I’m still overdue on that Superman review. On top of that, I saw the Devil Wears Prada, and then the play Rent. So now, I’ve got an entire A&E column to write. In the meantime, here are some videos for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy Margaret Cho’s Asian Chicken salad joke and the original version of Madonna’s American life.
July, 2006
12
Jul 06
American Life (madonna)
It’s not her greatest song, but the point of the video is very succinct. Once you get past the silly rap of drinking soy lattes and driving Mini Coopers, the song’s message is very germane. War is never cool, and Madonna certainly did not pull any punches in making this video. The question is, why was the video only aired only a few times, only to be replaced by the more banal version with the flags?
7
Jul 06
House of Love – I Don’t Know Why I Love You
One of my all time favorite songs. Don’t know why I love it. The video – so late 80′s. 
7
Jul 06
Shindo goes to Town Hall
Actually, it was not town hall at all. It was a community gathering in the heart of downtown San Diego. CCDC/CCAC held a public meeting in the 11th floor of the NBC building regarding the proposed residential building behind the El Cortez. For anyone not familiar with San Diego’s urban districts, the El Cortez is the cornerstone of a downtown residential neighborhood known as Cortez Hill, or the Hill, as the residents affectionately call it. Five years ago, the El Cortez Hotel was renovated and converted to an apartment complex. Two and a half years later, the El Cortez went condo, which led to what this meeting was about. The J. Peter Block Company, which was responsible for the restoration and the condo conversion, revealed plans to build a condo building on the other side of the block last year. In a meeting last August, members of the El Cortez’s homeowner’s association along with other Hill residents met this proposal with a great deal of opposition. The same plan was presented today, along with a refined design for the building.
Kay, a friend and Cortez Hill neighbor, made me aware of the meeting last week. Last week, she made sure there were enough fliers announcing the meeitng to go around. The central image was the proposed building in front of the backside of the El Cortez. Though I had never been to one of these meetings, it was important for me to show up and support my neighbors. A few people I knew from Twiggs were there, but there were also many other people I’ve never seen before. They lived in the El Cortez or in the neighborhood and they were there to show their opposition.
We heard the architect (because Peter Janopaul simply was not prepared to speak), and he did a good job of presenting the building, despite facing a largely resistant audience. Mr. Janopaul, who had a perfect opportunity to explain his position, simply smiled like some overage frat boy, especially when the public had the floor. However, most of the speakers raised concerns and objections that were, for the most part, reasonable. Historical value, the view being obstructed, the El Cortez being crowded, homeowners not knowing what a bad deal they got into with Janopaul/Block, and even the sense of community created by the El Cortez were mentioned by many of the speakers (most of whom only had two minutes to present their case) in varying degrees of eloquence, but making their point known. They were met with applause by most of the neigbors in the room. J.P. Stocco, a CCAC board member and El Cortez resident, made one of the most impassioned speeches against developing the proposed building. He also managed to nearly get into a heated verbal exchange first with Janopaul and then another board member.
When Mr. Janopaul finally got to speak, he managed to say something appalling: that when the homeowners of the El Cortez signed their papers, it was in the language that the building would come up eventually and even lower property values. Who in their right mind would even knowingly invest in something like this? His tone taunted the complainers, bullied them. Though everyone had their say before this, his comments did not effectively silence any opposition.
Here is a record of the City of San Diego Historical Resources Board’s meeting on April 5, 2006 (this is a PDF file). The El Cortez and the proposed building are mentioned eight pages later, but some of the key objections are listed, quoted from the record.
As Vice President of the El Cortez Home Owners Association (HOA) Barry Bruins provided an organized presentation that addressed several concerns:
- He stated that there were seismic concerns, in particular associated with the excavation and shoring required for the underground garage. He was concerned that the excavation might impact the original foundations of the El Cortez tower.
- He pointed out that any change in the area of the proposed new structure would require the rerouting of infrastructure for the El Cortez including piping and conduit.
- He noted that the HOA is currently in litigation with Mr. Janopaul regarding construction defects.
- He discussed the spatial relationships and visibility issues that the proposed new project creates for the El Cortez tower. He noted that the new structure would impact views of the tower from aircraft landing at Lindbergh, from the pedestrians on Cabrillo Bridge in Balboa Park, and from vehicles.
- He stated that the Mills Act tax reduction, which is scheduled to be terminated within 10 years, needs to be retained for the condominium owners. He noted that the HOA expenses are more than originally anticipated.
- He stated that Mr. Janopaul has already recognized a good return on his investment, and that, in his opinion, there is no need for another building.
