What I Should Be When I Grow Up.

I've always envied the people that have always known what they wanted to be when they grew up. Actually, I've always envied the people who knew what they realistically wanted to be.

Throughout different stages of my life, I've almost always had a career aspiration. As a kid, I wanted to be a clown (interesting and frightening peek into my psyche, hmm?). Why? I dunno. I've only been to the circus once in my life and I'm pretty sure that it was after my clown stage had ended. Perhaps it had to do with my love of playing dress-up as a child. We had a drawer in one of our bedrooms that was full of miscellaneous vests, gloves, hats, shirts, pants and props. The possibilities seemed endless and greatly enhanced any voyage into Imagination Land, whether it was as a cowboy, spaceman, rock star, or knight (both Jedi and medieval). Maybe the clown's flamboyant costumes and makeup intrigued my still developing imagination.

It seems only natural, then, that my next career aspiration was actor. Movies have always interested me and the older I've gotten and the more I've been able to understand the wizardry of making all aspects of movies, the more they have piqued my interest. I've always been amazed at the power of an actor to portray emotion and pass it along to the viewer. Everytime I see a film or a play with a particularly moving performance, I feel a burning desire to take part in it.

What's the problem, then? I know what you're probably thinking because I've heard it so often throughout my life: If you love it so much, do it! Easy for someone to say who wants to be an engineer or an accountant. Those are real jobs with real, stable paychecks. Being an actor means living your life in feast or famine because, realistically, there are only two kinds of actors: filthy rich ones, and dirt-poor ones. And believe me, there are way more of the dirt-poor ones. Once I came to that realization in my mid-teen years, I reluctantly accepted a career in acting as nothing more than a dream. Maybe someday I can live my dream as a small-time, local hobby (but I still secretly hope to be "discovered" by a talent agent while eating pizza somewhere).

Next, I wanted to be a high school history teacher. This aspiration was influenced exclusively by an AP (Advanced Placement) American History teacher I had in eleventh grade named Mr. Westerman. He was fantastic. Although his class was one of the hardest classes I've ever taken, I loved it. And history and teaching always interested me, so I thought that maybe I could do something like him for a living: teach people with at least a bit of maturity and who actually wanted to learn. But, once again, reality set in. High school teachers make squat and I'm not too keen on that idea. But the clincher was this: I don't really like teenagers. So teaching high school was out unless I could teach AP. And how many teaches can make a living teaching only AP classes. I do, however get to satisfy my urge to teach through my calling as a Sunday School teacher in my church.

Throughout my work on my associate degree in college, my major changed from pre-teacher (still hoping to teach history), to social work (I found out well into the major that I disagreed with too many of the soapboxes from which my future colleagues hypocritically preached [but that's another entry]), to political science (only some political arenas are of interest to me and what would I do with the degree once I had it?) and finally to general studies (after four years, I simply had to get the degree and get out of the community college).

So that leaves me in the uncertain position of trying to get back into school after an almost two-year break (to get married and then to procrastinate). Where am I going to get the funding? Apparently my wife and I make too much money to qualify for federal aid (how in the world....?!) and because I would be entering school in the spring semester instead of fall, I can't apply for scholarships. So I'm left with school aid and/or student loans (groan). And I'm not even sure which school to go to now that I've earned my associate degree.

But the major question still stands: what should I go into? I feel like I should know what career I want before I decide on a major (makes sense and avoids a lot of wasted time and money). I've thought about art (graphic design and photography in particular), but many jobs within those fields lack the pay and financial stability that my personality need. So maybe I could do something like wedding and portrait photography on the side. But that still leaves me clueless as to what I should do with the rest of my life.

I've always wanted financial security, as well as job security, which has ruled out many fields. I also have found out (through long and agonizing experience) that I don't like customer service (more like customer slavery [again, another entry]) or retail. Math and science don't come naturally to me and and business is only mildly interesting. Sometimes. I've always wanted a career that would allow me to make a difference in people's lives and give me a sense of purpose and meaning. I love to create and perform, but with that often comes a shaky, uncertain paycheck.

So here I stand, confused and more than a bit despairing. What'll it be? Stay in my current job for the rest of my life? No way! I gotta get out, but I'll probably stay with this job until I've gotten through school as much as possible. So what should I major in? Ideas? Anyone?

