Quote of the Week...from Judy Garland

 Always be a first-rate version of yourself, instead of a second-rate version of someone else.             

                                                                               ---Judy Garland

Judy Garland, best known for her portrayal of Dorothy in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, was both an accomplished singer and actress, with a string of popular and critically acclaimed albums and movies before her tragic death in 1969 at age 47.  Instead of focusing on Judy's personal life, today I'd rather look at this quote of hers.  Nowadays there's a popular acronym, GOAT, which on the surface might imply something derogatory, but actually means "greatest of all time".  So endless sports discussions take place where fans argue about who is the GOAT in whatever sport they're discussing.  You can take it to any field: music, science, art, writing, presidents, whatever.  In each setting, though, the context is externally based.  As individuals our entire lives constitute the context, and none of us should feel obliged to try to box our efforts into one of the categories others have provided for us, nor should we necessarily compare ourselves to those who have achieved greatness in this area or that.  My life is a tapestry of my myriad experiences and relationships, truly something unique and precious.  I do want to better myself but taking on the persona of another to do it according to their standards or those of others will only make me a dissatisfied, cheap copy. There is something like eight billion people in the world today...seems like getting super good at being my individual self in the face of pressure for mass conformity is the way to go, just saying...    

About Will Smith's Incredible Hulk Moment at the Oscars

The Incredible Hulk was a popular TV series in the late seventies and early eighties.  Based on the Marvel comics character, Bill Bixby starred as mild-mannered Dr. David Bannister, a scientist who accidently exposes himself to such an excess of gamma ray radiation that, in times of extreme stress and anxiety, causes his body to transform into a raging monster, the Hulk (played by Lou Ferrigno).  Not exactly Jekyll and Hyde...Robert Louis Stevenson's character actually changed into a completely different personality...the Hulk retains Bannister's moral compass and compassion. It's just out of control, stuck in a fight-or-flight mode...much like that we experience in our own lives when we're under tense and difficult circumstances, became angry or fearful, and our sympathetic nervous system temporarily gains supremacy over our thoughts and behavior.  And although this period may only last for a few minutes, we're often left with the consequences of irrational and antisocial public behavior.  This is what I believe happened to Will Smith at the Academy Award ceremony the other night when he rushed the stage and slapped (and immediately thereafter cursed at) comedian Chris Rock for making one of his trademark insulting offhand jokes, this one aimed at Smith's wife Jada for her shaven head (she suffers from alopecia).  He was already center-stage and under the spotlight, a favorite to win Best Actor for his dramatic performance in the movie King Richard and most likely already was feeling a bit stressed out. Soon after the incident Smith was very contrite and apologetic for his impulsive action, but will continue to suffer its fallout.  Just who is Will Smith...the soft-spoken and congenial gentleman so many have come to appreciate or the creepy violent dude revealed in that unfortunate moment before the world?  Both, I imagine, just as each of us have this duality...I just think most of us, although probably unpleasant to be around in those moments of extreme anxiety and anger, don't resort to physically violent behavior.  Instead, dramatic and sometimes profane language, extreme passive-negative behavior, or a total shutdown from interaction can be common reactions to those experiencing personal Hulk transformations.  I do find the media reactions to it all interesting.  After realizing the other night that the Oscars were going to show because of the Red Carpet pre-ceremony show, with outfit after gawdy, tasteless outfit touted as high fashion, I made it a deliberate point to avoid the awards...finding out about the Smith/Rock altercation later.  The reactions were divided between those praising Smith for defending his wife's honor and those condemning his violence.  And then the media ghouls went to work, digging up items in both Smith's and Rock's pasts and citing things they had said before.  Different celebrities went to work giving their own feedback, and then the ghouls researched them, digging up even more negative news to promulgate over social and mass media.  What a media circus, and a macabre one at that!  

