It's that time of year again. The airports are packed, the Butterball hotline is swamped, and Vegas is taking over/under bets for the Cowboys-Panthers game. Thanksgiving looms near, and as tradition indicates I will share what I'm thankful (and not thankful for). For better or worse, this year has given me plenty to think about:
Thanks: steady temp work, marriage equality, a "Peanuts" movie that was surprisingly charming, fewer stores open on Thanksgiving and/or Black Friday, the health and well-being of my family, and above all a Royals World Series championship.
No Thanks: ISIS/ISIL, xenophobia, incessant and wrongheaded debates about gun control, the Illinois fiscal budget crisis, possible sleep deprivation, and people that never answer their e-mails and messages.
Enjoy the holiday! If you'll excuse me, I need to figure what I'll write about for my milestone blog next month.
(499)
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Random Notes, November 2015
The election is now less than a year away, but the chaos is only slightly beginning to subside. Where the Democratic primary has weeded out some of the weaker candidates --I forgot Larry Lessig was running until, well, he quit-- the Republican primary is still an insane dogfight. You have at least three candidates (Dr. Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum) that are all fighting for the same Christian-conservative demographic. You also have Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and George Pataki struggling to make any leeway against one another for the more moderate sector of the GOP. I don't know Rand Paul is aiming for, because he keeps flip-flopping. It is sort of amusing to see that the GOP prides itself in unity, but couldn't be more splintered on the national stage.
At the same time, the Democrats can be like herding cats, yet their strategy for 2016 is actually inching toward coelescing. For obvious reasons, Saturday's Democratic debate was dominated by domestic security and foreign policy. With limited extra effort, Sec. Clinton more or less proved why she was the most electable of the three candidates; Sen. Sanders seemed wishy-washy about gun control, and his comment about how the Middle East should defend itself against ISIS was a tad naive. Martin O'Malley made some valid points, but he's not a strong debater. In spite of her many flaws, Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best shot in 2016; with the growing populist movement within the party --a Bizarro Tea Party, one might say-- she needs to shake off some of her establishment ticks and roll up her sleeves. Her extensive history with foreign affairs resulted in a crucial KO last night, but Clinton still has a long way to go.
Other notes:
+ I'm very reluctant to air out my dirty laundry, but I felt like this was sort of worth sharing. For the past two years, I've been manhandled by crippling credit card debt. In the summer and fall of 2013, in quick procession I had to deal with multiple car repairs, on top of producing a show that did not turn a profit. I put nearly everything on my Visa, then relied upon on my Mastercard for future purchases. Then I went through an extended period where I wasn't working a regular basis, so then I ended up maxing out both cards nearly every month. I'm proud to say, however that after some shrewed budgeting most of that debt has now cleared. I'm still living on modest means, but I don't quite feel as handcuffed as before.
+ I have no words for what has transpired in France this weekend. This was a massive act of cowardice, one that cannot be justified or quickly forgotten. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Paris.
Next Week: My annual thanks/no thanks list.
(498)
At the same time, the Democrats can be like herding cats, yet their strategy for 2016 is actually inching toward coelescing. For obvious reasons, Saturday's Democratic debate was dominated by domestic security and foreign policy. With limited extra effort, Sec. Clinton more or less proved why she was the most electable of the three candidates; Sen. Sanders seemed wishy-washy about gun control, and his comment about how the Middle East should defend itself against ISIS was a tad naive. Martin O'Malley made some valid points, but he's not a strong debater. In spite of her many flaws, Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best shot in 2016; with the growing populist movement within the party --a Bizarro Tea Party, one might say-- she needs to shake off some of her establishment ticks and roll up her sleeves. Her extensive history with foreign affairs resulted in a crucial KO last night, but Clinton still has a long way to go.
Other notes:
+ I'm very reluctant to air out my dirty laundry, but I felt like this was sort of worth sharing. For the past two years, I've been manhandled by crippling credit card debt. In the summer and fall of 2013, in quick procession I had to deal with multiple car repairs, on top of producing a show that did not turn a profit. I put nearly everything on my Visa, then relied upon on my Mastercard for future purchases. Then I went through an extended period where I wasn't working a regular basis, so then I ended up maxing out both cards nearly every month. I'm proud to say, however that after some shrewed budgeting most of that debt has now cleared. I'm still living on modest means, but I don't quite feel as handcuffed as before.
