is extremely difficult to intentionally give up the earning potential of a steady career to be an artist. There's no clear path, no guarantee of success and no automatic respect in title.
When I get emails from actor friends, desperate for a job because they're flat broke, or when I hear filmmakers talking about spending everything they have on a film that didn't pay out, it scares me. This is a life of poverty and uncertainty, sometimes temporary, sometimes not. All of this time I've been accusing myself of running away from security, responsibility and commitment because I didn't have a solid career, a husband and a house. It turns out, I'm not not running away from anything, I'm just fumbling towards where I belong. The truth is, I do want those things, but not at the cost of giving up who I am.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I left my mark on this town
I'm making a short documentary on a mural project sponsored by Amnesty International and got to paint one of the puzzle pieces. It was cool how a theme of love and peace evolved between the 40 or so participants, without any prompting. Most of the pieces were painted by pre-teens from various youth organization and several were painted by passerbys and the organizers of the project. Mine, lower left, says "Imagine." I wanted to do the doodle of John Lennon (by John Lennon) but forgot to look it up before I went. I painted it on a jean jacket when I was in high school!
Here's the finished mural, decorating the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. It's where all the shelters and housing for the (previously) homeless are so there are a lot of people on the street all the time down there. We got many enthusiastic comments over the course of the week of painting. "We're all connected," "Life is like a puzzle, except you never get all the pieces," and "Why are you guys making it look like it was painted by pre-schoolers?" were some of the more memorable.
Here's the finished mural, decorating the Tenderloin district of San Francisco. It's where all the shelters and housing for the (previously) homeless are so there are a lot of people on the street all the time down there. We got many enthusiastic comments over the course of the week of painting. "We're all connected," "Life is like a puzzle, except you never get all the pieces," and "Why are you guys making it look like it was painted by pre-schoolers?" were some of the more memorable.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Back to mother nature
I know you're dying to know what will become of my garden! I haven't even had a chance to post about its progress and it's been seven weeks since I planted it. I started out with a lasagna garden but ended up hacking back the bamboo and making the garden bigger. I dug into the earth and pulled out pounds of debris - broken glass, rusted nails, old saw blades! I amended the soil with compost and manure and planted even more plants. I love digging out there, it's so relaxing.
San Francisco is chilly so my plants don't get enough consistent warmth and sun to really produce the way the seed packages promised. My mom's garden in So Cal, by comparison, runs wild and they can barely keep up. I will enjoy giving it some love and eating the fruits of my labor but will also miss my little city garden.
I returned a derelict patch of dirt filled with debris back to mother earth and there's an enormous amount of satisfaction in watching the cycle of life happening in the garden. I found this photo of what a dreary scene it was when I moved in.
I just hope that someone who loves vegetables moves in here and takes over. I won't have been here long enough to reap the full harvest of this garden:
I've been eating lettuce, arugula, fresh herbs, cilantro and radishes from it for weeks and there just might be summer squash before I hit the road.
A butterfly has been visiting me for the last week, flying around me as I water and pull weeds. It's the first time I've ever seen a beautiful creature back there and I believe it's because the garden is a happy place now. I did that.
San Francisco is chilly so my plants don't get enough consistent warmth and sun to really produce the way the seed packages promised. My mom's garden in So Cal, by comparison, runs wild and they can barely keep up. I will enjoy giving it some love and eating the fruits of my labor but will also miss my little city garden.
I returned a derelict patch of dirt filled with debris back to mother earth and there's an enormous amount of satisfaction in watching the cycle of life happening in the garden. I found this photo of what a dreary scene it was when I moved in.
I just hope that someone who loves vegetables moves in here and takes over. I won't have been here long enough to reap the full harvest of this garden:
I've been eating lettuce, arugula, fresh herbs, cilantro and radishes from it for weeks and there just might be summer squash before I hit the road.
A butterfly has been visiting me for the last week, flying around me as I water and pull weeds. It's the first time I've ever seen a beautiful creature back there and I believe it's because the garden is a happy place now. I did that.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Bohemian like me
When I was a girl, I used to wish that I had the kind of family that played musical instruments and recited poetry at parties, that would sit around talking about books they'd read and travel all over the world. I imagined animals in the house. A dog running excitedly after children, barking with delight, birds twittering in a cage and a cat slinking around a chair. Eclectic people would drop by for enlightening conversation; professors and travelers, visitors from other countries. We'd have a library full of books and all kinds of instruments sitting around like telescopes. I can see it so clearly, even now. It was probably from a movie I saw.