- Finally, he stated that many of the condominium residents believed that Mr. Janopaul had agreed that he would not build anything on the block until 2025.
One board member asked Janopaul the rhetorical question of if he wanted to be remembered as the renovator of the El Cortez or the builder who ruined it. Some of the opponents were willing to accept two to three story row homes as a compromise, but would Janopaul/Block?
Here are some links on Janopaul/Block:
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=1054
http://www.sandiego-online.com/watch2000/people2.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/directory/Janopaul_Peter_147255857.htm
http://www.sandiegomag.com/hdq/fall2004/periods04.asp
6
Jul 06
Surfing the Episcopal Blogosphere
As usual, I always find Susan Russell’s An Inch At a Time to be insightful. Her recent entry about conservative dirty fighting and using Levitical issues to distract on frome more germane ones, such as the war, poverty, etc, is definitely thought provoking. I definitely admire her for her outspokenness.
Here is a recent article in the New York Times about the division in the Episcopal Church.
Peter Akinola, the Anglican Primate of Nigeria, creeps me out. As an openly gay man and an American Episcopalian, I find him to be extremely frustrating (to put it kindly). He is the leading international voice of homophobia in the Anglican Communion. He is a voice of violence, whether it is implicity against LGBT people or counter-violence against Muslims in Nigeria. And he has become influential in some extremely conservative factions of the American Episcopal Church. Normally, xenophobic right wingers (as Susan Russell observes) would never dream of placing the US under foreign influence, but this is what a few them wish to do regarding episcopal authority. Certain issues are anathema to them – the new national bishop is a woman, but more dangerous to them is the presence of LGBT in the church. An entry about Peter Akinola on titusonenine has some sampling of conservative responses. This was the most chilling response:
We need to defrock Griswold & elevate Bishop Peter Akinola to take over as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA. He seems to be a man of faith & conviction which are characteristics that Mr. Griswold lacks. I have no problem the network becoming aligned with the Global South and the Southern Cone. The Anglican Communion is + Rowan Williams’ to loose.
Most of the responses seem to echo the one above, but thanfully, someone speaks up:
It is one thing to consider homosexuality a sin, based on one’s reading of Scripture, and to preach against it, it is quite another to express the kind of hateful venom Peter Akinola has expressed and to do so while watching one’s people suffer poverty as one sits in one’s limo is atrocious. His sucking up to tyrants, while hardly unique to him, is another blot on him and his message. We kill our brothers and sisters if we call them fools. How many such murders has Peter Akinola committed with his rhetoric? I doubt saying someone is sinning is tantamount to murder, but saying some is a brute beast and less than a dog surely is. As someone seriously struggling with this issue, I look to those who practice the love of neighbour which Christ said is the second commandment and like to the first, which is love of God. I do not find such Christian love in anything Akinola does or says. Not saying I find clear Christianity on the other side either, but if Akinola represents what it is to be Christian, I have to wonder whose teachings I am reading in the Gospels.
It’s tempting to have a Sinead O’Connor type of moment where one would rip up Akinola’s photo and proclaim, “Fight the real enemy!” It has theatrical appeal, but assaulting the image of this man would accomplish nothing. The question is, how does one deal with an international bully, especially since we live in the age of the bullies?
5
Jul 06
Robbie Williams, "Sin, Sin, Sin"
This video is funny! Robbie’s sexy as ever, and he makes fun of those manipulative gurus.
5
Jul 06
Rate My Professor: Joseph K
Here is a sampling of RateMyProfessor.Com comments about Professor Joseph K (by students). I have altered the name and the university reference to maintain continuity with “If You Want To Go To Graduate School.” Here are posts from various students, ranging from praise to criticism to ad hominen attacks on critics:
Praise
A very stimulating experience–as long as you’ve got an open mind!
Interesting and unconventional–not recommended for the ultra conservative
Some of the best and most interesting classes I’ve had yet at the University, taught by one of its best scholars. Prepare to be challenged and inspired to expand your intellectual horizons beyond the typical University sanitized comfort zones. Very supportive.
Sensitive and encouraging; always open to discuss any concerns students might have. Stands by students and provides an atmosphere of openness and freedom of expression that enabled me to feel completely comfortable to do some of my best work yet.
He is very inspiring, but has a very different teaching style, go to his office and talk to him, the more he knows about the more he will help you get a better grade. Make sure to have a very open mind if you decide to take this class.
