Insane Appeal

I have always found the idea of insanity appealing. The legal definition of insane is the inability to tell right from wrong. That's a very broad interpretation; to me, insane is being so far removed the norm so as to be nonsense. That is, how you view the world is so skewed from how everyone else sees it that you appear nonsensical to others. Insanity requires a framework from which one departs, and it's this throwing away of the normal that I find so attractive. Reality is filled with obligations, responsibility, struggle, pain, uncertainty, and stress. Insanity is leaving these behind for a world free of care, a world of whim and fancy. Not to say that being actually insane is all fun and games, but rather insanity offers the chance to create your own rules and own life. The world you create revolves around you, and being the center of a universe you control is much more appealing than a universe controlled by outsiders. Observing interpretations of this idea of insanity is morbidly fascinating. Peering into the mind of an insane person offers a frightening glimpse of an unharnessed world, and the more it differs from our reality, the more it chills. So when I want to peer over the edge, I turn to...

The Japanese.

Japanese culture is so far removed from my own view of reality it very well fits my definition of insane. Finding Japanese people who create their own interpretation of insanity is doubly twisted. In 2006 (or 2008?), a movie about dreams called Paprika was released. Essentially, a research team creates a device that allows you to enter someone's dreams. The device is stolen and used to terrorize others, and eventually the dream world and reality merge. The details get a little weird (oh, Japan) but the way in which the dream-device is used to terrorize people is by driving them insane. Dreams, by their nature, fit the very description of insanity I've been using. So in the movie, an insane person's dream is stolen and then implanted in another person's consciousness. They begin spouting nonsensical phrases and march around in a state of crazed mania, smiling and laughing with a sick ecstasy.

I watched it first with English subtitles. The spoken Japanese is nonsense to me, so relying on the translation at the bottom of the screen helps settle the foreign feeling of the speakers. My skin began to crawl however as the translation betrayed me when the first victim succumbed to madness. The spoken noise sounded the same, but instead of dialog I read with increasingly horror as the character on screen became more and more frenzied, happily reciting random sentences and describing a glorious world only he could see before running, laughing joyously, out of a high-rise window.

The juxtaposition is frightening. Several other people are rendered insane, excitedly bearing witness to their vision while jumping to their deaths. They drop all attachment to the world we know and embrace fully the insane dream. And the dream may be the most frightening thing of all. The bouncing, bubbly, hypnotic marching music fades in, and with a crescendo of cymbals we are thrust into the dream itself: a parade of everything. Everything in the world, from mailboxes to refrigerators to instrument-playing frogs are marching forward, steadily, unstoppable in their insane rally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0spB4OObrw

The parade appears throughout the moving, marching finally into the real world in the climax. It's grotesque yet I'm drawn to it again and again. It presents itself as a celebration of the insane. In our normal world, death or suicide is treated with the gravity and drama. In the parade of everything, in the insane dream world, death is just something else to do. I've seen the movie three or four times now, and every time the entrance of the parade chills me. A view into another reality - could we make it our own?

It's important to note that there is a difference between chaos and insanity. Insanity is reconstructing an entirely new way of seeing the world, while chaos is pure disorder. The parade of everything is insane, as it follows its own path. Chaos would be pure gibberish, sounds instead of sentences, amorphous colors instead of forms. Insanity is more appealing than chaos because it does offer a framework to see through, different as it may be. This strange appeal is what accounts for the success of some Adult Swim programming, in my opinion. The prime example is the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, a show that is built around making no sense. Other programming on the channel has tried this out to varying degrees of insanity: 12 oz. Mouse, a short-lived minimalist show, offered next to nothing in terms of a viewpoint and was a total failure. Squidbillies offers insanity but within a frame.

There is music that toys with the idea of insanity as well. One of my favorite examples is a song called "Insane Lullaby". The lyrics drift along in a sing-songy voice over a distortion background, offering dream-like images of floating fish and floods. The song asks if you'd like to go back in time, when having a good life was enough. The "insane lullaby" is repeated at the end of the song, a crooning "A good life will never be enough". Imagine a parent singing this softly to a young child, telling them they will never be happy with a good life. Insane, right? What makes this a powerful example is that it's easy to see it unfolding around us, in people who need more property, more money, more power, and never have enough. Would it be so wrong, to have enough? It seems sane, but the realization that many cannot ever have enough strikes close to reality and the insanity there becomes increasingly disturbing.

