Electronic Writer

Let’s start today off with a bit of fun . . . . These are GREAT samples of none other than our very President of the United States. Funny stuff. Perhaps my favorite is the “My Generation” clip towards the bottom. Enjoy!

http://www.diymedia.net/collage/gwb-nan.htm

At first, I was a bit apathetic about the Oprah Winfrey/James Frey debate. But as time passes, and Frey becomes more and more demonized, I find myself with a bit more to say about the ordeal.

My apathy came as a byproduct of the simple fact that regardless of what happens to James Frey, he will be rich from this process. It is a bit callous, I admit. Nonetheless, it is true. It is reminiscent of a story about some publisher calling some author to report that some education district had banned his books from being taught in their schools. The author’s immediate response was celebration: the monetary rewards that such a honor will bring would be beyond his wildest expectations. Frey would undoubtedly suffer the same fate.

And then came the rest of the story . . . .

It actually sounded, at first, that Oprah was going to defend Frey–that they had somehow come to an agreement. That it was a book, and that a natural amount of embellishment happens in even the most factual retelling of a story–our famed newspapers included.

That embellishment is a problem of language itself. As soon as you choose to put an idea into words, you have to select a word to express it, and the subtle meaning of language is shifted depending upon the very word that you chose. (This is a much bigger discussion that doesn’t fit here, but you get the idea.)

Then came the second interview . . . .

Apparently, she was a bit less forgiving in this one. In fact, Oprah calls him a liar, and in essence, publicly flogs him on her show. Was Oprah doing this to salvage her reputation, or was this retribution for Frey’s lies, or is there something else? Regardless of her motivation, Oprah has gone above and beyond–the punishment does not fit his crimes.

There are others who agree. In the article, “Oprah’s revenge,” by Hillary Frey, she gives an in-depth account of the show.

The disheartening part is that the verbal flogging of James Frey was still not enough for Oprah. She apparently blamed the publishers of his book, and demanded accountability from the Editors involved with Frey’s project.

This is a dangerous position–and Oprah should tread lightly here. If the very authors and publishing houses who produce the texts that make her Oprah’s Book Club possible have to subject themselves to the public scrutiny each time they agree to be part of her “recommendations,” they may be a bit more hesitant to agree to her endorsement.

We are overlooking something basic, however.

The biggest problem that I have with this whole debacle, however is something a bit more basic and a bit more problematic. The genre of “memoirs” has been around for quite some time. The genre, itself, does not place requirements upon narrative style, length, and it certainly does not have requirements upon factuality.

We live in an age where de-bunking lies is almost a past time. Our politics are dominated by lies and debunking them. Our media is dominated by the very activity of unearthing liars and exposing them to the world. And, our President, is the greatest example of all. He maintains thousands of files of personal information about his political opponents. If they choose to do anything that he does not like, he uses the information in those files to attack the credibility of that character. (See http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7625.shtml)

What would have happened, however, if we had applied this quest for the truth to some of the great memoirs that have been written? Did anyone comb through Marcel Proust’s “Remembrance of Things Past” to debunk all of the factual inaccuracies of his life? Did the jailer’s come forward to testify about the Marquis de Sade’s actual behavior?

If Oprah’s starts implementing her new literary rules with only the authority that capitalism has invested in her, the entire genre of Memoirs may be have a doomed future.

While I was researching information for something else I was writing, I came upon this little photo and I couldn’t resist. This is the image of a favorite politician of just about everyone. He was so popular in Washington that they made him the Majority Leader. It is none other than, Tom Delay.

Unfortunately, this is most likely his worst photo-op. It is his mug shot taken while he was being arrested in Texas for conspiracy and money laundering charges.

See for yourself.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1020051delay1.html

I am certainly not advocating lying, but I am, however, also not passing judgment on those who do. In actuality, I am advocating better health, reduced stress, and indirectly, a better world. So, start by drinking a glass of red wine every day. It is good for your heart. Try to exercise between 30 and 45 minutes at least 4 times a week. This will keep your heart healthy, your weight down, indubitable make you feel stronger and improve your self-esteem. It will also help almost every aspect of your body–the only machine that works better the more you use it.

The other way to reduce stress, and the subject of this entry, is to simply make a choice in your life. Choose whether you are going to lie, or or not–and, stick with it. If you decide to lie, trust no one with the truth, and lie to everyone. If you are going to tell the truth, tell the truth all the time and in every situation.

It is the place between these two extremes, however, that is the stressful situation. If you tell half-truths, or truths to some and lies to others, you will need to constantly manage the interaction between the two groups of people. You will need to keep the people who know the lies away from the people who know the truth. The people who know the truth might slip-up, and ultimately, your lie will only be as safe as the truth-knowing person’s lying ability.

In the long run, it makes for a stressful situation–for everyone involved.

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Glad to know that the desire to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney wasn’t an original thought, and that I am not the only one thinking this. We’ll just have to watch and see.

Let’s start with a working definition of Authenticity. The most succinct definition that I could develop upon first reflection is:

While this is a problematic definition, it is an adequate place to start. It is improper to start a definition with the term itself, and I am not satisfied with describing the subject by describing what it is not. And, the term “Authenticity” must address the situation of the slippery and deliberate misusage of meaning through the process of misappropriating components of the truth (or truthful facts).

While fact-finding for this definition, I came accross some other discussions of Truth (and perhaps Authenticity). Plato addressed Truth in his Theory of Forms, while Descartes indirectly addressed “Authenticity” in his Evil Genius argument. The phenomenologists tackled it in an off-handed way, but argued that the “authenticity” of an experience was derived from your tangible experience of it. While they are interesting arguments, I am addressing something else. More specifically, I want to address the deliberate misuse of the truth for political or personal gain. The most prolific philosophical discussion of Authenticity can perhaps be found in Albert Camus. His concept of “double-speak” directly addresses the political and slippery usage of language for deliberately misleading aims.

