Great article

Really enjoyed this article:

http://members.aol.com/gstappbass/mythsandrealities.htm

which talks about the REAL life of a professional classical musician.

When something catastrophic happens to you, you can either let it destroy you, or let it change you. You can either expand into the space of the person you're going to be, or try to squeeze yourself back down into the space of your old soul.

When you lose something that mattered to you, you can either pretend it never mattered at all, or you can find ways to hold on - not necessarily to what you've lost, but to what it meant to you. For instance, when you lose someone, you can embrace their childlike spirit, and their openness, without holding onto the person themselves. When your eyes have been opened, there are things you now know - you can't pretend you don't know them anymore - you have to learn to live in this new reality.

I think I've very much mistaken a lot of the pain I've been feeling for the pain of loss, when I've actually been experiencing the pain of growing. This time alone, could make me better yet.

It's a girl!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051123/wl_nm/liberia_dc

a good day

The bad news was: I locked my keys in the car at a gas station in Cedar Rapids.

The good news was: The people at the gas station let me use their phone to call AAA (even though their phone is the one they use for the credit card machine, and AAA put me on hold, twice). Not only that - I went to buy a cappuccino from them, to at least give them a little business for their trouble, and they wouldn't let me pay for it.

The bad news was: I was almost late for the tip-off of the women's basketball game, and the
friend I was meeting there had his phone turned off, so I didn't know where he was.

The good news was: An old man was standing outside, and he said, "Need a ticket?" I nodded, yes, and he said, "Here, just have it," so I got in free.

Is this heaven? No, its....

Luck

I was walking to the library yesterday, off to get my internet fix, when I heard someone singing in the ped mall (to all you non-Iowa City-ans, that's the pedestrian mall, where there often people randomly performing/preaching/screaming/generally making fools of themselves). She had the most beautiful, clear, Irish-style soprano voice! I looked around, half expecting some waify-thin lady with long curly hair, your stereotypical Irish soprano from Riverdance or a movie or whatever. Instead I discovered a very fat, disabled woman in a wheelchair, with an oxyegen tank attached, the little tubes twisted over her ears and into her nose. She had red hair and very authentic-sounding break in her voice. There was a basket next to her, with a sign that said, "rent money."

She looked like a someone I would usually pass by and think, "crazy bag lady", but she was (and I'm trying to drive this home) really REALLY good. This may sound egotistical, but that actually means something coming from me. Okay, everybody thinks they're an expert on singing. But I'm fanatical about voices. I took voice lessons for seven years, and have six years of schooling on the subject. Most importantly though, I listen to voices constantly - I listen to opera singers, pop singers, blues singers, R&B singers, Celtic singers, rock singers, country singers, bluegrass singers. My ear is trained to hear excellence in singing. The whole point of this is not to tell you how fabulous I am, but to say that when I perceive that someone has a serious vocal talent, it means something. Maybe not more than some people's more-expert opinions, but maybe more than Joe Blow on the street.

She was a better singer than I'll ever be, and here she was collecting rent money. With my mediocre talent I've been able to work in churches (or at least, get a lot of offers to work in churches :) ), and get paid to teach people to sing. I often get frustrated working in my go-nowhere secretarial or retail day jobs, thinking about my talent and intellect going to waste, but I was humbled by this far more tragic waste of talent. This woman was singing on the ped mall for rent, when she belonged on a stage (or at least in a tour of coffeehouses and pubs).

In the back of my mind, I've often believed that success is somehow earned. That people who make their mark in the world manage to do that because they are more confident, talented, intellegent, etc., than their peers. It's easy to believe - if you just go to a few random local concerts, and hear a few crappy performers, you can say to yourself, "well, there's a reason that they're stuck here in (name of your little podunk town)."

But that is bullshit. Success is ALL luck. Never flatter yourself that you have earned anything you have. Thank God for it, but while you're saying your prayer of thanks don't think for a moment that you have more of His/Her favor because of it.

I used to think that people who lived a more starving-artist lifestyle might be kidding themselves a little bit - maybe they just aren't good enough to cut it. Maybe they should face up to the reality that the big break just isn't gonna come.

But talent doesn't matter as much in a world where people would rather sit in their perfect homes and download perfect MP3s from perfect-looking artists, instead of going out to hear live music, experience art first-hand, and meet real people.

Maybe it's the rest of us who have been kidding ourselves.

Congratulations....

to me!!! This is my 100th blog post! That's a heck of a lot of self-indulgent rambling.

Here's a few random thoughts on this my centiblogational day:

1)If you were gonna beg a couple church jobs to take you back, how would you go about it? I'm going through being-a-professional-musician withdrawal.