So, while these examples are unsettling, it shouldn't rule out insanity has an exercise in shifting perspective. Taking a moment to upend your reality and realign the world offers insight. It allows us to see the folly of taking things too seriously, or ignoring the pleasures in life. Do I wish to be insane? No. But would I like to visit?

Standard & Poor's

Taste is a relative thing. How I feel about a particular food could be wholly different from how you feel. I hate black olives, for instance. And raw oysters. Does that invalidate my other tastes? Because I don't like raw oysters, is my taste for macaroni & cheese or sushi? Of course not. And we can safely say that taste varies widely around the world. I heard a story about a fruit named durian that tastes fine but has the odor of soiled diapers. Or hell, watch any episode of Taboo about food and you'll find something disgusting - to you. So I think we can safely say that there is no "standard" of what is good or bad food.

So there is no standard for taste. It depends on the person. Does that lack of defining standard then extend to other tastes? Music? Art? Literature? If people can have hugely varied tastes about food and it is considered acceptable, then shouldn't that hold true for other aesthetics?

Yet we have music critics, art critics, book critics - all sorts of critics, including food critics. These are people who make their living pointing out flaws in other people's taste. Ostensibly they're doing it to provide the wider public with a preview of what's worth doing and what's not. Yet they're still operating off of some standard of what's good and what's not. A critic cannot be purely objective by virtue of he or she being a person.

So then what to make of people who judge and criticize others' tastes? Is it appropriate to tell someone that they have poor taste? From what position could they possibly be in granting them the right to abuse another's taste? And even then, what would accomplish? Why bother telling someone that what they like isn't cool, or appropriate, or good?

We should all be comfortable enjoying our own particular tastes. Music, books, food, all that. But there is some advantage in listening and following to these social cues. It helps people get along and fit in to groups! By agreeing to like the same things, or just not speaking judgments aloud, we can be more comfortable in our tastes. Certain people may join certain groups because of common tastes, or by a desire to be in accepted by that group. By establishing a hierarchy of acceptable taste, people can define where they stand among their peers. The flip side is simply ignoring any criticisms and enjoying what you do regardless, but this could be isolating.

Hmm... I'm sorting of losing the thread here. I guess the idea here is while standards are used in different areas, they don't need to be. Now I sound like a happy hippie, all you need is love kinda thing. Whatever. I like Spike Lee movies and Huey Lewis and the News. Booyah!

I'm for National Health Care

Absolutely. Let me start by saying that I am no way an expert on nationalizing health care. I don't know what HMO means or how single-payer coverage differs from... whatever is something that is different from that would be. BUT I do know:

-In 2008, Americans spent 16% of their GDP on health care - way more than anyone else in the industrialized world. This averages about to $7900 per person, per year. (National Coalition for Health Care)

-That 16% of GDP spent on health care is way, WAY beyond what other industrial nations spend. The average in 2004 was 8.4%. (Montreal Economic Institute, page 3)

-Our current health insurance programs minimize the effectiveness of our dollar spending, which is one reason why we must spend so much more money on heath care to achieve similar, and often less satisfactory, results as other nations. (Harvard Business Blog)

-People love their national health care services. Although European models are used to vilify national health care, you get a much different version of event when you ask the Europeans themselves. (Jay Bookman, WeLoveTheNHS twitter feed)

-IN 2009, medical debt in America is responsible for almost 60% of all bankruptcy filings - a strong indication that our current system is not doing anyone any favors. (American Journal of Medicine via CBS)

And I could keep going, throwing out statistics and studies demonstrating the failure of our current health care system and demonstrating the relative effectiveness of a nationalized health plan. And to be fair, I'm sure opponents can come up with enough counterarguments to support their side (although I can't imagine how they could hold any water).

Most Americans have their insurance through their employer and it is provided at a minimal cost because the insurance provider has guaranteed access to lots of patients (the employees). It's a cost of scale thing. The second reason for low cost employer health care is that health care benefits are tax-free, giving employers an incentive to provide health insurance.

There are two downsides to this system: one, as I outlined above, it doesn't appear to be all that effective. It is still run by large insurance companies looking to turn a profit. Second, if you don't have a job, you're fucked. With the national joblessness rate hovering around 10%, that equates to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Add to that the number that DON'T receive health care benefits from their job (wage workers, etc.) and you have the approximate 47 million uninsured Americans you hear about on TV. That in turn means a lot of people are royally fucked when something major goes wrong - hence the 60% of bankruptcies due to health costs.