Your Soundtrack.

I've been thinking lately, what if we all had our own personal soundtrack? You know, the music that plays along during a movie, giving the audience a clue as to the feelings and thoughts of the film's characters and maybe even giving a hint of coming events. I think it would make life a lot easier in some ways. For instance, you'd know when danger was coming (cue low, ominous string music), when you had met the love of your life (cue soaring fanfare), or when someone was hitting on you (cue Barry White's "Let's Get It On"). Admit it, now that you think about it, you'd love to have that kind of social help.

Now imagine how wonderful it could be in your interactions with other people. Imagine walking down the sidewalk and, as you pass each person, you hear their soundtrack. That man that just staggered past reeking of gin and ale has muted piano bar music playing. That past-her-prime lady that smells of cheap perfume has big band blasting loudly as she strides past you in her high heels. The creepy guy that's making a pass at you in the bar has the screeching strings of Hitchcock's Psycho (Get out. Get out now!). Not that I've ever had a guy hit on me in a bar.

Wouldn't it be great? Obviously, the accompanying music wouldn't be the same all the time for each person. It would change with their mood. So I might wake up with some dragging bassoon playing, but by the end of the day it may have changed to a piping piccolo (short of living in a Disney cartoon, I can't think of a situation would necessitate a piccolo, but you get my point).

So what's your soundtrack sound like right now? Dark and foreboding? Happy and chipper? Lazy and low? Is what your soundtrack is playing not what you want others to hear when they interact with you? Change the tune.

As the words to the old Doobie Brothers song go, "listen to the music."

'Tis the Season.

Well, that time of year has rolled around again. It seems to come earlier and earlier every year. You know what I'm talking about.

Halloween.

Yes, Halloween-time has come again. It's still the beginning of September, but the decorations have already started to come out at stores as well as (more importantly) their holiday merchandise. Does this bother me? No. I've always loved Halloween. After all, it's only a few days after my birthday. But what I love about it most is the atmosphere. More than the holiday, I love the season.

Fall has always made me, well, giddy. I love the changing colors of the leaves; the cool, crisp air; the low, sharp light of the more distant sun; the frost on the ground when you wake up; the later sunrise and earlier sunset. It all combines for an atmosphere of magic, much like winter and snow do for the Christmas season.

But beyond the weather, I always liked Halloween for the creepiness of the holiday. Not the bloody football player/cheerleader/bride costumes or the gory lawn decorations or the black, satanic focus that has steadily (and unfortunately) seeped into it in recent years. When I speak of creepiness, I'm talking about Disney-Halloween-TV-special kind of creepiness. Remember the old Disney cartoon version of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow? The feeling I got from that was the feeling I love about Halloween. Nothing evil, nothing demonic, no blood running everywhere. Good, clean fun. With a bit of a shiver.

Naturally, my thoughts are turning to what I'm going to dress up as for Halloween. I always loved dressing up as a kid, whether or not it was Halloween-time (which is amazing, considering that I hate trying on clothes as an adult). Last year I was a scarecrow and the year before that I was Frankenstein's monster. Whatever I choose, it needs to be relatively cheap, not too hard to make/apply (I'll never try Frankenstein's monster again) and at least somewhat authentic looking. I'm not a big fan of the fake looking, store-bought superhero costumes or the gag outfits (no, a guy dressed as a cow with a giant udder is not funny). If I'm going to be something, I want to look as much like it as possible. Halloween is an excuse for grown ups to dress up again.

So, give me some input on what I could be for Halloween. Anyone out there have any ideas? Anyone? Is anyone even out there?

Am I all alone?

Whoa. Spooky.

A Woman For Vice President.

Today John McCain announced that his vice presidential running mate is Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska. Now, keep in mind that I don't know much of anything about her or even about the campaign, but here are my thoughts on it anyhow.

The first thing I wondered when I heard the news was, of course, "Who's Sarah Palin?" which is probably the same question most everyone outside of Alaska asked themselves, I'm sure. The second was, "Why Sarah Palin?" Is this simply John McCain's answer to the Democratic Party's African-American presidential nominee? They've got an historical first, now I've got to have one, too? To listen to Sean Hannity (who I don't not endorse, by the way), Sarah Palin's a perfect selection and John McCain couldn't have done better (of course, Sean Hannity is unbelievably conservative and anti-liberal, so take everything he says with a grain of salt - or a bucket of it).

