If you decide to see even one opera this year, especially at the Washington National Opera, make it the current presentation, Verdi's La Forza del Destino, translated in the notices as The Force of Destiny. This is not the best-known Verdi opera by any means but I'm absolutely delighted that WNO decided to put it on this year in recognition of the 200th Verdi anniversary.
Unlike any of the more famous Verdi operas, and I include Aida, Rigoletto, La Traviata, and Il Trovatore in that group, La Forza has a musical theme that runs throughout the opera. It holds together what is the usual semi-ridiculous opera plot and manifests itself in some of the best singing pieces--duets mainly--that the opera offers.
The WNO production placed the opera in a contemporary setting, including, as one of my companions observed, an inn scene that was transposed to something approximating the old raunchy Times Square of New York. Pole dancers are performing as the heroine, Leonora, aims to escape her pursuing, avenging brother, Carlo. The monastery to which she retreats is more of an industrial complex replete with containers, into one of which is tucked her hermit's hideaway.
Musically the opera is so strong that it can readily work just as well with these updates. The Leonora, soprano Adina Aaron, had a strong, warm voice that impressed me from the opening scene, now presented as a prologue prior to the renowned overture. She also shone in the great concluding pace, pace aria, although for some reason, that did not overwhelm me the way it normally does.
Of the rest of the cast, bass Enrico Iori as Padre Guardiano was superb. The rest were fine, although the tenor left me wanting more--as the critical notice in the Washington Post contended, he did tend to shout and as a result, some of his lines came across as distinctly unmelodic. The opera was presented in two acts, which also made sense. As a whole, it held together more than it has in most productions I've seen, at both WNO and the Met.
As the reviews had indicated, there were some cuts, none as severe as used to be the custom at the Met in former days, when the entire inn scene was deleted. Some scenes were shortened here--especially the camp-followers "Rataplan" scene in what is the second act. Not only was some singing by lesser characters left out but it seemed that some of the great tenor-baritone duets may have been abbreviated. As a whole, however, the opera flowed much better than it usually does--and for that, we all should be most appreciative of the successful conceptualization by WNO artistic director Francesca Zambello, who directed this excellent production.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Sunshine Boys
Took in a local production of The Sunshine Boys this afternoon and Neil Simon's lines hold up. Yes, I recall the movie with Walter Matthau and George Burns well and thought they both were superb. But this play has more meaning for me.
It's a reunion after a decade of two great ex-vaudevillian comics who apparently never liked each other during 43 successful years on the circuits, including the two ultimate achievements of vaude: playing the Palace and appearing in the '50s on the Ed Sullivan Show. Btw, the stars in the Broadway original were Sam Levene and Jack Albertson. Levene was the original Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls, while I saw Albertson in the great play on Broadway, The Subject Was Roses.
What makes this play special for me is that I once had the chance to meet the duo who were the real originals for the comedy act in the play--Lewis and Clark. They were Smith and Dale--Joe Smith and Charlie Dale, and the likelihood that those were their real names is non-existent for either pair. Unlike the two in the play, however, who are depicted as always at odds with each other, Smith and Dale when I met them shared a wonderful old West Side apartment filled with wonderful vaude memorabilia.
I'd first heard of them when I was at summer camp and one of my bunkmates who also had some ties to show business got hold of a script of their famous Dr. Kronkheit routine. It was yet another part of theatrical history that I was exposed to at an early age, for at camp, I also made my first acquaintance with Gilbert & Sullivan and our color-war team song was set to the tune of the Triumphal March from Aida.
The actors in Washington's Keegan Theater Co. who put this on at their Church St. Playhouse near Du Pont Circle did a nice job--Kevin Adams reminded me a bit of Walter Matthau in playing the leading role, and Tim Lynch did a neat job in the George Burns part. The company played old radio recordings before each act and during intermission, along with some other old-time stuff, ranging from Groucho singing "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It" (from the Marx Bros. film, Horsefeathers) and a snip from a Burns & Allen routine, along with a Scott Joplin rag, which just made the time line, I think, since Smith & Dale got their start early in the 20th century as half of a comedy unit called The Avon Comedy Four.