+ I have no words for what has transpired in France this weekend. This was a massive act of cowardice, one that cannot be justified or quickly forgotten. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Paris.
Next Week: My annual thanks/no thanks list.
(498)
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
An Epilogue from a Kansas City Royals Fan Upon Their 2015 Championship
It's Tuesday, but Sunday night is still fresh in my mind. I feel a need to articulate everything I've processed during these wonderfully surreal 24 hours. Additionally, I want to assure anyone who is growing annoyed by the near-constant baseball posts that this will be the last one for awhile. (Someone unfriended me on Facebook during the 12th inning last night, so clearly I rankled at least one person.)
First of all, my thanks to everyone who was pulling for me these last couple of years. The vast majority of the people that have commented on my status updates were high school and college buddies, a group of mostly White Sox fans that gave me significant grief during the Royals' wilderness years in the late '90s and throughout the 2000s. It took it all in stride, and even though I don't miss the losing, I will miss telling people that the Royals are "last in the AL Central, first in your hearts."
I didn't really know a whole lot of other Royals fans in person --my Dad, who lived in Overland Park, KS in the late '40s, is a Cards fan-- but upon immersing myself into the Chicago improv community, I met a number of Missouri and Kansas natives that bleed Royals blue. Even though we all kind of did our own thing on Sunday night, I'm glad we were able to watch last year's Game 7 letdown as a proud, united front.
This is for Salvador Perez, who was on a season-long quest for redemption. After getting completely stymied by the Giants' pitching in last year's Fall Classic --a WAR around 1.0, incidentally-- our faithful catcher was a man with a mission. Even if two RBIs and two runs in five games may look pedestrian, his .348 average in the series was more than enough to justify winning Most Valuable Player. When Drew Butera caught the 12th inning, I knew Salvy had earned his rest.
This is for Gordo, Moose, and Hos, three top prospects that initially struggled upon first playing the majors and were nearly written off as busts. Alex was moved from third to left, Moose went back to Ohama to learn how to hit through an infield shift, and Hosmer just needed to figure out major league pitching. Patience and perseverence pays off.
This is for Edinson Volquez, who pitched twice in the series with a heavy heart. I don't know if he knew his father passed away before Game 1, and it doesn't matter now, but Eddie didn't let tragedy get in the way of his goals.
This is for manager Ned Yost, who finally shook off the "idiot" label. For now, anyway.
This is for the Kane County Cougars, the single-A team that was KC's minor league affiliate in 2011 and 2012. Getting to see the Royals' stars of tomorrow (including that one-hit wonder, Christian Colon) 45 minutes from where I grew up was a delight and a pleasure.
This is for Matt Harvey, who insisted on pitching the 9th inning, and is now assuring Terry Collins that he can finish nine Bud Light pitchers in one sitting.
This is for Addison Reed and Bartolo Colon, because quite frankly, no matter where we are Royals are always going to feast on White Sox pitching. (Maybe I should be thanking Don Cooper instead.)
This is for Howser, Quiz, and Splitt, the Royals greats that weren't alive to see this.
Above all, this is for my dad's side of the family, and especially my great-aunt Bea Stewart, who would regale visiting relatives with inappropriate comments about George Brett's butt.
It feels so redeeming to say this, and it still feels a little heterodox, but dreams have become reality. Ladies and gentlemen, your 2015 World Series Champion Kansas City Royals. #Crowned
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
With Glowing Hearts, We See Thee Rise...
After nearly a decade of conservative rule, Canada finally got the "hope and change" memo. The dramatic takeover by the Labour Party following the October 19th election was a long time coming; the conservative stronghold in flyover provinces like Manitoba and Alberta was perceived as too out of touch with the rest of the country. No one was more alienated by the status quo than the Maritimes, who already felt marginalized and because of federal budget cuts, even more so. As a result, the minority party rode the wave of dissatisfaction and garnered 184 seats --er, "ridings"-- for a new majority government.