My next questions is this: Is there anything wrong with McCain picking a running mate simply because she's a woman (if that was, indeed, the case)? Some would say good for him, he's giving the country a chance to see what a woman can do in a major political office. But if that's the only reason he's doing it, I say that's not right! I mean, think about it. If he wins and dies in office, she'll be president and if he picked her only because he needed a Republican Party response to Barak Obama, then he would essentially have appointed a president with no other qualifications than her gender. I hope that's not what has happened here. That's a big responsibility, if you think about it. Picking one's running mate is essentially picking one's replacement should they die.

Is there anything wrong with John McCain picking a woman, Sarah Palin, for vice president candidate? Not at all. As long as he didn't pick her just because she's a woman.

Citizen Kane.

Well, it's time to write again. Actually, it was time to write again a long time ago, but I've been lacking an incentive, a motivation to log-on and try to conjure up some semblance of rhetoric. But at last, my motivation has come, although I still required some coercion on my own part to sit down and put fingers to keyboard. The motivation: Orson Welles' classic Citizen Kane.

Citizen Kane is an old, black-and-white movie directed, co-written, and starred in by Orson Welles (possibly the only thing the average American has seen him in is a cameo bit part in The Muppet Movie - yes, the aged, corpulent studio head at the end of the movie is Orson Welles). The movie, though too "old and boring" to sit through for today's adrenaline-saturated movie audiences, was one of the most controversial films ever made and the pinnacle of Welles' short-lived career (not counting another forty years of low-budget indie flops).

The film is a thinly-veiled semi-biography of pre-Depression era newspaper giant William Hearst. Welles' depictions of Hearst (whose name was changed to Charles Foster Kane in the movie) and his mistress were so unfavorable, even slanderous, that Hearst (at that time, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world) did all within his power to have the movie banned and/or destroyed. Obviously, his efforts were unsuccessful, but the fight contributed in large part to the ruin of both men's' reputations and careers. Sadly, Welles' life ended up being much like the character's that he played.

The movie was hailed by critics at the time of its release as a masterpiece, the next offering from the mind of a genius (Orson Welles' previous radio presentation of H.G. Well's book War of the Worlds had created nationwide panic when listeners became convinced that the story of Martian invaders told through fake news reports was real). Since then, the film has made its way onto many serious movie critics' top 10 lists, even being ranked by a major film organization as the greatest film ever made.

Although I hesitate to give it the same honor (and I know that it would make few layman's lists of greatest movies ever made), I would certainly say that it is one of the best crafted movies of all time. The cinematography, themes, acting, lighting, and (at times) even soundtrack were years ahead of its time, sometimes even decades ahead.

The major theme of the film revolves around a reporter's efforts to uncover the meaning of Kane's final word on this deathbed: "Rosebud" (ring a bell with anyone?). In his journalistic exploration, the nameless reporter talks with many of Kane's closest associates, friends, and family, who, through their on-screen memories, reveal a life full of frantic achievement and unimaginable loss.

Why am I writing all this? Well, partly because I don't know anybody else who has seen this movie and this is the only way that I can do my usual rehash/review of every movie that I see, but also because the theme of gain/loss struck me. Here is a man who spent his whole life trying to reach greatness and even to thrust it upon reluctant others, a man seeking the love of the common citizens without being willing to love them back, a man whose own power and riches were his insurmountable barriers to happiness. To paraphrase Kane's own words, he could have been a great man if he hadn't been rich.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a cliche (sorry, my computer won't make the accent mark) about how you can't take it with you or about how power corrupts, but that's exactly what stood out to me: Charles Kane sought desperately for love, security, power, and riches, but in the end it was his methods of obtaining those aspirations that doomed him. I suppose, then, that the lesson to be learned is that the ends do not justify the means.

