Vitamin D

I had no idea how much I depend on Vitamin D for my happiness. This recent NY Times article  stated that you only need about 15 minutes a day on your arms and legs from spring through fall to get your fair share to sustain you, but what happens in the winter? Or in cloudy cities like Cleveland where there is plenty of sun in the summer but on average fewer than 15 sunny days during the winter? Some suggest supplements, which is all fine and good but I never remember to take them. Others say move south (not an option right now). Still others suggest a sun lamp. It's not even October yet, but I suspect that I will be investing in a sun lamp soon. I hate to complain (besides about politics), but MAN ALIVE I MISS THE SUN (and it's only been gone a couple of days). I absolutely POSITIVELY WILL SURVIVE gosh darnit!

Galieleo, Brecht, and Perry

Last night I went to see Galileo by Bertolt Brecht at the Cleveland Playhouse, the longest running regional theater in the country (96 years!). It was beautifully executed (with the exception of an awkward moment filled with rapping angels and gold lamé shorts) and starred the amazing British actor Paul Whitworth. The lighting was stunning; I couldn't believe how much it added to an already lovely work. Perhaps most importantly, however, was the resounding message still remarkably relevant 70 years after the 1943 premier.

Galileo Galilei, as we laypeople understand him, was an astronomer, physicist and mathematician who propelled forward the Scientific Revolution. With his findings that the earth is not, in fact, the center of the universe (proven via recent invention the telescope), the Catholic Church found Galilei heretical and in violation of church doctrine. In fact, in October of 1992 (350+ years later), Pope John Paul II expressed regret with the way that the situation with Galilei was handled. And thus did NOT end the murky divide between the Church and Science. Brecht initially wrote the play as a sort of allegory of Naziism, but it can easily be translated to new times and centuries. His balance between the Church and Science is lovely, with doubters and believers in both camps as the Western world changed drastically toward scientific pursuits.

So, does anybody see a parallel between Rick Perry (and other GOP fundamentalists) and the scientific community today? Anyone? How is it that after years, centuries, even, of research and investigation (using the bright minds and capabilities that the Good Lord above has gifted us), the church still questions rather basic science that has significant evidence in its court? I am a theist, unlike many of my science-minded (and even ethnomusicologically-minded) friends, and I have faith in a Higher Power, but I do not at all conceive of how my faith and (I believe God's gift of) science are incompatible. Placing artifacts historically and chronologically (including Bibles and fossils) should inform us that we can take nothing literally but must conduct further research (thank you, Lord, for free will and thinking minds). The Bible makes no mention of cars or computers (or the internet at all) and yet we use them. We don't know where God stands on these SCIENTIFIC inventions. According to the Hebrew Scriptures, we can't even wear wool and linen at the same time. (Who knows how polyester fits in to the picture.) So should we abandon the theory of evolution simply because we can't seem to move beyond allegories and fables mainly employed to educate the (largely) illiterate population of 2,000 years ago? Doubt it, but who knows? Perry and others are either really stupid (possible) or looking to control large segments of today's population with both ignorance and fear. Climate change? Nah. Doesn't exist. How on earth could humans have botched things up so long if the earth is really millions and billions of years old? Mostly because we're inventive little turds and some of our science has turned against us during our pursuit of excessive profit (e.g. big agriculture that yields more corn, more corn-fed cows then pumped with anti-biotics and presto-change-o: E-coli!).

Now that I have established myself as a ranting loon, I would like to recommend that you watch Galileo at the Cleveland Playhouse if you're able. Good show, dear chaps, good show.

Who wants to teach, guv?

I understand that I may quite possibly be beating a dead horse, but here goes with the horse violence: teachers are underpaid. (That calls for a "duh.") Despite the fact that education was one of the first areas to get slashed in most states to attempt to deal with their horrendous deficits, and that states (and the federal government) were irresponsible with their budgets in the first place (if my Mom were in charge, everyone would be on the frugal budget and only allowed to buy one pair of shoes a year. Yes, I'm talking to myself and my bad shoe-buying habit.), there still may be a chance to save our kids but leave it to people like Kasich and others who don't value educators' skills. I invite you, Governor Kasich, to teach for a week and see what is involved in being in the classroom. I also invite you, sir, to take home what a teacher makes in a week. Then take another 10% of your income away to pay for health care and yet still pay higher co-pays and then spend your hard-earned cash on school supplies for your classroom (because your classroom budget is about $150/year). Whatcha got left? And who was going to take care of your kids and your partner? Oh, and I'm sorry, did you think you got to "relax" during the summer? Yeah, try working a part-time job, preparing lessons to meet the ridiculous academic content standards arbitrarily determined by administrators and also taking care of your family full-time. Got it?