It's a reunion after a decade of two great ex-vaudevillian comics who apparently never liked each other during 43 successful years on the circuits, including the two ultimate achievements of vaude: playing the Palace and appearing in the '50s on the Ed Sullivan Show. Btw, the stars in the Broadway original were Sam Levene and Jack Albertson. Levene was the original Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls, while I saw Albertson in the great play on Broadway, The Subject Was Roses.
What makes this play special for me is that I once had the chance to meet the duo who were the real originals for the comedy act in the play--Lewis and Clark. They were Smith and Dale--Joe Smith and Charlie Dale, and the likelihood that those were their real names is non-existent for either pair. Unlike the two in the play, however, who are depicted as always at odds with each other, Smith and Dale when I met them shared a wonderful old West Side apartment filled with wonderful vaude memorabilia.
I'd first heard of them when I was at summer camp and one of my bunkmates who also had some ties to show business got hold of a script of their famous Dr. Kronkheit routine. It was yet another part of theatrical history that I was exposed to at an early age, for at camp, I also made my first acquaintance with Gilbert & Sullivan and our color-war team song was set to the tune of the Triumphal March from Aida.
The actors in Washington's Keegan Theater Co. who put this on at their Church St. Playhouse near Du Pont Circle did a nice job--Kevin Adams reminded me a bit of Walter Matthau in playing the leading role, and Tim Lynch did a neat job in the George Burns part. The company played old radio recordings before each act and during intermission, along with some other old-time stuff, ranging from Groucho singing "Whatever It Is, I'm Against It" (from the Marx Bros. film, Horsefeathers) and a snip from a Burns & Allen routine, along with a Scott Joplin rag, which just made the time line, I think, since Smith & Dale got their start early in the 20th century as half of a comedy unit called The Avon Comedy Four.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Two Major Movies
On the past two weekends, I've seen two significant films: Gravity and Captain Phillips. They're worth some discussion. In reverse order--and not just because I saw it yesterday--Captain Phillips is a screen triumph. It is an action-adventure flick, starring the seemingly endlessly reinvented Tom Hanks. The group of hitherto (at least in the U.S.) unknown actors who play the Somali pirates his merchant ship encounters are superb, as are the U.S. Navy personnel--from a ship captain to a SEALS commander to a medical corpswoman.
Paul Greenglass's direction never loses the tension and intensity of the situation as it develops. Some reviews I've read suggest that he leans in the direction of even-handedness in his depiction of the deprived circumstances in Somalia that push the pirates toward their trade, along with the irony that the merchantman is carrying, among other cargo, some food to be delivered to Africa as foreign aid. One critic even proposed that the movie raises the question of the ethics of foreign aid itself.
To me, all of that is bunk. I do find it enlightening when abroad to be exposed to foreign media that may be much more critical of the U.S. than seems to be the norm domestically these days. But even if this director is British--one of the fun conceits has the ship trying to contact the U.S. maritime command to report a possibly imminent pirate attack and not getting an answer, only to then dial the UK number and getting an immediate response--I found all my sympathies going to the stoical Vermonter whom Hanks plays as ship captain.
He's less taciturn than Vermonters have the reputation for being--recall all the Coolidge jokes--but then he's trying to engage an obdurate enemy through conversation. Even though this is an action-adventure movie, I also found it remarkably believable. Now that may have something to do with it being based on the true story, as related in his own memoir by said Captain Phillips. Incidentally, one review pointed out that the real captain, as it so often turns out in real life, penned a somewhat boring tome.
Final verdict--thumbs or my whole hand up. This is a 130-minute-long feature that holds your attention the whole way. The acting by everyone is excellent and the direction never misses a beat.
Gravity is another story. Yes, it's enjoyable, and Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are charming and thus hold your interest and attention during a space voyage gone bad. This picture is only 90 minutes in length, however, but seems a good deal longer. The presentation of the space travel and walking is good, although a more technically-knowledgeable friend advised me that it was not especially realistic.
I found it tedious. Charm only carries you so far. I didn't lose interest but I did look at my watch. It was fun hearing the earth-based flight director's voice--which is all you get of him--played by Ed Harris, remembering how fine a job he did in the wonderful Apollo 13. Both these films were awarded four stars or the equivalent by critics en masse. Captain Phillips deserves them.