What I didn't realize then is that I actually had a pretty eclectic family, compared to most people I knew. We grew our own food and eschewed traditional medicine. We went for long hikes and bike rides together and to museums and historical sites. We drove cross country twice. My parents took us to Europe several times. I climbed the Eiffel Tower and stayed in a French country house. We toured Neuschwanstein Castle and picnicked in the Black Forest. We drove all over England and Wales and my brother and I danced all night at The Hacienda in Manchester. At home, we didn't watch TV, instead our favorites were The Marx Brothers and Alfred Hitchcock movies. I knew movies from the sixties better than any from the eighties. Exchange students from Japan, Germany and Sweden stayed at our house for a year at a time and my best friends in school were usually from other countries.
Instead of artists or professors, though, my parents were engineers and didn't care much for the arts. My dad was strict and controlling, not the kind sympathetic father that Gidget had. My friends didn't like being at my house (no TV, no junk food!) and I wasn't allowed to stay at anyone else's house. We rarely had animals and spent years sneaking cats into the house before my dad gave up protesting. Even though my parents had friends, they rarely came over and most of them weren't the kind that belonged in my bohemian household. The elements missing were art, chaos and wacky but genuine love and affection. I still dream of that household even though I'm unmarried, have no pets and keep a pretty tidy house.
In recent weeks, however, I've noticed myself frequently commenting (to myself, of course) that I have so many cool friends! The kind of friends that I imagined dropping by my dream family's house. Max was on Charlie Rose talking about his book, Adam is making a feature and writes a biting political blog, Annmarie is educating people on native nutrition and making all of her own food from scratch, Ross' first feature premieres next month, Steve is putting investor's packages together for a soon-to-be Broadway musical and Addi plays a balloon bass in Unpopable, now available on iTunes. They have a fantastic video that really sums up that wackiness that feels like home to me. I guess it's not surprising that I've become the bohemian I always wanted to be.
What I didn't realize then is that I actually had a pretty eclectic family, compared to most people I knew. We grew our own food and eschewed traditional medicine. We went for long hikes and bike rides together and to museums and historical sites. We drove cross country twice. My parents took us to Europe several times. I climbed the Eiffel Tower and stayed in a French country house. We toured Neuschwanstein Castle and picnicked in the Black Forest. We drove all over England and Wales and my brother and I danced all night at The Hacienda in Manchester. At home, we didn't watch TV, instead our favorites were The Marx Brothers and Alfred Hitchcock movies. I knew movies from the sixties better than any from the eighties. Exchange students from Japan, Germany and Sweden stayed at our house for a year at a time and my best friends in school were usually from other countries.
Instead of artists or professors, though, my parents were engineers and didn't care much for the arts. My dad was strict and controlling, not the kind sympathetic father that Gidget had. My friends didn't like being at my house (no TV, no junk food!) and I wasn't allowed to stay at anyone else's house. We rarely had animals and spent years sneaking cats into the house before my dad gave up protesting. Even though my parents had friends, they rarely came over and most of them weren't the kind that belonged in my bohemian household. The elements missing were art, chaos and wacky but genuine love and affection. I still dream of that household even though I'm unmarried, have no pets and keep a pretty tidy house.
In recent weeks, however, I've noticed myself frequently commenting (to myself, of course) that I have so many cool friends! The kind of friends that I imagined dropping by my dream family's house. Max was on Charlie Rose talking about his book, Adam is making a feature and writes a biting political blog, Annmarie is educating people on native nutrition and making all of her own food from scratch, Ross' first feature premieres next month, Steve is putting investor's packages together for a soon-to-be Broadway musical and Addi plays a balloon bass in Unpopable, now available on iTunes. They have a fantastic video that really sums up that wackiness that feels like home to me. I guess it's not surprising that I've become the bohemian I always wanted to be.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Exactly what I needed
Saturday, the day after I was wetting my pants over my complicated life, I got exactly what I needed: someone to challenge me. In yoga the day before, the teacher was asking us to be grateful for those people who challenge our choices, our life, our words, everything. You know who they are, sometimes our friends, our family or just people we meet in the laundromat. I had a friend coming over and she was going to spend the night on my couch. I rushed across the street to wash some sheets and towels for her impending arrival.