As weird as they get. First night he came into class with very dark sunglasses on and just stood up front staring at the class. During “Howl” he just kept repeating “Endless****and balls” (line from the poem) over and over. Made us buy his book, which was all about weird sex and violence in the future. However, he did expose us to a lot of good modern American lit and I learned a lot.
My comments: Regarding the first two comments, they’re general and just praise him. They could easily be from the disciples of a cult leader. The same could be said about the next three. Thses would definitely come from those in the inner circle, especially the part about going to his office. Be part of the party before class. The people who stop by his office before class are part of his “in crowd” (unless it’s that one time they need to discuss something with him). Learning from office visits? Shouldn’t that come from first reading the book and then from the lectures? I believe there are those students’ of Professor Joseph K who are perfectly aware of his abuses, yet defend him. Didn’t Jim Jones have similar defenders?
The last one is perhaps the most right on as far as positive comments go. The three before that have some merit, but they also could be written by a sycophant. This one highlights some of K’s oddness, but the student feels he or she has learned something in the end. I have my issues with Professor K; however, I did learn a lot from his classes.
Critical
Prof. K is condescending and vague. I’d never take another class with him.
What is with this dude and his SHADES? He wears wrap-around sunglasses in the classroom EVEN at night. I imagine this gives him a “secret identity” mindset that let’s him abuse and insult students he is afraid to talk to in the clear light. So POLITICALLY oriented that faking agreement with his politics is all it really takes to glide through A+!
really the worst parody of an mfa professor. with ego ten times bigger than his talent, and an uncanny knack for using and abusing his students, K plods on and on and on, publishing his friends work in his journals and getting published in turn in theirs. as sad a case of logrolling as is.
K is a joke! He writes no better than most students but has somehow slipped through the cracks. He uses his influence and power to help make the MFA at the University a lower than average experience while playing the characature part of hipster black-clad underground writer. Run!
A self-absorbed, condescending washed-up writer. Interested in obscure “cutting edge” fiction which no one reads. A coffee house writer-wannabe with a PhD. Thinks he’s avant garde cause he owns an all-black wardrobe. Really shouldn’t be teaching.
My comments: These people are really angry! The first one is general, could fit any disgruntled student. The second two seem to come from people who had some relationship with Joseph K. Of course, they’re disgruntled, but they’re more articlulate about their rage. They could be students who felt trampled on by Professor K, or they could have worked for him. The last two simply characterize him as a hack. His work has questionable literary merit, and he inflicts his books upon his students, who have no idea how to approach his text. They often fear saying, “I don’t get it.” The emperor is naked and no one wants to be unfit for an A or even a B. Several of the posts accurately depict his wardrobe choices and how he uses them for his persona.
Ad Hominen Attacks on Critics
The people who complain about K are probably bitter because of all the rejection letters coming their way. Get over yourselves. He’s a great teacher.
Comment: How does predicting rejection letters for critics help this poster’s case?
One of the most helpful professors at the University, provided you make an effort to talk to him about your work. He’s as flexible and fair as a prof can be. To the ranting girlies prior to this post: it’s time to unbunch your Victorian panties.
Comment: Ranting girlies? Victorian panties? This person is incredibly guilty of using sexist language to attack the critics.
Students who dislike Professor K fear unstructured assignments, demand conformity of themselves and others, never did drugs and are most likely sexually repressed. To create postmodern fiction is to live it, and vice versa. If that sounds lame or obscure to you, you may have a calling in Business or Comm. If not, you’ll love K.
Comment: Unstructured assignments – I don’t remember his assignments being unstructured. The irony of so called “non-conformists” is that they are accusing some people of not conforming to their views – that drug use is some kind of rite of passage and living a post-modern life (whatever that is) is a prerequisite to writing. As far as a so-called conformist having a call for Business or Communication, perhaps they are the smarter ones in the end. Maybe the humanities takes more brains, but full time professorships are at an all time low and being an adjunct prof for several institutions is just financial suicide.
In ref. to accusations–Work of disturbed individuals attempting to get out of doing course work, trying to force their own personal agendas/issues on the rest of us, using Prof. K as an easy target for their negativity. Don’t credit rumors as fact.
—————————
Any professor rated on this website will have a fair shair of praise and criticism. Some professors recieve almost nothing but nice things, while others are constantly attacked. Then there are the cult of personalities such as Professor Joseph K, whose disciples can see no wrong, while the disgruntled wish to see him get his just due.
The comments in the first two categories have merit. These are the posts that best represent views on him. The ad hominen attacks, however, are just weak.
2
Jul 06
If You Want To Go To Graduate School (Part 18)
In the last few posts, I have explored the week of September 11. Now, I’ll go back earlier in the year to discuss Professor Joseph K’s Madness in Literature seminar.
