For many people of my vintage a major reflective moment occurs on the occasion of a 50th high school reunion. As with just about everyone else who bothers to return for their reunion, I felt good about myself. If you don't, the whole shebang may prove too much to endure. But while we all had our moments of excruciating embarrassment in high school--and I certainly had my share--I've long remembered my high school days as when I had a whole lot of fun.
Not fun as in funny moments: that was my Army experience. In the service, you remember funny moments because the other moments ranged in their degree of awfulness. But to me, high school was fun. And it was good to find out in the many, many conversations--some of which went beyond the standard superficialities--that many of my classmates also enjoyed high school.
The basis for the enjoyment was two-fold. First of all, in those days we had a great school system where many of the teachers were excellent, so you learned a lot. They challenged us. Now had I been somewhat more prescient, I would have seen then that the days of the great Mt. Vernon (NY) school system were drawing to a close. The demographics were changing as were the influences on the school system as well as the funding.
But second was the shift when I arrived in high school. Grade school and junior high were in many ways oppressive. Yes, there also were some good teachers and classes, but there was a lot of restriction and regulation. High school in those days was relatively relaxed so far as rules were concerned. And I got my day-time driving license and was off in a car for the first time, too.
Additionally, I met other bright people in high school who weren't afraid to act intelligently. I realized how different it probably is at my high school today. The current principal attended our 50th reunion and a few of us spoke with him. Aside from feeling that he looked all of 12 years old, he appeared to be a competent person who wanted to succeed. But I could see that he was amazed when we told him that we had enjoyed ourselves in high school. The days when he can enjoy his job, given the pressures he faces of scant funding and poorly prepared students, are likely few.
The true fun of a public high school reunion for me also was in the range of people I knew then who showed up now. I saw several classmates whom I had first known in grade school and hadn't seen in more than 50 years. Unlike a whole group of my high school classmates who had gathered for a lunch at their old grade school--in the high-rent part of town, I went to a good elementary school but one that had more of a cross-section of socio-economic groups represented in its student body.
That means that there were some pretty tough guys whom I knew in grade school. Some of those who came back had done all right for themselves. Several had gone into the computer and IT world. One had retired as a fire department lieutenant. Another pleasant fellow who had lived near me in junior high days had become a hedge-fund guy, and was retired and living quite well, thank you. And as it usually works out in life, the richest kid in high school was still the richest person in the room.
Many of the women with whom I had been friendly then looked good. There were bright, ambitious women in my class and they did well for themselves in their careers and their lives. I enjoyed the chance to catch up with my high school girlfriend who now lives across the country and several other bright women in my class who have flourished.
As for those in the class who had been the stand-outs in the looks department, I don't think now that any of them have much reason to be excessively full of themselves. However, most of us seem to have aged gracefully. Some of us had less distance to fall, myself included.
Much of the class is retired now, of course. A few I met shared my view that we have plenty of interests to pursue in our so-called leisure time, after finishing with all the tasks and errands of daily life. Granted, as it happens, as of today, I am likely to take on a full-time job doing something new that challenges me. The timing was purely coincidental, but perhaps the reunion did have something to do with it: maybe it just made me that much more confident that there's still an opportunity to do something useful.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
When Boys Will Be Boys
It's always enlightening to read pop psychology which, of course, emerges from what is new research but has then been massaged and shaped, too often to fit existing inclinations, and yes, prejudices. Lately, some of the discussion that has been percolating for years about our educational system's denigrating the needs of boys has focused on two sometimes opposing themes.
The first argues that our traditional culture discourages any showing of empathy on the part of boys. In this view, boys are forced only to block and tackle, emphasize physical skills, and steer clear of anything that might be termed cultural, such as the arts, literature, or, for that matter, psychology itself. This theme holds that we are depriving boys of the benefits of civilization when all these pursuits are derided as "girly" or gay.