While I am continuing to think through these ideas, I will continue to post them. I am not prepared to tackle this tiny dilemma between Absolute and Relative Truths tonight. Although it must be addressed before we go any further, we must save that discussion for another day.

Should writing (for me) be more important than happiness?

Again, while ruminating, an interesting thought flashed through my mind. In the last few months, I have been re-prioritizing my life and writing has surfaced at the top. For many years, I have said that writing was a priority, but not actually working as if it were. As a result, my history has been filled with easy distractions.

As the list of priorities looks right now, Writing (note the capitol “W”) has made it to the top of the list. Now that it is number one, however, I am faced with an interesting dilemma. What happens if writing and happiness become separate elements and require separate energies? Should writing stay at the top of the list–even if I have to sacrifice my happiness in the process?

I guess, in my naivety, I had always assumed that writing and happiness were inextricable bound. I had always assumed that if I were writing, I would be happy. Thinking about it realistically, however, I see how easily this could be a false premise.

At this time in my life, I have no conclusive evidence that my original premise is either true or untrue. Perhaps it is fortunate, and perhaps not. Perhaps I will never know. But, I hope that I never know because my happiness and writing are inextricable related, not because I never tried.

A while back, while ruminating over coffee at a coffee shop, I stumbled onto a dilemma that was a little disheartening. I was examining my own behavior, as well as the behavior of others in my past. I realized that there were instances in which we were physically telling the truth of the events, but the manner in which the details were conveyed created a false impression or misrepresented the actual situation.

By the technical definition of the word “truth,” each person (myself included) was, in fact, telling the truth. The details of the situation had been accurately recounted. A distinction must be made, however. While the details are an important piece, I argue that over-arching evaluation is the more important component. Being accurate to the details, while misrepresenting that larger picture is a slippery situation, and in my opinion, somewhat more sinister than an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of a detail.

At first, I was rather disheartened at the inadequacy of the term “truth.” This complex relationship exists between details and meaning, and between intention and appropriation. Truth is merely not complex enough to cover these association. My first impulse was to address the inadequecy of that term, but I soon realized that the place to focus would be instead to define a more comprehensive term for “appropriate” usage of the truth–or the correct conveying of meaning.

After ruminating on this topic, I have selected the term “Authenticity” to describe this additional requirement.

A few weeks ago, I spent the money and bought a ticket to see Steven Spielberg’s latest masterpiece, “Munich.” As I have come to expect, it was a wonderful film: technically superior, with a compelling story, excellent cinematography, and compelling, well-wrought characters (and, NO, I am not promoting Spielberg’s work).

The story details what happened after 11 Israeli Olympians were taken hostage and killed by Black September, and the 5 Israeli men who were chosen to eliminate those responsible. You can read more about it at the IMDB entry.

While I enjoyed the movie complely, my curiosity was aroused. During the course of the movie, a theme is repeated. The main character (and narrator) comes face-to-face with the leader of a Terrorist group on the other side. It is through a series of interesting events how it occurs, but the other leader does not know who both of them are, while the narrator has full awareness.

The conclusion that the narrator reaches is that the two of them are roughly the same person–or, very similar. They are both passionate about their country and their cause. They are both willing to die for their country and their cause. And, they are both in a dangerous place with few people to trust. This interesting exchange is punctuated by the other leader’s death during one of the narrator’s operations.

Later in the movie, another interesting issue arises. There is dissent amongst the group. One of the team members has been hunted and killed. The remaining team knew who did it, and they decided to kill the hired assassin who did it. The dissenting member pleaded with the narrator: This is not the behavior of a good Jew. What we are doing is bad, and there has to be a time for us to draw the line and stop the killing. While the narrator listened to arguments, he was resolute in his decision. And, he gave the dissenting team member time off. While the team was away on this mission, the dissenting member was also killed.

The sentiments expressed by the dissenting member are not knew. I believe it was Neitsche who said, that when fighting the dragon, be fearful of becoming the dragon itself. Albert Camus argued that we, as a civilization, must become murders when we enforce capitol punishment upon murders–and, it is an unacceptable premise to punish and sanction killing in the same action. In this character’s lines, however, we have the same arguments being dramatized in a contemporary setting. One that is both compelling and pertinent to our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lastly, after team members have started to die, personalities have started to change, and the mission is nearing the end, another issue arises. The lines of the movie actually articulate perhaps the most important point of the movie. One character says that for every [Black September member] that we kill in retaliation, 10 more of our own die. They agree and admit that their actions are not solving the problem, but rather making it worse.

In our current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, an identical argument has been made about the US military presence and operations in the Middle East. Do you think that Spielberg was applying the same argument in film? Can we, as a nation and as a world, learn something from the Israeli past?

What do you think? I am dying to know . . . .

I saw you in a dream, and I remembered . . . .

My missed connection is that idyllic outlook on life that people are good, that they say what they mean, and that they are not out to harm you.

My missed connection is that first kiss where her lips are so alluring, and the passion is so crazy-wild that the electricity between us can almost be seen. I miss only thinking about that kiss, and not whether the kiss would be worth the drama later . . . .

My missed connection is the fresh eyes, the beginner’s eyes, that I had for the mundane: cooking dinner, driving to wherever, and opening my eyes to the rising sun.

My missed connection is my innocence. I have grown up, and I miss you. Just tell me what I can do win you back.