In the laundromat, there was a guy looking at me. He was very striking looking: Tall, white hair, tanned skin, bright blue eyes, in his 50's or 60's. I could tell by the way he was watching me that he was going to butt into my life. I quickly put my clothes in the washer and headed back home. 25 minutes later I was back to put them in the dryer. Now the man was sitting outside on a bench talking to another guy. He looked at me again, as I went inside. Oh brother! I put my clothes in the dryer and then read my National Geographic while I waited. He came in as I was checking my clothes and saw the magazine. "National Geographic? Do you get that regularly?" I said yes and he asked me if I actually read it or just looked at the pictures. It took me a minute so he told me that he was making that old joke about the naked breasts on African women. Charming. I assured him that I did, in fact, read it and that I didn't think they showed tits anymore. They must be cracking down.
As I folded my clothes, he proceeded to ask me a hundred questions about where I live, what I do for work, etc, etc. I should have kept my mouth shut but he had a nice face and sounded like John Wayne. I told him about my plan to move back to L.A. and start my own business. Next thing you know, the guy is telling me that L.A. is awful and I don't want to live there, that San Francisco is the best place on earth, that before I go I should look for a job with the city. They, apparently, give lifetime health care after you work there five years, but they're changing it soon to twenty years. "You should be buying a house," he said, "with first time homeowners, you could buy a house with $10 grand." He added I should at least try that before I ran home to live with mommy. It's funny because in the moment, I was actually interested in what he had to say. We talked about how abysmal health care is in this country and I said that I thought the government was taking plenty of our money, they just weren't spending it on the things that are important to us. I also said that I think people rely too much on "health care" instead of just being healthy.
I told him my plan is to stay healthy and not get hit by a bus. It sounded ridiculous, but then again, so did his plan. Honestly, five years as a civil servant? Could you imagine? I felt like I was dying in a corporate environment for crying out loud. Buy a house, in the Bay Area? I've been laid off twice in a year, there's no security in a job and what happens when I have that huge mortgage payment and no job? It was in the hours later that I realized I am designing my own life, my own freedom, my own security. The encounter with this stranger, who iterated all of my own counter arguments to me, in person, made me defend my plan, face my doubts and realize that I'm doing exactly the right thing for me, right now.
In the laundromat, there was a guy looking at me. He was very striking looking: Tall, white hair, tanned skin, bright blue eyes, in his 50's or 60's. I could tell by the way he was watching me that he was going to butt into my life. I quickly put my clothes in the washer and headed back home. 25 minutes later I was back to put them in the dryer. Now the man was sitting outside on a bench talking to another guy. He looked at me again, as I went inside. Oh brother! I put my clothes in the dryer and then read my National Geographic while I waited. He came in as I was checking my clothes and saw the magazine. "National Geographic? Do you get that regularly?" I said yes and he asked me if I actually read it or just looked at the pictures. It took me a minute so he told me that he was making that old joke about the naked breasts on African women. Charming. I assured him that I did, in fact, read it and that I didn't think they showed tits anymore. They must be cracking down.
As I folded my clothes, he proceeded to ask me a hundred questions about where I live, what I do for work, etc, etc. I should have kept my mouth shut but he had a nice face and sounded like John Wayne. I told him about my plan to move back to L.A. and start my own business. Next thing you know, the guy is telling me that L.A. is awful and I don't want to live there, that San Francisco is the best place on earth, that before I go I should look for a job with the city. They, apparently, give lifetime health care after you work there five years, but they're changing it soon to twenty years. "You should be buying a house," he said, "with first time homeowners, you could buy a house with $10 grand." He added I should at least try that before I ran home to live with mommy. It's funny because in the moment, I was actually interested in what he had to say. We talked about how abysmal health care is in this country and I said that I thought the government was taking plenty of our money, they just weren't spending it on the things that are important to us. I also said that I think people rely too much on "health care" instead of just being healthy.
I told him my plan is to stay healthy and not get hit by a bus. It sounded ridiculous, but then again, so did his plan. Honestly, five years as a civil servant? Could you imagine? I felt like I was dying in a corporate environment for crying out loud. Buy a house, in the Bay Area? I've been laid off twice in a year, there's no security in a job and what happens when I have that huge mortgage payment and no job? It was in the hours later that I realized I am designing my own life, my own freedom, my own security. The encounter with this stranger, who iterated all of my own counter arguments to me, in person, made me defend my plan, face my doubts and realize that I'm doing exactly the right thing for me, right now.