Paul Greenglass's direction never loses the tension and intensity of the situation as it develops. Some reviews I've read suggest that he leans in the direction of even-handedness in his depiction of the deprived circumstances in Somalia that push the pirates toward their trade, along with the irony that the merchantman is carrying, among other cargo, some food to be delivered to Africa as foreign aid. One critic even proposed that the movie raises the question of the ethics of foreign aid itself.
To me, all of that is bunk. I do find it enlightening when abroad to be exposed to foreign media that may be much more critical of the U.S. than seems to be the norm domestically these days. But even if this director is British--one of the fun conceits has the ship trying to contact the U.S. maritime command to report a possibly imminent pirate attack and not getting an answer, only to then dial the UK number and getting an immediate response--I found all my sympathies going to the stoical Vermonter whom Hanks plays as ship captain.
He's less taciturn than Vermonters have the reputation for being--recall all the Coolidge jokes--but then he's trying to engage an obdurate enemy through conversation. Even though this is an action-adventure movie, I also found it remarkably believable. Now that may have something to do with it being based on the true story, as related in his own memoir by said Captain Phillips. Incidentally, one review pointed out that the real captain, as it so often turns out in real life, penned a somewhat boring tome.
Final verdict--thumbs or my whole hand up. This is a 130-minute-long feature that holds your attention the whole way. The acting by everyone is excellent and the direction never misses a beat.
Gravity is another story. Yes, it's enjoyable, and Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are charming and thus hold your interest and attention during a space voyage gone bad. This picture is only 90 minutes in length, however, but seems a good deal longer. The presentation of the space travel and walking is good, although a more technically-knowledgeable friend advised me that it was not especially realistic.
I found it tedious. Charm only carries you so far. I didn't lose interest but I did look at my watch. It was fun hearing the earth-based flight director's voice--which is all you get of him--played by Ed Harris, remembering how fine a job he did in the wonderful Apollo 13. Both these films were awarded four stars or the equivalent by critics en masse. Captain Phillips deserves them.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Not So Grand
My late old friend, Professor Howard Reiter, felt about the Republican party the way the great sports columnist Jimmy Cannon did about boxing: he knew it was bad for everyone concerned but couldn't help enjoying an institution he had spent his lifetime analyzing and--much earlier--supporting. Howard, to be sure, who started out--when we met in college--even farther to the right than Long Island's Nassau County machine, eventually passed me as he moved left on the political spectrum.
It's trite to suggest that moderate Republicans, were any still extant, would have behaved better than the GOP's current office-holders. Compared to these folks, of course, even Nixon looks like a moderate. (We'll not employ the label Ike tried to put on his part of the party--"modern Republicans"--a term originated by the "Boy Wonder," Harold Stassen, the Governor of Minnesota --later president of the University of Pennsylvania, who had been too young to run for President in 1940 but who became a joke by the time he passed away many, many years later.)
But people in Washington are prone to remember the Nixon administration for more than Watergate. It was the last time that there were Republicans in government who knew how to manage. And many good innovations emerged from those years, including the EPA and Amtrak, although many have suspected that if Nixon had been fully aware of any of them, he probably would have been against them.
Even Mr.Republican, Robert Alphonso Taft, couldn't accomplish, however, what Reagan did: turn the party seemingly irrevocably to the far right. It's silly to hold Reagan out as an example of a president who got along with his Democratic opponents in Congress, such as Tip O'Neill, because Democrats like to collaborate to produce a stronger government. Republicans now are totally against government in their opposition.
Reagan is the one who brought us to the current impasse because he emboldened the conspiracy theorists and, in John McCain's words, the wacko birds who shape the party's behavior now. He also preached the anti-government rhetoric he picked up from his corporate pals, who, of course, never objected to getting some plush corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and other handouts. That's one main reason why Wall St. is on Elizabeth Warren's side on this one--not all government is seen as bad by the deal guys.