2)There is a dude next to me in the computer lab who keeps looking at me funny and he smells like ketchup. Should I run away or laugh it off? Eh, I'm lazy I'll sit here.

And now you need a story:

So I was in the library, looking for Sex and the City by Candace Bushnell, the book that the series was based on. On my way to it, though I discovered a journal called The Celibate Woman, which was a fascinating little literary journal from the 80s, about women who for some reason or other chose to live (often temporarily) celibate. It was so interesting that I decided to take it out, but then I thought, "Oh no! I can't just go up to the counter with just a copy of The Celibate Woman." The library guy will think I'm nuts!!" So I decided to go on to find Sex and the City, because I figured it would (paradoxically) balance it out. It wasn't on the shelf, though, so I decided to find some other inocuous-looking book to somehow counteract the weirdness of The Celibate Woman. I wandered through the aisles, and started reading a book called A String of Pearls - stories about cross-dressing. I was like, whoa, stories about cross-dressing - interesting!! With these two books under my arm, I realized that my strategy was backfiring. I finally selected a couple of random poetry books to complete (and attempt to normalize) my selection. I put the one with the picture of the drag queen on the front at the bottom of the stack, and went to the check-out desk.

It's unfortunate that I feel so encumbered by social "norms" (real or imagined) that I feel nervous about checking out books that might be deemed "odd" by others. But I'm lucky that I don't face any government inquiries or investigations because of what I check out at the library. Though a few clauses in the Patriot Act might have weakened that freedom - I still can pretty much read and write whatever I want to. Just another reason that it's important to preserve the Bill of Rights.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth

Ok.

So I had accepted a position at one church, here in Iowa City, and turned down another. The position didn't offer much money, and it was working with kids. I was scared to work with kids, and also concerned about the drive (it was a little further down the road), and the pay. I made the practical choice, and chose the church here in Iowa City.

However, I attended a service at the turned-down church, the day I told them I would not take the position. I really enjoyed their service, it was the first time I had "gotten something" out of a church service (besides the ones at Wesley) for a long time. I'm not sure what it was - there was nice music, and an interesting sermon. There were both good ideas and a nice aesthetic to it. I started to have second thoughts.

The minister for the church in Iowa City called me, and I made a snap decision to take the position anyway. It made more "sense". I stayed home from my trip to see Elizabeth's wedding, so I could attend a service at the church and make sure I could really feel comfortable there.

It was a fun service, though not inspiring in any way. It was a special less-formal hymn sing service, so I couldn't really get a good feel. I spoke to many people about my second thoughts, but for most of them, the Iowa City church still seemed like the best decision. By default, the decision stuck.

That Friday, though, I was still having doubts. I went to a small chapel in town to pray about it, and talked to my friend Emily. Both these experiences led me to believe that the position in cedar rapids WOULD have been the better choice. But then I talked to my friend Paul, who pointed out that at this point, they would probably not feel comfortable hiring me, as I had turned down the position once before.

I went to church at the Iowa City church on Sunday, with a hangover (I think I drank the night before to anesthetize myself from the decision-making stress. not to mention boy problems :) ). The service this time was more traditional, but struck me still as too informal, too hackneyed.
On Monday, I called the pastor, with the intention of turning down the position.

The pastor was unavailable after I called twice, so I went to our meeting as scheduled. I brought my materials and met everyone. On my way there, I felt a strong urge to just keep on driving, but I knew I had to speak to the pastor face to face. My rehearsals were to begin this week, and I needed to do some apologizing for quitting so suddenly.

After the group meeting I spoke to the pastor at length about my concerns, and said that I was thinking about getting out of the profession altogether. I've told several people this, and I'm not sure if it is true. What I do know is that I promised myself that for my next church job, I would not pick a church where I could not worship.

He was, of course, very concerned, and gave me an "out" to turn down the position right that moment. Unfortunately, the group meeting had gone very well, and I have no other job in sight right now. I couldn't bring myself to say the words. How could I give up this great opportunity? Sure, I didn't like the worship, but there wasn't anything WRONG with it on paper! The theology is progressive, it's a diverse, "open and affirming" church (they accept people regardless of sexual orientation, which is important to me), they have large choirs with some good singers. How could I say, in a professional way, "Yeah, I'm not really feeling it." I knew that in my heart, but I couldn't say it to his face.