I'm not saying that unions are perfect; they're not. And I'm not saying that all teachers are the best either. But I am saying that the middle class (to which many teachers belong) can't afford all this mumbo jumbo. We need pensions (I won't even embarrass the state of Ohio by announcing the pittance that my mother made after teaching for 30+ years) in order to pay for that assisted living that medicare won't cover after a certain period of time. We need to take care of our children and our grandchildren. And by the way, we (the middle class) didn't piddle away millions and billions on bail outs and mortgage crises. Most of us were just working. Hard. And now my friends and colleagues are being rewarded with unemployment, lowered salaries, and barely-there pension possibilities.

Seriously, guv, walk a week in any of my friends' shoes and see what it's like. And then try paying a teacher what you pay your plumber and we'll talk.

And the nominees are...

Well, for those of you who are all caught up, I now work at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. Please note that this is a different (although related) entity from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.  We are a non-profit, they are a for-profit and we would not exist without them, although it is (mostly) they who make decisions about nominating candidates for induction.

In the meantime, my position is that I love rock and roll. I love soul, funk, punk, rock, indie, pop...the whole nine yards. But for whatever reason, I'm not particularly invested in who gets inducted. I don't have those allegiances that Kiss or Rush fans have, and the bands that I would induct (the Smiths, the Pixies, Sonic Youth, Afrika Bambaataa, Bjork) are a long way from getting inducted (politically, I believe), and that's ok by me. I still love their music, and their induction will not validate nor undermine that love.

But really, why do people get so invested? (And I'm glad that they do - it makes great fodder for discussion and it certainly demonstrates the power of popular culture. Yeah, take that, Adorno!) As my boss often notes, it's all about expertise: our adoration of a particular music, style or artist is deeply rooted in our knowledge about that music, style or artist. We know, we love, we devote our money and ears to that thing. And we are intimately acquainted (e.g. my fidelity to Guided by Voices' Under the Bushes, Under the Stars). So having an internationally recognized institution validate our expertise and devotion means a lot to a lot of people. But why the animosity when Neil Diamond gets inducted or when the Beastie Boys get nominated? Ultimately, rock and roll and all its roots and branches are deeply personal and reflect the diversity of the United States. This stuff is made of so much other stuff, and this institution is called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame likely because it's less catchy to call it the Rock, Popular, Semi-Popular, Underground and Acoustic and Electric Roots and Who Knows What Branches Hall of Fame. Why is hip-hop part of rock and roll? Because it wouldn't have happened without rock and roll, without those LPs that were recorded in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Spinners, Chic, the JBs) and those artists that recorded those LPs wouldn't have happened without the Jackie Wilsons and Aretha Franklins and James Browns of the world who wouldn't have happened without the Mahalia Jacksons, Sister Rosetta Tharpes and Soul Stirrers who wouldn't have happened without the...you get my gist. While the melting pot metaphor has long since been abandoned, especially considering the palpable segregation that still exists here, it's apt when discussing popular music and how it happened: everyone influences everyone else and while power differentials obviously exist (and arguably we live within a post-colonial framework), it's all mashed up together.

SO...be nice and respect others' tastes. And maybe even take a listen to that Rush or Beastie Boys record. You might learn something you don't know and frankly, isn't that what life is all about?

Nevermind

Well, despite my serious nerddom, I have somehow published about the band that I was never cool enough to write about. Regardless, read all about my impressions of the 20 year anniversary of Nirvana's Nevermind over here.

Hop to it, risk-taker

Has it really been more than an entire year sans adventures of Sparky? Am I lazy or what? Too much Hulu-watching and bike-riding, I suppose, but this is ridiculous. In an era of chronicling one's every breath, it's rather silly that I don't maintain a blog, a log, a chronicle of what's going on so that my future progenitors may read their mother's thoughts on some microchip installed in their frontal lobe.

So today, children (well, me, really, because who the hell else reads this thing? So I guess I could have written "chronicling one's every fart" instead), we shall learn about TAKING RISKS and how I used to be much better at that but I now suck at it. My bravery is unending when it comes to traveling solita around the world and trying new foods, but I can't seem to engage with the more banal stuff of talking to a cute man or hunting for prospective futures. Those futures, though, are what gets me. They could be anything - living in Japan, fishing, or working at the WHO in Uganda.  I guess those particular examples are a bit far-fetched but the point is, I'm only 32 (for another few months), I'm finished with graduate school, I am healthy and curious and I don't have a mortgage or children. Doesn't this mean that I am free to shape my future, try new things, do whatever? And yet I feel nailed to the floor, comfortable and even complacent in the decadent apartment that I don't own, the job that I enjoy (despite being woefully underpaid) and the friends that are wonderful company. So why bother lifting a finger to do anything other than craft night or blogging? I think because it's expected of me - I should, I can, therefore I...won't? Don't wanna? Am afraid / anxious / nervous / bored? I like routine. I like spontaneity, too, but only to an extent. So the point of this post is...oh yes, to chronicle. Hopefully one day I'll look back to this and think, "what a dimwit." Or maybe, "how so very human of her, that old self of mine."