We will suffer mightily for these yo-yos, who really are upset by the closing of National Parks or the World War II Memorial, but not the dangers we face to our nation's credit, the added costs we already have incurred in the rising rate on T-bills, the potential for dangerous food to be sold in the absence of even the limited meat and poultry inspection not being conducted, and normal business that will be stifled because there is no one to see at government offices although law requires that they be visited.
One can only hope that the current President's backbone remains strong in the face of those too obdurate or foolish or perverse to understand when they urge him to compromise that there is no compromise with these people.
It's trite to suggest that moderate Republicans, were any still extant, would have behaved better than the GOP's current office-holders. Compared to these folks, of course, even Nixon looks like a moderate. (We'll not employ the label Ike tried to put on his part of the party--"modern Republicans"--a term originated by the "Boy Wonder," Harold Stassen, the Governor of Minnesota --later president of the University of Pennsylvania, who had been too young to run for President in 1940 but who became a joke by the time he passed away many, many years later.)
But people in Washington are prone to remember the Nixon administration for more than Watergate. It was the last time that there were Republicans in government who knew how to manage. And many good innovations emerged from those years, including the EPA and Amtrak, although many have suspected that if Nixon had been fully aware of any of them, he probably would have been against them.
Even Mr.Republican, Robert Alphonso Taft, couldn't accomplish, however, what Reagan did: turn the party seemingly irrevocably to the far right. It's silly to hold Reagan out as an example of a president who got along with his Democratic opponents in Congress, such as Tip O'Neill, because Democrats like to collaborate to produce a stronger government. Republicans now are totally against government in their opposition.
Reagan is the one who brought us to the current impasse because he emboldened the conspiracy theorists and, in John McCain's words, the wacko birds who shape the party's behavior now. He also preached the anti-government rhetoric he picked up from his corporate pals, who, of course, never objected to getting some plush corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and other handouts. That's one main reason why Wall St. is on Elizabeth Warren's side on this one--not all government is seen as bad by the deal guys.
We will suffer mightily for these yo-yos, who really are upset by the closing of National Parks or the World War II Memorial, but not the dangers we face to our nation's credit, the added costs we already have incurred in the rising rate on T-bills, the potential for dangerous food to be sold in the absence of even the limited meat and poultry inspection not being conducted, and normal business that will be stifled because there is no one to see at government offices although law requires that they be visited.
One can only hope that the current President's backbone remains strong in the face of those too obdurate or foolish or perverse to understand when they urge him to compromise that there is no compromise with these people.
Monday, October 7, 2013
What's Going On
It's hard to get yourself to look beyond the parlous day-to-day situation here in Washington. After all, the media treat everything as a horse race. And mindlessness still finds many adherents: those who blame both sides equally being the current strain of the ailment. It's like those who avoid fixing responsibility for our recent needless wars by focusing only on "supporting the troops."
Our current crisis--and it surely is one, not the usual media-created moment--arises from the developing tendency of those who agree with each other to expose themselves only to those with whom they agree. If you listen only to Fox news, for example, you will likely accept their warped view of reality.
Most recently, I've seen how this closed circle of reinforced attitudes operates, not by watching politicians clowning it up on TV but through exposure to ignorance expressed in social media. And it's not new in the U.S.--it's just easier for this bilge to gain currency. By reading posts on Facebook, I gain entry to worlds in which people repeat falsehoods over and over until they believe them. And if that isn't enough, you can read some online comments on websites, where the vitriol runs ever more vile.
As with the responsibility for the present predicament, the nastiness tends to run in one direction. The absolute hatred expressed for the President is surprising only if you truly felt that racism in this country was on the wane. These people are frightened because they see their group diminishing in percentage -- so they will do anything to keep a claw-hold on the levers of power.
Thus they convince themselves that elections they lose are stolen, so restriction of voting is pushed. They have no idea what our health care system is like in comparison to the rest of the world, and they certainly don't know that the current Obamacare initiative originated in the Nixon administration. It wasn't enacted then because Ted Kennedy felt we could do better.
Thus when it finally was pushed through, huge compromises were made by the President and the Democrats merely to get it passed. More damage was done by Democrats--insidious sabotage by the Senator from the insurance companies, Joe Lieberman, for example.