Friday, July 25, 2008
"Oh agony, aaa-GO-KNEEEEE!"
One of the things that has always made me a really good project manager is my ability to make decisions. I can assess a situation and instantly make a call, settle a dispute or change course to accommodate bumps in the road. Other people fret and worry over minute details for weeks, flap their arms wondering what to do when something goes wrong, or just spend hours complaining about how everything is screwed up. I just say "this is what we're going to do" and it's done and everyone is happy. Yet in my own life, I find that kind of decision making to be painfully difficult. I agonize over every detail and feeling and possible outcome, I worry about potential missed opportunities and future problems and about whether making these changes makes me a quitter, a flake or just a crazy person.
So here I am, less than a week away from the day that I have to give notice to leave this apartment and I've just been scheduled for another round of interviews at one of the places I last interviewed at. I'm still being considered for the other one as well, it's just that these companies take forever to actually hire a person. Seriously, like months. It's not that I really want this job but it's thrown me for a bit of a loop. I thought I had correctly deduced that they were not that interested in me and my big ideas but maybe I was wrong. I ask myself, what does it mean that I've still got these people after me when I've decided to do my own thing?
Maybe it's a test. If I was leaving San Francisco because I was broke and couldn't find a job, then surely getting one of these would mean that I could stay. If I was going to live at home because I was hurt and disillusioned then surely still being in the running for a job that seems to embrace my thinking would make me feel compelled to stay and take the job. If, however, my conviction to start my own company is strong, and I know that it's what I want to do, then no job is going to change my mind. Maybe it's just a reminder that there will always be jobs for me. They may take longer to get sometimes and it may not be easy to find one that interests me but they are out there. If I don't succeed in this new venture, surely I won't be any less qualified than I am now. That was what I told myself when I quit my career to go act. "If at the end of it, I need a job, I can always get one." And I was right.
The truth is, I have never been more excited about a JOB than I was about the job I moved up here for and yet it never came close to fulfilling the promise that it held. It became obvious that it would never yield the results I had imagined. What are the chances that one of these jobs will? And what about what I really want to do? How long will I make myself wait to finally be brave enough to try a second time? It is very scary to try something new, it took me two years to do it the first time and, actually, about two years the second time. Certainly, it's easier to make a change when one is miserable or down and out and the glimmer of a shiny new job is just the kind of lure that could divert attention from the bigger catch.
So here I am, less than a week away from the day that I have to give notice to leave this apartment and I've just been scheduled for another round of interviews at one of the places I last interviewed at. I'm still being considered for the other one as well, it's just that these companies take forever to actually hire a person. Seriously, like months. It's not that I really want this job but it's thrown me for a bit of a loop. I thought I had correctly deduced that they were not that interested in me and my big ideas but maybe I was wrong. I ask myself, what does it mean that I've still got these people after me when I've decided to do my own thing?
Maybe it's a test. If I was leaving San Francisco because I was broke and couldn't find a job, then surely getting one of these would mean that I could stay. If I was going to live at home because I was hurt and disillusioned then surely still being in the running for a job that seems to embrace my thinking would make me feel compelled to stay and take the job. If, however, my conviction to start my own company is strong, and I know that it's what I want to do, then no job is going to change my mind. Maybe it's just a reminder that there will always be jobs for me. They may take longer to get sometimes and it may not be easy to find one that interests me but they are out there. If I don't succeed in this new venture, surely I won't be any less qualified than I am now. That was what I told myself when I quit my career to go act. "If at the end of it, I need a job, I can always get one." And I was right.
The truth is, I have never been more excited about a JOB than I was about the job I moved up here for and yet it never came close to fulfilling the promise that it held. It became obvious that it would never yield the results I had imagined. What are the chances that one of these jobs will? And what about what I really want to do? How long will I make myself wait to finally be brave enough to try a second time? It is very scary to try something new, it took me two years to do it the first time and, actually, about two years the second time. Certainly, it's easier to make a change when one is miserable or down and out and the glimmer of a shiny new job is just the kind of lure that could divert attention from the bigger catch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)