This is the start of a short story.
I’m not going to sit here and say that I, Katie Turner Starr Khoury Keifer, would have done it differently. The world doesn’t work that way. You close your eyes asleep and when the dream erupts, are you telling me that you have control over that dream? If you do, just stop right now. Because when we say we wish it were all a dream we mean we might wake up and find that world gone. No one dreams pleasant dreams, no one I know. Maybe I only know myself, maybe every dream I’ve ever had has been a nightmare.
I wish Nairobi was a dream, that Matt in Nairobi was a dream. Not Matt was a dream, no, I love Matt. At times, I think he was the only one I really loved, certainly the only one I ever wanted to have children with. Him and I. To build that, in a little rolling shrieking bundle of joy, that would have made my life. It didn’t. So I wish Matt in Nairobi was a dream, because, if it was, everything would be different.
Matt wanted to go, he begged at his office to go. Kenya is civilized for Africa. It was going to hurt like hell to let him go. Three months, and maybe three more! We hadn’t even been married that long! My husband, my baby husband, off to do his part to change the world. We were raised to do good, in that old-fashioned Midwestern way, Matt and I, and that was part of the attraction, the trust, the us. That’s what had brought us to Washington, and that’s what took Matt to Nairobi.
When it happens, it’s like a car accident. This can’t really be happening AND WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG TO HAPPEN? A phone call. Turn on the TV. Why hasn’t he called? Where was he when the bomb went off? He wasn’t there, I know he wasn’t there, but he could have been there, so I don’t know he wasn’t there but I don’t know that he’s dead, I know he isn’t dead, have I ever been wrong before I have been wrong before but I’ve been right before too, right about Matt, about us, of course he hasn’t called, it’s chaos and since when did the phones ever work there (ha ha) and that was before but look at all the smoke and fire and glass except they would say if a westerner was dead – it’s not fair that’s just how it is unless he was right there when it went off and that’s where he’s supposed to be oh my god help!
That was the worst day of my life. What can your mom say, or Matt’s boss Larry? No one knows anything beyond their thoughts and prayers and silly little hopes, you know. When the phone rang I knew it was him. I didn’t stop crying, but you can’t tell tears just by looking at them.
He was two blocks away when it went off. Just dumb luck – like the night back in school when we both needed to read the same reserve book. Was it fate? Of course, the world that is is, and we just swim in it, facing the current, presenting the illusion of the fight, because when you turn your back that’s when you get swept away, lose your bearings, slam into the concrete wall.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Remy Says I'm Crazy
Remy keeps saying I'm crazy. Always under the same circumstances. We're typically involved in a long conversation, or a deep narrative thread is going on. Then I reach a conclusion, that to me that is organic, logically dictated by the constructs of the issues at hand, obvious, although sometimes at the edges of the limits of what might be acceptable. These are the points where Remy says I am crazy.
Now, Remy ought to know better. He has a wide constellation of talents himself, including the ability to generate constructs that have many parallel threads, or many slight divergent yet becoming convergent threads. This can be seen in his films, in his social skills, in his global perceptions of issues.
His comments, which he downplays, to me reflect a typically American anti-intellectualism, which, when coming from the intellectuals themselves, yes, is cause for notice.
I once had a teacher who, when asked directly, what his first instinctual reaction to anything he hadn't seen before was "It's bullshit." He was a hack, and he wasn't going to change the world.
(ha, intellectualism isn't even in the blogger dictionary)
Now, Remy ought to know better. He has a wide constellation of talents himself, including the ability to generate constructs that have many parallel threads, or many slight divergent yet becoming convergent threads. This can be seen in his films, in his social skills, in his global perceptions of issues.
His comments, which he downplays, to me reflect a typically American anti-intellectualism, which, when coming from the intellectuals themselves, yes, is cause for notice.
I once had a teacher who, when asked directly, what his first instinctual reaction to anything he hadn't seen before was "It's bullshit." He was a hack, and he wasn't going to change the world.
(ha, intellectualism isn't even in the blogger dictionary)
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Jury of His Peers
I am now serving jury duty. Serving is exactly right. Three days in jail eerily similar. And a jury of his peers? The guy on trial is a mook. Probably did not finish high school. Does not know how to draw. Yet, the prospective jurors are 85% white. 4 out of 18 were attorneys. Where oh where are the 51% of this island that is black latino asian and other?
My friend Remy suggests that because they don't pay taxes, because they are not registered to vote, they are not on the juror list. Remedy this. Because Mr Mook does not pay taxes, and he did not vote, and I'm guessing, he will never vote again.