Game of Thrones and Avengers: Endgame: To Spoil or Not to Spoil

There are two series, one on television and the other on the big screen, that have closed out just recently with their final episodes: Games of Thrones and Avengers.  I haven't followed either...I only saw Iron Man, featuring Robert Downey, Jr. as the eventual Avengers superhero, and managed to see part of one of the Thrones episodes when I happened to get a free sneak preview of HBO, the series that carries it, on my cable service.  But I have read author George R.R. Martin's The Song of Ice and Fire, on which Game of Thrones is based, all the way through the latest and fifth book and have for several years awaited the next installment.  Incredibly, Martin assented to allow the HBO series to continue all the way to the conclusion, with different characters dying out and others rising to the ascendancy...none of which he has yet revealed in his book series. Now I'm determined to boycott any more books by this author, series-related or not: that's NOT how to treat your loyal reading base, dude!

Since I'm washing my hands of Martin's fantasy series, I don't suppose then that it should matter how the television Games of Thrones ends, but I still find it pretty disconcerting to be exposed to all the plot spoilers that have spontaneously appeared on social media and even from sources that should know better than to reveal things which others are waiting to discover for themselves.  Contrast this with the Avengers final movie Endgame, for which there seemed to be a near-universal agreement among fans not to divulge how it ended.  Yet with Game of Thrones I hear...without asking for it...how many parents had named their daughters Daenerys and now are going to have to live with that decision.  Or how Taylor Swift, judged by an popular magazine to be one of the "100 most influential people in the world", has been greatly influenced by Arya Stark.  Here is where fiction gets a little muddy...which is more surreal: Taylor Swift being influential on any level or fictional character Arya Stark's reality to her? In any event, fans of this series are getting themselves all knotted up over the different characters and that final episode...to them I say: get a life, or at least some semblance thereof, until you can get yourselves hooked on the next fad HBO series.  And by the way, believe it or not, not everyone on Earth is necessarily following the same crap you're so engrossed in...

Quote of the Week...from Mick Jagger

The past is a great place and I don't want to erase it or to regret it, but I don't want to be its prisoner either.                                                                       ---Mick Jagger

Mick Jagger, of course, is the world-famous lead singer and lyricist for the British rock band Rolling Stones.  Anyone who has been through all that he has over the years and still remains in pretty good shape at age 75 has learned some important life lessons...the trick is to discern which ones have a more universal application and which ones worked only for the one individual.  The above quote is obviously of the former type, although the way Jagger worded it his past of glory, fame, and excess may not exactly be the kind of past many people seemed obsessed with...

I think it was around 1975 and my father mentioned to me that he thought this whole "bad guy" image that the Rolling Stones were putting out was nonsense...after all, Mick Jagger was a health freak, working out and watching his diet.  So the dude was taking care of himself even back then and not letting the turbulent and exciting early years of his band define his own reality for him.  Being rooted in the present doesn't mean, though, that we shouldn't draw upon our past experiences in helping us in our lives...we just don't "live" back there.  Have you ever written a list of grievances about your own life, and upon looking at it realize that many if not most of the items were regrets or bad experiences from the past that don't really affect how you live in the present? If so, then you just might be living a little too much in your own past.  I realize that in today's world of pop psychology and self-help a lot of advice is given about examining one's own past to determine the causes of whatever problems they are experiencing in the present.  For example, we tend to unconsciously model much of our behavior after what we observe in others...especially our parents.  I admit that recognizing this might be helpful, but why not instead just cut to the chase and determine what works now and what doesn't and just work to change it without getting muddled in memories?  I think a lot of us have become so brainwashed into thinking that every time we suffer a problem we have to then go back in time to determine their root causes and dwell on it all...wouldn't it be better to work on solving the problem as it exists in real time right now?  I think Jagger might agree with me on that one, although as his longsuffering collaborator Keith Richards no doubt would agree, he would also probably find something about this article to get snitty about...