Finally, the President has recognized that one cannot negotiate with this crew. He has spent more than half his tenure trying to reach agreement with people who will refuse to agree. The blatant lying of the current GOP call for negotiations belies their refusal to confer with Democrats on the budget for the first three quarters of 2013.
It's a disaffected element that doesn't realize that the forces that have taken them to the cleaners are neither Barack Obama nor the Democrats--they are falling out of the middle class because the rich decided to go it alone behind their gated world and created a globalized economy where hedge-fund guys, for example, make the money and pay lower taxes than those who work for a living. Jobs are created for sure--in Bangladesh, where a factory fire every so often still finds U.S. manufacturers resisting the most basic working and safety conditions.
So when we let the undeserving rich avoid taxes, we don't have enough resources to support good schools or any other public services people need, including health care. Budgets are tight because you can't fight needless wars and lower taxes and still have anything left. Privatization means con artists can claim to provide services cheaper by stiffing their workers and those they are ostensibly serving -- like school students.
Walt Kelly definitely had it right--"We have met the enemy and it is us." It is we who have not resisted this push to destroy our middle class, ruin our public services, and impoverish those who work for a living. Whatever your views on things like guns, abortion, and gay marriage, they are all diversionary matters from the fundamental war some characters once regarded as loonies have been waging on our society. And remember, one of the main enthusiasts who led this war against us, the late Thatcher, was the one who said there's no such thing as society.
Our current crisis--and it surely is one, not the usual media-created moment--arises from the developing tendency of those who agree with each other to expose themselves only to those with whom they agree. If you listen only to Fox news, for example, you will likely accept their warped view of reality.
Most recently, I've seen how this closed circle of reinforced attitudes operates, not by watching politicians clowning it up on TV but through exposure to ignorance expressed in social media. And it's not new in the U.S.--it's just easier for this bilge to gain currency. By reading posts on Facebook, I gain entry to worlds in which people repeat falsehoods over and over until they believe them. And if that isn't enough, you can read some online comments on websites, where the vitriol runs ever more vile.
As with the responsibility for the present predicament, the nastiness tends to run in one direction. The absolute hatred expressed for the President is surprising only if you truly felt that racism in this country was on the wane. These people are frightened because they see their group diminishing in percentage -- so they will do anything to keep a claw-hold on the levers of power.
Thus they convince themselves that elections they lose are stolen, so restriction of voting is pushed. They have no idea what our health care system is like in comparison to the rest of the world, and they certainly don't know that the current Obamacare initiative originated in the Nixon administration. It wasn't enacted then because Ted Kennedy felt we could do better.
Thus when it finally was pushed through, huge compromises were made by the President and the Democrats merely to get it passed. More damage was done by Democrats--insidious sabotage by the Senator from the insurance companies, Joe Lieberman, for example.
Finally, the President has recognized that one cannot negotiate with this crew. He has spent more than half his tenure trying to reach agreement with people who will refuse to agree. The blatant lying of the current GOP call for negotiations belies their refusal to confer with Democrats on the budget for the first three quarters of 2013.
It's a disaffected element that doesn't realize that the forces that have taken them to the cleaners are neither Barack Obama nor the Democrats--they are falling out of the middle class because the rich decided to go it alone behind their gated world and created a globalized economy where hedge-fund guys, for example, make the money and pay lower taxes than those who work for a living. Jobs are created for sure--in Bangladesh, where a factory fire every so often still finds U.S. manufacturers resisting the most basic working and safety conditions.
So when we let the undeserving rich avoid taxes, we don't have enough resources to support good schools or any other public services people need, including health care. Budgets are tight because you can't fight needless wars and lower taxes and still have anything left. Privatization means con artists can claim to provide services cheaper by stiffing their workers and those they are ostensibly serving -- like school students.
Walt Kelly definitely had it right--"We have met the enemy and it is us." It is we who have not resisted this push to destroy our middle class, ruin our public services, and impoverish those who work for a living. Whatever your views on things like guns, abortion, and gay marriage, they are all diversionary matters from the fundamental war some characters once regarded as loonies have been waging on our society. And remember, one of the main enthusiasts who led this war against us, the late Thatcher, was the one who said there's no such thing as society.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Fabulous Fifty(ies)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)