I went home and almost immediately got on the phone, to tell him. But he wasn't in the office. I had practice that night and wasn't sure what to do. About an hour and fifteen before practice, I tried to call the interim director, so she could lead the rehearsal or at least tell them I wasn't coming. I couldn't find the number he had given me. I searched everywhere. I did 411, and the phone book to no avail. The number that the phone book had said it was disconected when I called. I should have called the pastor. Instead I called the church office and left a message about "having a flat tire". Nothing like piling a lie on top of an already bad record. Then I turned my phone off and tried to forget about rehearsal.

Now the last part of that sounds a little crazy - but I'll give you my reasoning/excuses. 1) I was scared to shits of walking into a bell choir rehearsal anyway, let alone unprepared, and with the intent to quit directly afterwards. 2) I didn't want to lead the rehearsal, then quit. I felt like the choir members would feel that it had something to do with THEM, and I really didn't want that. I would rather they think I'm just sort of nutty.

And they do. The pastor called me today to make SURE I was officially turning down the position. He told me I should get some counciling. Which I thought was sort of patronizing, even if it is true. He said I should get some help for my journey, because sometimes you can't see through your own self-deceptions.

However, I think in this case, I listened to advice, and not my own heart. I hung on until I made a big drama that made it worse for everybody, because I didn't want to hurt people's feelings, or do something that they would think was crazy.

What do you think?

Nur wer die Sehnsucht kennt, weiss was ich leide!

- Goethe

yea!

I knew I voted for these people for some reason:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_cheney

Two sides, no middle ground?

I've noticed that there seem to be two really opposite sides of opinion on some of the atrocities committed at Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo Bay, and now very possibly at a whole network of secret prisons.

These opinions are: (because my opinion is clearly NOT Opinion A, I felt the need to refute some of the claims - my personal opinions are in parenthesis)

Opinion A) WE ARE AT WAR. (Holy crap, if one more person says this on a blog, tv show, letter to the editor, whatever, I swear, I'm going to spontaneously combust or something) These people (who? exactly? the same people?? Are ya SURE?) attacked US. Sure, we'd usually like to be nice, but this is life or death (for Americans). We have to think of our security, first. There is no need to be overly paranoid about abuses of power (why not? Haven't we seen proof to the contrary?) - people who are in these camps are in there because specific evidence (that no third parties are allowed to see!) has linked them to terrorist acts.

PLUS - when the media focuses on these stories, we fuel the propaganda machines of the Islamic extremists who want to add new ranks to their terrorist armies (funny, I thought it was the actual atrocities that did that), and unfairly turn public opinion against the war, making it harder for the troops to do their jobs. (most of those people are probably working their asses off over there, and forging personal and professional relationships with the Iraqui people - it would be really great if they had a nation behind them, WWII-style, cheering them on. Unfortunately, their leaders sent them in under false pretenses, expect unrealistic results from them while providing them with inadequate resources, and may even have created a climate where abuse and torture are expected behavior. To allow a government to do this to the women and men of the military without a public outcry would enact a far greater injustice upon them.)

Opinion B) Secret prisons, torturing detainees, and restricting rights in special cases (as in the Patriot Act) are the stuff of fascism, not democracy. How do we know that people will not be held in such camps and prisons simply because they disagree with the government, if no third parties can see why they are being held?

PLUS, we signed the documents at the Geneva Convention, saying that we would not allow torture. Torture is something that should never be done in the name of the American people, fully deserved or not, but ESPECIALLY not when there are no legal structures in place to prevent innocent people being held as terrorists. When we use the tactics of the terrorists, we advocate state-sanctioned terror.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having pitched my tent firmly in Camp B, I'm trying to understand the people who are in the Opinion A camp, so I did some reading of story comments on washingtonpost.com. A reader calling himself "GAT2005" had a very clever argument - he mentioned that in 1998, the big story in the Washington Post, the day after Osama bin Laden declared his intent to strike the U.S., was a fairly lame follow-up article on Lewinskygate. He compares this to the scandal stories about the outing of Valerie Plume and prison abuses - he feels that these are being reported ad nauseum while reports pertaining to new terrorist threats are all but ignored. Here's what he says:

"**WHICH** story was more important - Clinton's sexual activities or a Maniac Terrorist Leader declaring plans to attack the USA?
**WHICH** story do you think the American MSM (mainstream media) widely reported?
We are seeing another repeat of this NOW - with the monofocus on embarrassing scandals to the currrent government, and the repeat of the non-reporting / under-reporting of global terrorist threats and attacks...."

This is (admittedly) a very clever argument - our media tend to focus on the aftermath of a big scandal, and downplay stories about things that may come in the future (it's harder to sell stories about things no one has heard of). For instance, if newspapers had been able to dig a little deeper BEFORE the Iraq War about some of the bad intellegence and cover ups during the build-up to war, the American people as a whole might have more vehemently opposed it. There's one big hole in his argument though - THIS scandal is a huge threat to national security, in itself.