A Quote from Oprah Winfrey

Part of my cable television package here in Gainesville is Music Choice, which presents several channels each of which provides a different genre, spanning much of the musical spectrum...although it's missing three of my favorites types: zydeco, classic Christian traditional songs and hymns...and that crazy, entrancing Middle Eastern music.  One of my favorite channels from what they do provide is Soundscapes (channel 943), which plays ambient/space music.  Sometimes when there's nothing else I want to watch, I'll put that one on and sit back and relax to the soothing music.  But there's more to this channel: they place on the screen various quotes of wisdom and philosophy from different famous figures, past and present.  Some of these sayings make good sense to me, some I don't exactly understand...and then there are a few that I have a problem with.  Among those that bother me to a degree is an Oprah Winfrey quote, which reads as follows:

Only surround yourself with people that will lift you higher.

I believe I understand the gist of what Oprah was trying to express here: your social environment, especially those with whom you have the most contact, can have a great impact on your attitude, demeanor, and how well you can succeed in your personal goals.  So yes, in a way I agree with this statement...it's good to have positive, encouraging folks in your life, people whose own lives serve as an example that you can imitate and who can influence you in a constructive manner to improve yourself.  No problem with that.  The problem I do have with this quote is the word "only"...

There are all kinds of people around me whom I want to avoid, chief among them being criminals...both blue and white collar types... as well as manipulative drama queen prima donnas (of both sexes), and loud and aggressive people...the Desiderata specifically mentions the latter, stating that they are "vexatious to the spirit".  So no...dishonest, manipulative, loud and aggressive people are not on my list of those with whom I want to become bosom buddies.  But people-at-large are neither typified by those groups nor are they necessarily heroic and uplifting role models that Oprah Winfrey wants to exclusively associate with.  Most folks have their good and bad moments...and almost all have their needs, many of which can be a burden on the ones around them, posing a drain on their emotions and personal agendas.  Maybe Oprah wants to make sure these people don't stand in her way, but I think differently: having some social challenges in your life and learning to deal effectively with them is a form in itself of personal growth and will ultimately make you stronger.  The key is not to cut off negative people from your life: the key is to learn how to interact effectively with them so as not to allow the relationship to become dysfunctional, with yourself as the increasingly resentful victim.  There are ways to deal with anger, conflicts with others, forgiveness, and appropriately asserting oneself.   You're not going to learn these important life skills, however, if you only insist on having people around you who don't anger you, argue with you, or challenge your sense of guilt or self-esteem.  So maybe here we also need to meditate on what really lifts one higher...

Spare Me the Bonos, Please

I get the hype about Chaz Bono. I really do. As far as I'm concerned, transgenders are cool, and I accept those who have that self-identification, along with the choices that they make in accordance with it. They could use a lot more support in our society than they get. But that doesn't make Mr. Bono a good dancer.

In recent weeks on Dancing With the Stars, viewers have been treated...or should I say "subjected"...to performances by Chaz Bono in which he basically stands in one spot like a rooted tree and waves his arms and gyrates his torso while managing to hold on to his much more mobile and adept partner. And every week he survives to the next while much more talented entrants are asked to exit. His "mommy dearest" Cher, ever so protective, has made it clear that any negative reaction to her little baby's dancing skills is due to intolerance and bigotry about his sexuality. She is on a one-woman campaign to ensure victory for her kid: she even promised (and delivered) to her fans an appearance on the show in support of Chaz. The only problem I see with this is, if you're not already a Cher fan, then so what?

So what does this have to do with dancing? I remember the old Sonny and Cher show, which wasn't all that good to begin with, evoking very few memories. But one thing I do remember about it was how the show's stars would drag their little girl Chastity out on the stage with them at the closing of each show, essentially using their daughter as a prop to show the world what a wonderful, family-oriented couple they were. Even as a teenager, I felt then that the poor kid was being used to further her parents' careers. And now, I suppose, the dues for this manipulation are being paid, and with more manipulation. Now Chaz's mother is lending herself as a stage prop to further his career, once again at the public's viewing expense.

Maybe this is just another example of something that I should step back from and let go. After all, the mass media is full of people, be they activists with their high and holy causes or just fading, washed-up celebrities, tweaking the system however they can to bring that much-craved attention to themselves...and then demanding the very privacy and dignity that they so eagerly relinquished in exchange for it.