I realize that this may sound like a lot of philosophical fluff being injected into a simple film experience, but for me, the magic of movies (and the mark of the great ones) is that they meet two requirements: one, they transport the viewer out of their current environment and state of mind to another place in their imagination, and two, that they leave the viewer better in some way. Now, I'm not saying that any good movie has to be an epic fantasy or that it has to have a feel-good, happy ending where the main character looks at the camera and, addressing the audience, says, "Today, kids, we learned about the importance of sharing..." (although I loved that part of every "He-Man" episode). In fact, many of the best films I've ever seen have been dark and gloomy (i.e. Batman Begins), but (and here's the clincher) I learned something from it. Therein lies the value and redeeming quality of entertainment. It doesn't exist (or at least shouldn't exist, in my opinion) simply to provide our brains with somewhere to go when we switch them off. It should make us feel something, think about something, change something. It should elevate us in someway.

So next time you watch a movie or listen to a song or read a book, try looking for the lesson to be learned, and then when it's over, try finishing the statement, "Today, I learned about...."

Freedom.

I just got home Thursday from my wife's family reunion at Otter Creek, Utah and I am amazed at how long it is taking to physically recuperate from what was supposed to be a relaxing getaway. Two days have passed and it always seems like there's something to take up my time. I promised myself (and my wife) that we would catch up on our rest once we got home, but that's not happening. Why is there always something else to do?

Gone are the carefree days of childhood and the hormone-charged days of teenagehood. Now I'm an adult and I can't understand why people younger than me are so anxious to grow up. It's not nearly as much fun as everyone thought it was going to be in junior high and high school. A lot of work and responsibility and too little sleep and relaxation.

I've wondered if the only time that we're truly free is in retirement. When you're a kid, you're too young to do things (can't drive, too short to ride the really cool rides at the amusement park, etc.), when you're a teenager and young adult you're stuck in school, and then you spend the next forty years of your life working for The Man (whoever that is). Then you retire and within a few years, you're too old and tired to do much of anything. And all your money goes to paying for your prescription pills. Guess you're never really free. At least not in the way that we defined freedom when we were kids (the ability to go anywhere and do anything you want to). But the one comfort in all this is that our definition of freedom changes with each stage of our lives. The strongest (and only) prison in life is the one we create in our minds, or so the saying goes. Hopefully we learn to accept the limitations in our lives and begin to see the blessings. Therein lies our freedom. That's the trick to it all....

Take a Break. Just Once In a While.

Yesterday I spent two whole hours uploading pictures to my Facebook account. Two whole hours! And I could have kept going for many more! What is the fascination? I'm pretty sure that there are about three people on the planet who have seen my Facebook page and even fewer who have seen this blog (me and my wife make two). So why is it that I find so much gratification in adding pictures to my Facebook page, tagging everyone in the picture, captioning each picture and arranging the albums if almost no one is going to see it but me? I don't have an answer. Perhaps it is akin to the pleasure that scrapbookers get from their work, but without the expense and hassle of buying and cutting out paper shapes and gluing buttons on each page (nothing against scrapbookers - I recognize that it takes more patience and creativity than I have).

All of this leads me to wonder, however, if technology has made it so that we no longer need to exercise our creativity? I know that in many ways the advent of computers and the Internet have introduced new mediums for expressing creativity, but have they also all but eliminated other forms? When was the last time you tried doing something the old fashioned way, not out of necessity, but for the simple sake of doing it the old-fashioned way? Next time you have a speech to prepare, try writing it by hand instead of typing it up (just once in a while). Try driving to the supermarket with your windows down and without the air conditioning blowing (just once in a while). Try writing a letter to a friend and sending it via postal service instead of shooting off an e-mail (just once in a while). Can't bring yourself to do it without e-mail? Well, then at least try capitalizing appropriate words in your e-mail and using the spell-check (this one should be all the time, not just once in a while). While you're at it, use the old-fashioned spell-check: your brain.

I'm not saying to throw yourself back into the nineteenth century. I realize and acknowledge that technology is a God-given gift (one which can be used wisely or with mankind's unfortunate trademark stupidity) and I am grateful for it, so that's why I say to just try it once in a while. And yes, I see the hypocrisy in posting this blog on the Internet about trying the old-fashioned way. Again, I'm not saying that we should shun technology, but maybe we should take a five minute break once in a while. Helps us appreciate where we've come from and how far we've come. Who knows? Maybe you'll find out that we enjoy a few things more the old-fashioned way. Think about it. Just once in a while....