The second theme has it that boys are being constrained from being boys as a result of the gradual triumph of feminine values in our society, if not our politics. Indeed, some see the battle by the gun culture led by the NRA as a last stand by those in the U.S. desperate to preserve the vestiges of the frontier culture that valued physical strength and prowess with weapons, especially firearms, as the hallmark of our society.
Too often, this particular engagement in the overall "culture wars" fails to take note of what has happened to shift the focus of this topic: our working world today no longer offers as many jobs that depend on brute strength. Our society is becoming a "knowledge and information" one. What's too bad is that many boys take to computers and information technology, and are even encouraged in the classroom and outside it to pursue their early interest, but never progress past addiction to video games. It isn't because teachers prefer girls, who generally but not always are better behaved. It's that boys especially finish school--often not graduating or finishing college--without the skills young people need today.
Popularizers in the media--beginning with the late Peter Drucker and moving on to current opinion molders such as Thomas Friedman--have been declaring for a long time that the old world of employment has changed, but only now, with the decline of manufacturing in the U.S., are we seeing the impact.
While my generation may recall how our elders in the 1950s and 1960s bemoaned the onset of rock'n'roll as certain to ruin our society, the surge in media dominance today means that many young people now are exposed to little more than rap music and music videos by way of "culture". I once had a young relative tell me that there was no longer a reason to read books because one could find any information needed online or through visual media, such as film. He wasn't referring to Kindles or Nooks, either, since whether or not we like e-books, they do serve as a means of making reading easier for many who have made this particular leap into the new world.
The first argues that our traditional culture discourages any showing of empathy on the part of boys. In this view, boys are forced only to block and tackle, emphasize physical skills, and steer clear of anything that might be termed cultural, such as the arts, literature, or, for that matter, psychology itself. This theme holds that we are depriving boys of the benefits of civilization when all these pursuits are derided as "girly" or gay.
The second theme has it that boys are being constrained from being boys as a result of the gradual triumph of feminine values in our society, if not our politics. Indeed, some see the battle by the gun culture led by the NRA as a last stand by those in the U.S. desperate to preserve the vestiges of the frontier culture that valued physical strength and prowess with weapons, especially firearms, as the hallmark of our society.
Too often, this particular engagement in the overall "culture wars" fails to take note of what has happened to shift the focus of this topic: our working world today no longer offers as many jobs that depend on brute strength. Our society is becoming a "knowledge and information" one. What's too bad is that many boys take to computers and information technology, and are even encouraged in the classroom and outside it to pursue their early interest, but never progress past addiction to video games. It isn't because teachers prefer girls, who generally but not always are better behaved. It's that boys especially finish school--often not graduating or finishing college--without the skills young people need today.
Popularizers in the media--beginning with the late Peter Drucker and moving on to current opinion molders such as Thomas Friedman--have been declaring for a long time that the old world of employment has changed, but only now, with the decline of manufacturing in the U.S., are we seeing the impact.
While my generation may recall how our elders in the 1950s and 1960s bemoaned the onset of rock'n'roll as certain to ruin our society, the surge in media dominance today means that many young people now are exposed to little more than rap music and music videos by way of "culture". I once had a young relative tell me that there was no longer a reason to read books because one could find any information needed online or through visual media, such as film. He wasn't referring to Kindles or Nooks, either, since whether or not we like e-books, they do serve as a means of making reading easier for many who have made this particular leap into the new world.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Mostly Mozart
While some sophisticated music lovers I've known have expressed great admiration for Mozart's The Abduction From the Seraglio, I've never found its plot at all convincing or even interesting. That does not, of course, diminish the delight in Mozart's music: it merely confirms for me that he really did need a comparable genius, Lorenzo da Ponte, to provide libretti for his three most sublime operas.
This afternoon, however, I enjoyed a wonderful production of Abduction (known also in its original German version as Die Entfuhring aus dem Serail) put on at Washington's Source Theater by The IN Series, which has specialized in delightful updatings of Mozart's operas, focusing up to now on the Da Ponte masterpieces. As with all great works, all of these can not only withstand this kind of production, but actually come away with even more lustre.