While Joe’s fiction workshop was small (approx. 11 people), his graduate literature seminar had close to twenty. While the workshop had MFA creative writing students and MFA hopefuls, the seminar had MFA students and MA English students. This would give me my first taste of the dichotomies that existed within the English graduate study programs at the University.
I have heard about the divide between the fiction and poetry, but it was only hearsay at this point. Poets were those people who could not string enough sentences together to tell a story, while writers lacked the lyrical talent necessary to compose a poem. At least that was what the two camps would tell themselves. Faculty of both disciplines fed into this rivalry. Lana Zhang, the celebrated poet published by a major literary press, definitely favored the poetry students. The poets, encouraged by her, banded together to protect their territory from the doggerel writing fiction writers. It often shocked the poets when a storywriter or novelist actually turned out excellent verse, better than anything they hoped to write. And the fiction writers, no doubt, resented the prejudice. Joe, while he denounced this attitude, perpetuated it in his Madness in Literature course.
Joe, of course, favored the MFA students. While I was not yet a graduate student, I fell under this category. Most of the MFA’s were on friendly terms with him. Some were readers for the journal; others were devoted followers. I can’t remember a single creative writing student in the class that disliked or distrusted him at the time, though that would change later. We were all appreciative of his unorthodox approach to literature, looking outside of the canon to find voices of the subversive and the marginalized. I suspect many were drawn to taking the class because they wouldn’t have a serious term paper to write. He had his students do a presentation on one of the books covered in class and a final presentation on one of the themes of Madness in Literature. Also, he required a journal to be kept on all of the reading, turned in during the final week of class.
Since Madness in Literature’s course number was one for literature, not creative writing, there were many MA’s enrolled in the class. Perhaps they did not realize what they were getting into. Some may have known Joe’s reputation, but decided to take the course anyway. And, a few others seemed to have an affinity with Joe.
I have always suspected that being in academia is some kind of game, and the most successful students may not necessarily be the brightest, but ones who know how to play they game. They know the language and how to use the clichés. Oh, the term is jargon. The MA students, no doubt, spoke fluent academese and were accustomed to praise from their professors. Many MFA’s, on the other hand, adopted a different kind of game plan. Many of them gravitated towards writing for the love of the craft, but praise may have been rare from the literature professors. They, for the most part, weren’t aspiring literary critics. The creative writing faculty may have provided some kind or refuge from critical and theoretical nature of literary study. And the MFA program had a language and game of its own.
The literature students were no match for Joe. They appeared to be staid and conservative in comparison to him. The creative writers perceived this and ganged themselves against the MA’s. Joe often favored the MFA’s, showing preference for their ideas in the seminar’s discourse. Joe, or at least his persona, openly eschewed canonical authors. When an MA student proposed doing his final presentation on Virginia Wolff’s madness, Joe dismissively said that was old school. Since I had seen Joe’s personal library, I knew he did not completely subscribe to that view. However, he saw the graduate lit students as orthodox, unremarkable, unreceptive, inflexible, not even worthy of the A’s or B’s he gave them. Then again, was an A or a B even really worth anything in any graduate course?
Many of the literature students were more grounded in the canon, especially the specializations they were drawn to. They were not accustomed to thinking of the avant-garde feeding into literature, unless they were post-modernists. Their ways of talking about literature did not fit in with how he discussed it. They were confronted with the bizarre, the outré, the experimental, the independently published, even stuff that was downright bad. Some of the outsider writers weren’t that good at all, but their ideas were worth discussing. It may have been one thing to be required to read badly written stories, but seeing a sexually explicit German film, Taxi Xum Klo, was definitely much for some. Some scenes left little to the imagination; pornographic, though strong, would be accurate. Like most of work Joe presented, there was supposed to be something beyond the obvious. Or was there?
Beyond Joe’s choice of material, we were treated to Joe’s work. One story of his may have been included in the reader he prepared for the class. During one of the times we met at his home, he did a dramatic reading where he played Charles Manson. His stories were often like two character plays without dialogue tags or description of the characters. His subjects were often sexually unconventional people or murderers, sometimes even both. At this point, he was writing a body of creative work about serial killers, so his work qualified as madness in literature. None of the MA’s cared that Joe was a minor league literary star, a power broker in the avant-garde literary community. I’m sure a certain percentage of the MFA’s also shared similar sentiments. However, the MFA’s in his class treated him like a god. Their reverence was certainly rewarded.
To be continued…