Amidst the hoopla was the birth of the Great White North's first political dynasty. Justin Trudeau, son of progressive demigod Pierre Trudeau and actress/bon vivant Margaret Trudeau, is the face of modern liberal Canadian politics and the youngest prime minister in recent memory. (Only right-wing placeholder Joe Clark was younger.) In his victory speech, Trudeau the Younger said: "We beat fear with hope, we beat cynicism with hard work. We beat negative, divisive politics with a positive vision that brings Canadians together." If that's not from the Obama 2008 playbook, I don't know what is.
So what happens to our northerly neighbor now? Even though Canada is perceived as generally being more liberal than the US, politically they're just as polarized as we are. Outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper kept a steady hand for nine years, his greatest achievement being his navigation of the Canadian economy after the worldwide crisis of late 2008/early 2009. Unfortunately, Harper overstayed his welcome --scandals dogged his political party, and he was utterly feckless with commodity markets-- and a new voice was needed. Harper was painted as paranoid and xenophobic (not inaccurate) in the wake of a terrorist attack in Ottawa, but to call him a tyrant was a bit much. Here's hoping the young, optimistic Mr. Trudeau will offer more levelheaded leadership.
(496)
Amidst the hoopla was the birth of the Great White North's first political dynasty. Justin Trudeau, son of progressive demigod Pierre Trudeau and actress/bon vivant Margaret Trudeau, is the face of modern liberal Canadian politics and the youngest prime minister in recent memory. (Only right-wing placeholder Joe Clark was younger.) In his victory speech, Trudeau the Younger said: "We beat fear with hope, we beat cynicism with hard work. We beat negative, divisive politics with a positive vision that brings Canadians together." If that's not from the Obama 2008 playbook, I don't know what is.
So what happens to our northerly neighbor now? Even though Canada is perceived as generally being more liberal than the US, politically they're just as polarized as we are. Outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper kept a steady hand for nine years, his greatest achievement being his navigation of the Canadian economy after the worldwide crisis of late 2008/early 2009. Unfortunately, Harper overstayed his welcome --scandals dogged his political party, and he was utterly feckless with commodity markets-- and a new voice was needed. Harper was painted as paranoid and xenophobic (not inaccurate) in the wake of a terrorist attack in Ottawa, but to call him a tyrant was a bit much. Here's hoping the young, optimistic Mr. Trudeau will offer more levelheaded leadership.
(496)
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Watching Them Squabble
Another melange of political opinions:
Even with considerably fewer candidates, the first Democratic primary debate was not without its high points. The winner --by decision, not TKO-- was Sec. Clinton, who looked poised and comfortable throughout. Sen. Bernie Sanders was a good sparring partner, but his limited stance on the issues was his one big fallback; he seemed naive about foreign policy (especially on the Putin question) but positively nailed questions about the economy. Martin O'Malley pulled punches, Lincoln Chafee completely tanked (see the Patriot Act question), and I almost forgot Jim Webb was there. In situations like this less is more, and the 2016 Democratic nomination is now without dispute a two-horse race.
On the other side, the GOP primary race is both benefiting and being hindered by a lack of a Mitt Romney-like presence. I'm not talking about the man himself per se, but the one perceived "safe" candidate that consistently finishes second in the polls when another candidate surges. You may recall all the front-runners that soared and ultimately crashed and burned in 2011-12, leaving Romney as the party's choice; his opponents were favored by those who thought Mitt was too safe or too moderate. You would think that honor would go to Jeb Bush, but after an early lead he has gradually slipped away in the polls; it's getting harder to imagine him surpassing Donald Trump or Dr. Ben Carson, as deeply flawed as both candidates are.
(495)
Even with considerably fewer candidates, the first Democratic primary debate was not without its high points. The winner --by decision, not TKO-- was Sec. Clinton, who looked poised and comfortable throughout. Sen. Bernie Sanders was a good sparring partner, but his limited stance on the issues was his one big fallback; he seemed naive about foreign policy (especially on the Putin question) but positively nailed questions about the economy. Martin O'Malley pulled punches, Lincoln Chafee completely tanked (see the Patriot Act question), and I almost forgot Jim Webb was there. In situations like this less is more, and the 2016 Democratic nomination is now without dispute a two-horse race.