Another poster, Bill Krumpter, had this agrument:

The American people elect the political representatives who exercise congressional oversight of the CIA, and the media should rightly bring the revelations of stories like these to those representatives, preferably in direct testimony behind closed doors. From that point, the media should continue to follow up to see the results of actions the Congress takes and act accordingly -- and still with sensible restraint.

Finally, an intellegent conservative take on the issue. Krumpter makes an excellent point - the CIA is overseen by congress, an elected body, in our system of checks and balances. However, I feel that a journalist who discovered information THIS disturbing about the CIA has an obligation to share it with the American people. Krumpter and I agree that there is a certain amount of secrecy neccessary in government operations, and that the media has a moral (not neccessarily legal, in my mind) repsonsibility to maintain some of that secrecy. We disagree about how MUCH secrecy should be allowed in government, and what role the media should play in preserving it. From this point, a meaningful dialogue could be built.

Krumpter's comment is far outside the norm, however, in my experience. The arguments I find most disturbing (and I find them all too often!) actually advocate the use of torture in the case of terrorism. These people believe that if the crime is heinous enough, torture is a legitimate way to punish and/or prevent it. This, in itself, is a shocking, and in my mind, morally reprehensible premise. They also seem frighteningly unconcerned about the possibility that some of the detainees in these camps and prisons may be innocent. This seems to stem from a lack of concern for the citizens of other countries, in general (and possible racism or xenophobia). Why else would we allow American convicted criminals an extensive appeals process, but not even give the citizens of other countries (who have not even been tried) access to lawyers?

Of course, this is when the Opinion B person would say, "but WE ARE AT WAR!" But being at war should not give our military personnel complete authority over prisoners at war - and even if you feel it should, the only thing that this might be expected to accomplish would be expediency and efficiency. Considering the amount of time the Guantanamo detainees have been held, that seems to be a non-issue. I'm all for trusting government officials to do their jobs, and not obstructing them with needless paranoia, but to allow them to operate without checks and balances, even in time of war, is hopelessly naive.

To close, a couple of Opinion A posters who make the case for Opinion B by sounding moronic:

Says "38051956":
"So freakin' WHAT if we use other countries' prisons overseas to torture al-Qaeda types into confessing?!
After 9/11, the LAST thing I want is to be nice to some TERRORISTS!
They can use cattle prods, baseball bats with protruding nails, and barbed-wire bullwhips on these bozos for all I care!!!

Wow.

And unfortunately, the otherwise quite reasonable Bill Krumpter finished his piece thusly:

Frankly, 9/11 happened because the CIA was hamstrung for so long by righteous, albeit ill-advised indignation over certain incidents in the past. I can empathize with those who always want to see America set the example for other nations and organizations and take the high moral road. Unfortunately, weakening the CIA for that reason weakens America and makes us vulnerable to unscrupulous and violent terrorists who want to destroy the freedom we represent. Given the choice between super-high morality versus the loss of American freedoms in whole or in part, I would choose to lower our moral standards when dealing with those who would tear our nation down.

You heard it here - we're going to save our principles by lowering our morals!

it's pogo-rific

This is hilarious:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0002IET16/ref=amb_link/104-9450734-0681508?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Imagine this...

take a moment and think about what you could be doing other than what you're doing...
Today I went to Cedar Rapids (a town about half an hour north of here) to apply for a barista position at a coffee house. Can't picture it? Yeah, I can't really either. But my philosophy is, if you think about doing stuff, then you should go ahead and try to do it. I kind of like the idea of working in a coffee shop, hearing local music acts, and then working at the church in cedar rapids on weekends. Oh the artist's life! But going there, and seeing the dumbass 20-year-olds that I'd have to work with, hearing the lame conversations, the self-important folk typing away on their laptops (I make fun of them, but you know if I could, I'd be typing this blog from a coffee place, not the college library, right?), I don't think I'd be able to deal with that scene. Not to mention the god-awful track lighting. Picture an entire building lit by track lighting. It totally screws with your vision.

My point is, you gotta at least try. You gotta at least check it out. You'll probably still sit around thinking about things that you think you might want to do - but at least you'll be thinking about DIFFERENT things, not the same old unrequited dreams.

All this is reminding me of Patty Griffin's song, "Useless Desires".

While I may not have found my next career, I found a very nice drink called a Chocolate-Covered Strawberry Mocha.