To the best of my knowledge, the main counterargument for national health care is that the government determines what health care is available. Which drugs can be prescribed, what procedures can be given and to whom, etc. This means that if you're 90-year-old grandfather needs dialysis, the national health care isn't going to pay for it - it's not cost-effective to spend tens of thousands of dollars to extend that person's life. And when phrased that way, no politician is going to support national health care. Second, you would see a drop in employers offering health insurance as the tax-free status of those benefits would be removed to help pay for national health care. It is important to remember however that at all times private insurance may be held.

Regardless, I would like to see national health care offer basic preventative care (check ups, dental, vision, infant care) and catastrophic coverage (emergency medicine). Minor to intermediate health concerns could be subsidized but not free. All the money we are wasting on health care should be going into the economy, into our personal lives, and giving us the freedom to spend our money that right-wingers want us to have.

Finally, it is vital that Americans take on some damn responsibility. When it comes down to it, you are most responsible for your health. Eat better & exercise: that's 95% of the health care problem right there. We must be accountable for health just as we must be accountable for our credit card debts, wars, and overspending.

Forward Thinking

While slogging through endless hours of meandering lectures and thirty-page academic articles during my time at UC Riverside, I gleaned proportionally few worthwhile ideas relative to the time spent extracting them. One of those important ideas however is becoming louder in the public discourse - the real goal of education in America.

For the past sixty years, education in America created experts. A student does well in math or science and attends an engineering school, or shows a proclivity for writing and enrolls in a fine arts institution. From there, the student earns a bachelor and enters the narrow world of their specialized field. Or, they earn a master's or even doctorate, and each additional level of education proportionally narrows their effective working field. Eventually someone may become such an expert that the only option left to them (unless they choose to work "beneath" their level) is further research - thus, the college professor.

The problem now is that the rest of the world caught up with us. Asia, especially India and China, are producing enormous numbers of students with equal or better educations that our own. And its a very easy decision for a business to choose between paying an American worker or an Asian worker with equal credentials - one is required by law to health care, standard-of-living costs, insurance, and proportional salaries, while the other is happy making $500 a month. So, simply being an "expert" in a given field is no longer enough to guarantee success.

The recent push for examining our educational system focuses on something I've felt strongly about since before I became a teacher: cross-discipline education, or holistic teaching. A chemist must now master both their chosen field and be able to communicate effectively, or even better, apply their knowledge across the spectrum of modern living and synthesize a new understanding, create a new idea, for lack of a better word.

Academic subjects are viewed as discrete from one another. Reaching across the divide is essential if we want a versatile, flexible, talented, and better population. By becoming a "jack of all trades", you have a work force that is not only easier to employ but essential to have. Think of it this way: the recent trend in football has been multi-position players that can function as, say, a quarterback, running back, and receiver all in the same game. Obviously this person, who can access skills from a variety of sources, is much more desireable than a single-skill person.

Beyond that, the entire population (both rising through academic training and the current work force) must realize that in the new, faster evolving world, one's education does not stop. You must never stop learning. The stagnation that comes from accepting a station is now dangerous. If you will not improve yourself, add skills to your resume, and become invaluable, than you are simply a one-trick pony with much less value. Continous learning does not mean enrolling in college courses, taking tests and writing essays (although it could!). Instead, expanding your own skill set by learning from others or exploring a seemingly unrelated realm is sufficient. The more you take in, the more valuable you become.

Lastly, I would like to say that it is foolish to think one has "learned enough". You are not a jar that can be filled with knowledge until it tops off. There is no limit to your understanding. Perhaps you'll never become a doctor or author, but you can certainly add some of those abilities to your personal palate. "How do you educate and train people for jobs that don't exist yet?" asks Michael Thurmond, Georgia's labor commissioner. "As long as you know how to learn, [employers] can train you to do a job."

Where We're At

So let's see... since returning to Georgia I've been in a movie (Disney Shot Kennedy), accepted a new job as a part-time Biology teacher at Lovett, found an apartment less than a block from the Virginia Highlands, managed to snag a couch, coffee table, chair, desk, bookcase, and bed for free, been hired on a second job as a tutor, seen two great concerts (Ted Leo and Jenny Lewis), started running again, and re-connect with some old friends. Overall I'd give the past seven weeks an B+.

Tomorrow I've been tricked into seeing my first jam-band concert. I have no doubt that the musicians in these bands are tremendously talented. But what draws me to music is the lyrics, not necessarily the music. Not to say I can't appreciate a great musician, but that aspect is secondary to what they are actually saying (and no, nobody "says" anything with a wicked guitar solo or fifteen-minute drum circle. Except orchestral composers, and they do it with infinitely more nuance and one hundred instruments.).