And civil trial? You have one corporation suing another, both via paid representatives. I should forego my employment to sit on this jury? (and yes, a day matters, as 9-11 taught us how close we live to the margins of our incomes in New York). You want me for civil, I'm 750 a day. Take it out of the 33%
My friend Remy suggests that because they don't pay taxes, because they are not registered to vote, they are not on the juror list. Remedy this. Because Mr Mook does not pay taxes, and he did not vote, and I'm guessing, he will never vote again.
And civil trial? You have one corporation suing another, both via paid representatives. I should forego my employment to sit on this jury? (and yes, a day matters, as 9-11 taught us how close we live to the margins of our incomes in New York). You want me for civil, I'm 750 a day. Take it out of the 33%
Monday, March 27, 2006
What makes a song a hit?
Can anyone please tell me what makes a pop song a hit? Of course, since my blog receives scant comments, I won't be holding my breath. The answer no doubt involves a variety of factors, - it could be novelty, timing (saying what is topical today), beauty, marketing, -- so the question is better restated as what makes a song an enduring pleasure?
My short list:
a memorable melody
polyrhythms
emotional depth
and I suppose a list of necessary but not enough by itself: development, conclusion, a knowable structure.
My short list:
a memorable melody
polyrhythms
emotional depth
and I suppose a list of necessary but not enough by itself: development, conclusion, a knowable structure.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Under the Microscope: Celebrity as the New Aristocracy
Don't get me wrong, I am the number one celebrity slut. Who isn't? When people say, why did you move to New York, should I say I just wanted to be in a city, or that I moved here so I meet Jodie Foster because I figure she needed a date, after the whole I'm going to shoot the President bit. Not to mention I know people who are even greater sluts than me, that make me look like a celebrity puritan. However, there are many among us who have untoward expectations towards celebrities.
I work occasionally in the entertainment field. Or should I say celebrity publicity media. After every event with a celebrity, everyone compares their experience with the celebrity - were they nice, were they well dressed, why didn't they answer that question better- with their expectations. I must say these expectations are very high. Graciousness, wit, humor, -- indeed may I dare say some Platonic perfection, as if celebrity was that elusive form of the chair. Minutia of behavior, legs crossed and uncrossed, a sneeze, or a look away: these banal human acts are blow up, inflated with the significance of the burning flag, the crushed chalice, the sudden sun-break. LSD significance, the symbolic significance that, thankfully, I when 25 reserved exclusively for myself, for the acts of my life, as if touched by an angel, as if the entire world was for me and my decoding (apparently the experience on LSD but for once I can't say I know).
Now, celebrities are not just normal people. First, you're in the role, so you change. Second, typically you had some charisma to begin with or you wouldn't be there. Third, successful people are either exceptionally sensitive or insensitive. Like, Hugo Weaving - one look from him and you realize he is supersensitive. Ditto Winona Ryder. Tom Cruise, now he sort of seems to be a bit insensitive. Yet, people are just people. Concentration, being up, being on, performing, well, that is only possible for so long, to a certain extent. Live everyday life has many more facets than a controlled performance environment. Take this warning then. Do not place people under the microscope of importuned symbolic significance. Do not feel it is a celebrities responsibility to act like British gentry: unfailingly polite, always gracious and humoring, and of course, inherently superior. To respond with enthusiasm, from either perspective is wonderful, but to expect enthusiasm, well that is where the line in the desert sand under the sun gets crossed.
I work occasionally in the entertainment field. Or should I say celebrity publicity media. After every event with a celebrity, everyone compares their experience with the celebrity - were they nice, were they well dressed, why didn't they answer that question better- with their expectations. I must say these expectations are very high. Graciousness, wit, humor, -- indeed may I dare say some Platonic perfection, as if celebrity was that elusive form of the chair. Minutia of behavior, legs crossed and uncrossed, a sneeze, or a look away: these banal human acts are blow up, inflated with the significance of the burning flag, the crushed chalice, the sudden sun-break. LSD significance, the symbolic significance that, thankfully, I when 25 reserved exclusively for myself, for the acts of my life, as if touched by an angel, as if the entire world was for me and my decoding (apparently the experience on LSD but for once I can't say I know).