Today's production transposed the action to Judge Roy Bean's saloon, The Jersey Lily, named by him, as was the town where it and he were located, in 1882, after the renowned singer of those times, Lillie Langtry. Judge Bean, you may recall, was known as The Law West of the Pecos. In real life, alas, Judge Bean's idol, Miss Langtry, never made it to visit her fervent admirer until after his death. But here, it is he and his minions--especially one Osmond--who kidnap her and her maid. The still-tired plot then features the efforts of her lover, Belmont, and his friend to release her and escape from Texas.
This, of course, is no sillier than the singspiel plot provided to Mozart by his original librettists in Vienna. Belmonte struggles to free his beloved, Constanze (coincidentally, of course, the name of Mozart's long-suffering spouse) from the harem of the Pasha of some Middle Eastern state, and his encounter with the Pasha's chief guard, Osmin.
A fine troupe of strong young singers led the production with the most outstanding being bass Jeffrey Tarr as Osmond and soprano Heather Bingham as Lillie. The true heroine of the day, however, was Bari Bern, who wrote the English translation that shifted the scene of the opera from the Middle East to Texas and inserted Judge Roy Bean in place of the Pasha.
The libretto was clever and lent the whole production a positive attitude. It also permitted us to enjoy Mozart's fabulous composition of a succession of arias, duets, and a quartet. This fine production confirmed my view that great operatic works can benefit from new settings and changes in concept. It's a commonplace to chuckle at the outlandish opera productions often presented in European houses but all too often, our greatest companies remain excessively tied to tradition in the way they approach the operatic masterworks. The sprightly IN Series here in DC, helmed by Carla Hubner, continues to show the way to instilling renewed vigor into these grand vehicles.
This afternoon, however, I enjoyed a wonderful production of Abduction (known also in its original German version as Die Entfuhring aus dem Serail) put on at Washington's Source Theater by The IN Series, which has specialized in delightful updatings of Mozart's operas, focusing up to now on the Da Ponte masterpieces. As with all great works, all of these can not only withstand this kind of production, but actually come away with even more lustre.
Today's production transposed the action to Judge Roy Bean's saloon, The Jersey Lily, named by him, as was the town where it and he were located, in 1882, after the renowned singer of those times, Lillie Langtry. Judge Bean, you may recall, was known as The Law West of the Pecos. In real life, alas, Judge Bean's idol, Miss Langtry, never made it to visit her fervent admirer until after his death. But here, it is he and his minions--especially one Osmond--who kidnap her and her maid. The still-tired plot then features the efforts of her lover, Belmont, and his friend to release her and escape from Texas.
This, of course, is no sillier than the singspiel plot provided to Mozart by his original librettists in Vienna. Belmonte struggles to free his beloved, Constanze (coincidentally, of course, the name of Mozart's long-suffering spouse) from the harem of the Pasha of some Middle Eastern state, and his encounter with the Pasha's chief guard, Osmin.
A fine troupe of strong young singers led the production with the most outstanding being bass Jeffrey Tarr as Osmond and soprano Heather Bingham as Lillie. The true heroine of the day, however, was Bari Bern, who wrote the English translation that shifted the scene of the opera from the Middle East to Texas and inserted Judge Roy Bean in place of the Pasha.
The libretto was clever and lent the whole production a positive attitude. It also permitted us to enjoy Mozart's fabulous composition of a succession of arias, duets, and a quartet. This fine production confirmed my view that great operatic works can benefit from new settings and changes in concept. It's a commonplace to chuckle at the outlandish opera productions often presented in European houses but all too often, our greatest companies remain excessively tied to tradition in the way they approach the operatic masterworks. The sprightly IN Series here in DC, helmed by Carla Hubner, continues to show the way to instilling renewed vigor into these grand vehicles.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
War
Last month I was reading two of Graham Greene's fantastically prescient novels, The Quiet American and Our Man in Havana. His perception of where events were headed in Saigon (early 1950s) and Havana (later 1950s) led me to imagining how much better off the U.S. might have been if Greene had been paid more attention by our policymakers. (It probably didn't make him any more attractive to them that he was defiantly anti-American, mostly, one feels, after reading these novels, because he felt we were doing a bad job replacing the Brits as the world's movers and shakers--or even now, as the surviving superpower.)