Next week I'll be seeing my second outdoor movie this summer and hopefully moving into my apartment full time. It's got the furniture but needs the place doesn't look like I live in it yet. August 5th is when my training starts in earnest for Lovett, and even though I'm teaching a VERY easy schedule there, I'll still be investing into a deep school culture. Because the school setting is more intimate than Fontana, it'll be that much more apparent to faculty and students alike that I don't "get it" yet. And you can't just plug into that situation, it's something that will take months before I'm assimilated. But at least I'll be one of the swim coaches, so that should help.

My apartment is shaping up to be the best places I've lived. It's one of four units in a 1920's house. It's NOT a cookie cutter apartment. It's NOT in a complex. It IS a three minute walk from 80+ shops, pubs, restaurants, record stores, etc. One of the residents is a TV producer and is gone 8 months of the year. One is a lawyer, and the other is some girl named Katie who drives a Volvo station wagon. The landlord/lady live next door and have a keggerator built into their kitchen island. When I first checked the place out, the landlady and I got to talking and she simply stated that "she and her husband loved beer". Damn straight I'm living next to you.

So I expect to see you a lot down my way. Yeah, you.

So long, SoCal

Living in a place, any place, for any length of time will eventually cause you to form some form of attachment to it. As much as I hate and gripe about California, a part of me is still upset at moving. The list of things I will miss is very small, and center almost entirely around the high school I taught at. I made some very strong connections with the students and the faculty there. I started a successful recycling club (4,430 pounds of paper recycled), planted trees on campus, and we even made t-shirts. Then the my students threw me a surprise party which completely caught me off guard, and then one of my favorite students made me a giant two-sided poster about how much she liked me as a teacher, and now they're writing awesome things on MySpace... jeez it can be a bit much for a guy to just walk away from that. I invested a ton of myself there, worked my ass off for two years, built some great relationships, and now I gotta start over somewhere else.

But anyway. I think that nowhere you live is going to be perfect. There's always going to be some gripe or shortcoming - the people, the city, the weather, the traffic, the whatever. But you find something that you like doing and makes you happy, and you can find that anywhere you are. Even if it's just a small happiness, it becomes what gets you through the other shitty things, no matter how numerous they are. You make friends. The closer I get to moving back, the more I think about why I left in the first place, and start to wonder if some of those things won't resurface to bother me again. I'm worried that they'll begin to bother me so much that I'll be tempted to pick up and move again.

Teaching, I've found, definitely lends itself to a certain degree of permanency. You become the solid rock upon which students are shaped and molded. You get to watch them become complete, real people. And if you try hard, you can help them become better people. Or at least influence them to some degree. Truly, shaping the future. But if you're only present for a few years, especially less than the four in high school, you're limited. You're cutting short those strong connections that make teaching so worthwhile. You limit yourself to a pure academic instructor, not a true teacher.

And so with that in mind I'm realizing that I need to find one place to be, at least as long as I'm a teacher. And I need to recognize that nowhere will be perfect, and that constantly moving to find one will in fact damage me much more than staying in one "imperfect" place. At least where I'm moving to has family and friends. And Waffle House.

Beer Seven

10:07 Kevin Smith dropping the uber-meta-references. But funny, cause it's really Matt Damon and Ben Affleck. It's Hunting Season! Also, starting over with regular Sam Adams. So nice to drink beer for the first time in almost three hours of drinking.

10:11 Gus van Sant and Wes Craven. Kevin Smith had a fuckload of pull after Chasing Amy and Dogma.

10:15 I wonder how much of being famous is actually being talented, and how much is being in the right place at the right time.

10:17 Chris Rock is fucking awesome. I love his stand up. "Pour some Tussin on it!" Also Ron White is a great. He definitely doesn't follow the same redneck standup theme as those others NASCAR humpers.

10:24 I wonder how much weed does Kevin Smith actually smoke? Seeing as it plays a major role it his movies, you'd think they guy gets toasted pretty often. But maybe he just does it to appeal to his crowd.

10:33 End of movie, end of beer seven. Sam Adams is great, as long as it doesn't try to be anything but Sam Adams. Kevin Smith kissed a monkey.

10:38 Morris Day and the Motherfuckin' Time! My Jungle Love - Oh-wee-oh-wee-oh - I think I wanna know ya know ya! They do the swinging leg dance! I saw that live!