On the other side, the GOP primary race is both benefiting and being hindered by a lack of a Mitt Romney-like presence. I'm not talking about the man himself per se, but the one perceived "safe" candidate that consistently finishes second in the polls when another candidate surges. You may recall all the front-runners that soared and ultimately crashed and burned in 2011-12, leaving Romney as the party's choice; his opponents were favored by those who thought Mitt was too safe or too moderate. You would think that honor would go to Jeb Bush, but after an early lead he has gradually slipped away in the polls; it's getting harder to imagine him surpassing Donald Trump or Dr. Ben Carson, as deeply flawed as both candidates are.
(495)
Sunday, October 11, 2015
I, Blockhead
In the past few days, I've noticed a new meme on Facebook. In conjunction with the new "Peanuts" movie coming out in two months, you can create a likeness of yourself in the universe of Snoopy and Charlie Brown. Its a fun but inconsequential way to remind people that even if the comic strip ended over 15 years ago, the Peanuts brand never went away. Though the shelves of Hallmark are still crowded with Snoopy tchtotckes, the movie is a capital way to bring badly-needed fresh blood into the franchise. The brand has lied fallow for so long, there are now high school kids that weren't alive yet when Charles Schulz died; it's never been a cultural touchstone, just a bunch of cute toys.
That's not to say, however that I didn't have the cute toys. As a kid, I had at least one Snoopy doll, a few videotapes of the early '80s Saturday morning cartoon, and a handful of books. My kindergarten teacher was also really into Peanuts, and we bonded over that. (For a time, I even made my own comic strip collections, cut and pasted from the Chicago Tribune, and gave them to her as gifts. Hey, I was eight.) Even though I don't think we owned a copy, "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" was one of my all-time favorite movies. By grade school, I had transitioned from picture books to the comic strip collections.
For a strip that was drawn by the same guy with minimal assistance for nearly 50 years, "Peanuts" was the first time I noticed how an artist's work can change and progress with time. A shy farmboy from Minnesota, Charles Schulz was dead set on being a cartoonist at an early age. In 1947, he landed his first opportunity to draw professionally with "Li'l Folks," a single-panel strip that ran weekly in his hometown Minneapolis Tribune and later the St. Paul Pioneer Press. After 2 1/2 years, Schulz felt stifled by the local papers and approached United Feature Syndicate with "Li'l Folks." He agreed to change the strip's name to "Peanuts" (a reference to Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery) and the rest is history.
Besides expanding from one panel to four, "Li'l Folks" was very much a rough draft of what "Peanuts" would become. The humor was cute but utterly pedestrian. The name Charlie Brown first appeared in the Minnesota strip, but it was applied to several different boys. The anonymous children in the strip were occasionally accompanied by a silent but knowing dog that was the prototype for Snoopy. Schulz submitted a handful of strips to The Saturday Evening Post, which sometimes featured (gasp!) adults. In adopting a four-panel format and leaping head first at a potential national audience, Schulz set certain rules, including limiting the perspective to children and dogs. Woodstock, the loquacious canary that Schulz introduced in the mid-60s, would forever have Snoopy as his confidant and translator. Miss Othmar, heard but never seen, would always have a voice not unlike a muffled trombone.
So why am I so transfixed on the idiosyncrasies of the universe that Charles Schulz created? Not only is "Peanuts" one of the few things I enjoyed in my childhood that holds up, it might actually be more enjoyable in adulthood. When I was younger, I gravitated toward the '70s and '80s strips, which were more gag- and plot-oriented. As an adult, you grow to appreciate the "classic era" (1956 to about 1971 or so) even more. It was sarcastic in an era of sincerity and earnestness, honest in a time of mincing words. Unrequited love and unattainable goals play heavily. In the 1990s, with the strip's dimensions altered to adjust for the dwindling size of the comics page, Schulz had built enough leverage to finally experiment within his strip. Sometimes he reminisced about World War II, discussed faith and philosophy on a more regular basis, and he even dwelled upon his own looming mortality. And yet, it was still extremely personal to the very end, a daily look into Schulz' tormented psyche.