If you read these two novels, you will see how he anticipates the gradual replacement of the French by the U.S. as the equivalent of the colonial power in Viet Nam, and the likelihood that the corrupt Batista regime in Cuba would be overthrown by revolutionaries of some sort, who were predictably less than thrilled with the U.S.'s then-common support of dictators in Latin America like Batista.
So after three presidents--Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson--got deeper into Viet Nam--yes, the first two didn't go that far but they definitely set the stage and then some, it took many years to defuse the domino theory as the key element in American foreign policy in Asia. Then we had the totally irresponsible invasion of Iraq premised on a patchwork of lies and a needless invasion of Afghanistan--one had thought that the result of the 9/11 act of terror should have been a focused search for Bin Laden, not a wholesale invasion of two countries.
President Obama seemed incapable of appreciating that yes, we had invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban, only to let them return as we shifted to an even less relevant theatre: Iraq, but that we still didn't need to be in Afghanistan since no one from the outside has ever been able to end up victorious in that unwholesome atmosphere.
He has shown some success--not that he gets much credit from an ignorant media. Under his leadership, the objective of getting Bin Laden was accomplished and Obama managed to accomplish some limited goals in Libya without committing troops on the ground and by rallying allies. Perfect--no, and his staff let him down by ignoring the shaky situation in Libya so as to allow terrorists to storm the Benghazi consulate and then to put out some b.s. about the event rather than play it straight. Had it not been for that mishap, Libya might stand as a success--sure, a qualified one, but a success all the same for intervening without getting into a prolonged conflict.
So now Obama is rightfully reluctant to commit to major involvement in Syria. Yes, he should have exercised the limited use-of-force option some time ago but it still can be a good approach. And he should be given credit for involving Congress--both for satisfying those (some friends of mine among them) who believe that Congressional action is mandatory, and for assuring that the people's representatives charged with making the decision to go to war are on board.
If you read these two novels, you will see how he anticipates the gradual replacement of the French by the U.S. as the equivalent of the colonial power in Viet Nam, and the likelihood that the corrupt Batista regime in Cuba would be overthrown by revolutionaries of some sort, who were predictably less than thrilled with the U.S.'s then-common support of dictators in Latin America like Batista.
So after three presidents--Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson--got deeper into Viet Nam--yes, the first two didn't go that far but they definitely set the stage and then some, it took many years to defuse the domino theory as the key element in American foreign policy in Asia. Then we had the totally irresponsible invasion of Iraq premised on a patchwork of lies and a needless invasion of Afghanistan--one had thought that the result of the 9/11 act of terror should have been a focused search for Bin Laden, not a wholesale invasion of two countries.
President Obama seemed incapable of appreciating that yes, we had invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban, only to let them return as we shifted to an even less relevant theatre: Iraq, but that we still didn't need to be in Afghanistan since no one from the outside has ever been able to end up victorious in that unwholesome atmosphere.
He has shown some success--not that he gets much credit from an ignorant media. Under his leadership, the objective of getting Bin Laden was accomplished and Obama managed to accomplish some limited goals in Libya without committing troops on the ground and by rallying allies. Perfect--no, and his staff let him down by ignoring the shaky situation in Libya so as to allow terrorists to storm the Benghazi consulate and then to put out some b.s. about the event rather than play it straight. Had it not been for that mishap, Libya might stand as a success--sure, a qualified one, but a success all the same for intervening without getting into a prolonged conflict.
So now Obama is rightfully reluctant to commit to major involvement in Syria. Yes, he should have exercised the limited use-of-force option some time ago but it still can be a good approach. And he should be given credit for involving Congress--both for satisfying those (some friends of mine among them) who believe that Congressional action is mandatory, and for assuring that the people's representatives charged with making the decision to go to war are on board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)