Now, celebrities are not just normal people. First, you're in the role, so you change. Second, typically you had some charisma to begin with or you wouldn't be there. Third, successful people are either exceptionally sensitive or insensitive. Like, Hugo Weaving - one look from him and you realize he is supersensitive. Ditto Winona Ryder. Tom Cruise, now he sort of seems to be a bit insensitive. Yet, people are just people. Concentration, being up, being on, performing, well, that is only possible for so long, to a certain extent. Live everyday life has many more facets than a controlled performance environment. Take this warning then. Do not place people under the microscope of importuned symbolic significance. Do not feel it is a celebrities responsibility to act like British gentry: unfailingly polite, always gracious and humoring, and of course, inherently superior. To respond with enthusiasm, from either perspective is wonderful, but to expect enthusiasm, well that is where the line in the desert sand under the sun gets crossed.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Atheism and Awe, Faith, and Life
Here is a good interview with Edward O. Wilson, conducted by Steve Paulson. (Click on the title to go to the article, or try this: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/03/21/wilson/index.html. ) What is the existing tension between religion and science? Evolution and religion? and why heaven would by hell to Mr. Wilson. A nice piece, so you can read it for yourself.
What struck me in the piece was the question of awe. Awe, which we have all felt as some point in time, typically when it hits us that the world is so much larger than we are, or that we are so intimately connected with the world. Wilson point out that this awe has been used as currency for religions. Clearly this is a wonderful point of departure for some thoughts of our own. Yes, the world is larger than we are. No, in all probability, I myself did not create this world. No, I can't really construct a strong or convincing explanation of the origins of life. Where do we go from here? This is the great question.
Religion has positioned itself as a dominant answerer of those questions in the past. As a thought experiment, however, the origins of these religions seem to be firmly human. So, for any skeptic, just where the divine stops and the human starts is a question. Just how can it be divine, if it is stated by, and propagated by humans?
The crux of the matter here is that biologically, humans do not like to exist in the realm of the unknowable. So in the face of awe, in the face of that which is greater than I - or even us - then we must have our best guess as to who could have possibly made us. Those historical guess - most of them the great father in the sky - don't seem all that compelling. Even if the god has an ethical system that meets our approval, that may not be enough reason, not today.
Can't we just say we don't know who got us here? If you don't wish to back down the chain of logic too far, you can say that our god will have the characteristics of life as we know it. Beyond that, as to say, where are we and how did we get here (or there) we just have to say, we don't know. And if you wish to rewrite human history in terms of domination over others, in the personal expansion of material possessions, then you might postulate that constructs of God and organizations of community built around these constructs- from the imagined pre-historical tribal village to our current "Crusade for Oil" -- that these constructs of god serve simple purposes that have little to do with the awe of life as we know it and provide virtually no answers into the origins of life.
Safe to say that at the present moment we know more about the origins of life than we ever have. Which is to say we are positioned now to explain the source of that awe we all feel. With this deeper intelligence it is quite clear we are not closer to solving that mystery than we ever were. Is now the time that socially, we can transform the domination and destruction that those who purport to know the mysteries of life create?
What struck me in the piece was the question of awe. Awe, which we have all felt as some point in time, typically when it hits us that the world is so much larger than we are, or that we are so intimately connected with the world. Wilson point out that this awe has been used as currency for religions. Clearly this is a wonderful point of departure for some thoughts of our own. Yes, the world is larger than we are. No, in all probability, I myself did not create this world. No, I can't really construct a strong or convincing explanation of the origins of life. Where do we go from here? This is the great question.
Religion has positioned itself as a dominant answerer of those questions in the past. As a thought experiment, however, the origins of these religions seem to be firmly human. So, for any skeptic, just where the divine stops and the human starts is a question. Just how can it be divine, if it is stated by, and propagated by humans?
The crux of the matter here is that biologically, humans do not like to exist in the realm of the unknowable. So in the face of awe, in the face of that which is greater than I - or even us - then we must have our best guess as to who could have possibly made us. Those historical guess - most of them the great father in the sky - don't seem all that compelling. Even if the god has an ethical system that meets our approval, that may not be enough reason, not today.
Can't we just say we don't know who got us here? If you don't wish to back down the chain of logic too far, you can say that our god will have the characteristics of life as we know it. Beyond that, as to say, where are we and how did we get here (or there) we just have to say, we don't know. And if you wish to rewrite human history in terms of domination over others, in the personal expansion of material possessions, then you might postulate that constructs of God and organizations of community built around these constructs- from the imagined pre-historical tribal village to our current "Crusade for Oil" -- that these constructs of god serve simple purposes that have little to do with the awe of life as we know it and provide virtually no answers into the origins of life.
Safe to say that at the present moment we know more about the origins of life than we ever have. Which is to say we are positioned now to explain the source of that awe we all feel. With this deeper intelligence it is quite clear we are not closer to solving that mystery than we ever were. Is now the time that socially, we can transform the domination and destruction that those who purport to know the mysteries of life create?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)