When I do see "The Peanuts Movie" in a few weeks, it will be an intensely personal experience. I can't get through most of the old TV specials without crying, and I haven't seen "Race For Your Life" (despite being a light, slapstick-heavy kids movie) for fear of doing the same thing. I'll probably go the multiplex by myself, buy a ticket, sit in the back row and hope I don't use up all my paper tissue. I want to see this movie in a theater, partially to see if children can still relate to Schulz' little crew of underdogs and eccentrics, but also for closure.
(494)
That's not to say, however that I didn't have the cute toys. As a kid, I had at least one Snoopy doll, a few videotapes of the early '80s Saturday morning cartoon, and a handful of books. My kindergarten teacher was also really into Peanuts, and we bonded over that. (For a time, I even made my own comic strip collections, cut and pasted from the Chicago Tribune, and gave them to her as gifts. Hey, I was eight.) Even though I don't think we owned a copy, "Race for Your Life, Charlie Brown" was one of my all-time favorite movies. By grade school, I had transitioned from picture books to the comic strip collections.
For a strip that was drawn by the same guy with minimal assistance for nearly 50 years, "Peanuts" was the first time I noticed how an artist's work can change and progress with time. A shy farmboy from Minnesota, Charles Schulz was dead set on being a cartoonist at an early age. In 1947, he landed his first opportunity to draw professionally with "Li'l Folks," a single-panel strip that ran weekly in his hometown Minneapolis Tribune and later the St. Paul Pioneer Press. After 2 1/2 years, Schulz felt stifled by the local papers and approached United Feature Syndicate with "Li'l Folks." He agreed to change the strip's name to "Peanuts" (a reference to Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery) and the rest is history.
Besides expanding from one panel to four, "Li'l Folks" was very much a rough draft of what "Peanuts" would become. The humor was cute but utterly pedestrian. The name Charlie Brown first appeared in the Minnesota strip, but it was applied to several different boys. The anonymous children in the strip were occasionally accompanied by a silent but knowing dog that was the prototype for Snoopy. Schulz submitted a handful of strips to The Saturday Evening Post, which sometimes featured (gasp!) adults. In adopting a four-panel format and leaping head first at a potential national audience, Schulz set certain rules, including limiting the perspective to children and dogs. Woodstock, the loquacious canary that Schulz introduced in the mid-60s, would forever have Snoopy as his confidant and translator. Miss Othmar, heard but never seen, would always have a voice not unlike a muffled trombone.
So why am I so transfixed on the idiosyncrasies of the universe that Charles Schulz created? Not only is "Peanuts" one of the few things I enjoyed in my childhood that holds up, it might actually be more enjoyable in adulthood. When I was younger, I gravitated toward the '70s and '80s strips, which were more gag- and plot-oriented. As an adult, you grow to appreciate the "classic era" (1956 to about 1971 or so) even more. It was sarcastic in an era of sincerity and earnestness, honest in a time of mincing words. Unrequited love and unattainable goals play heavily. In the 1990s, with the strip's dimensions altered to adjust for the dwindling size of the comics page, Schulz had built enough leverage to finally experiment within his strip. Sometimes he reminisced about World War II, discussed faith and philosophy on a more regular basis, and he even dwelled upon his own looming mortality. And yet, it was still extremely personal to the very end, a daily look into Schulz' tormented psyche.
When I do see "The Peanuts Movie" in a few weeks, it will be an intensely personal experience. I can't get through most of the old TV specials without crying, and I haven't seen "Race For Your Life" (despite being a light, slapstick-heavy kids movie) for fear of doing the same thing. I'll probably go the multiplex by myself, buy a ticket, sit in the back row and hope I don't use up all my paper tissue. I want to see this movie in a theater, partially to see if children can still relate to Schulz' little crew of underdogs and eccentrics, but also for closure.
(494)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
