Come and Get Me

This is the planned title of my next visual art project. My last one was reflective of the emotions I was trying to work through during my divorce. There was a loss of the intact family and I had many concerns about my kids. Having seen them throughout this past year, my concerns are alleviated, as is my focus on this issue. I'm in a great place, emotionally and in every way, these days and just don't have much to express artistically on this subject.

My artistic focus at this point has far more to do with larger social issues. I take most of my inspiration from some of the sites listed at the bottom of my list of links, like Illegal Art and Detritus. These artists build on the blocks of our culture, its images, its sounds. This is what artists are supposed to do. What would we be without artists like Duchamp and Warhohl to point out the way we see the world around us.

By painting a Campbell's soup can, Warhohl was trying to make us aware of the fact that these corporate images were our de facto art. Should he pay Cambell's for the privilege? Think of how much art would have been lost, is being lost, will be lost and what our society will be without that kind of comment. This type of art has always been provocative and it has always been attacked and misunderstood by some.

Awareness of important social issues usually first form in the academic and artistic communities. And often it does fall on these small groups to find ways to publicize and raise the issue to the public through a variety of mediums; the courts, stunts, inroads into mass media, grass roots, now the internet.

So, Come and Get Me is basically a taunt to the powers that be. The first piece will be a collage of album art from major labels. Folks like Metallica, the Beatles, Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Prince and, of course U2 will be the anchors for my little hall of offenders. After that I'll probably do one of all the musicians who would thank me for the exposure, much less sue me... the grass roots and small indie label bands. After that, or maybe even incorporated in, will be snips of court papers from the hundreds of thousands of persecutions that have taken place as artists, software developers, scientists, particularly those in genetics, investors, entrepreneurs and others live in fear and uncertainty from excessive copyright control.

What's so abusive about the law is that it does nothing to protect collage and mash-up artists from unscrupulous rights-holders who demand 50% or more of the profits from a work where their image is one of dozens, or hundreds, in there. Works of art in these categories are as creative and original as in any other, but because the building blocks are images and samples instead of notes or colors... they are persecuted.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions and contributions regarding this assemblage. Next will probably come some mash-ups, though, maybe not... I'm still too happy with the live performing.

Riding Giants

I thought this would be a drama, like Blue Crush, the fabulous modern day Gidget. But this is a documentary, highlighting one of the longest running subcultures, if not countercultures, ever. Whereas the Beats were prompted by writers Ginsberg and Kerouac, who, in many ways defined the ethos, and the hippie movement seemed to also flow out from the art community with writers like Kesey and Tom Wolfe to heighten and define it, the surfer lifestyle long predated the art form, and these other subcultures. There was a cohesive, sun, fun-loving culture around southern California's waves about as soon as the boys came home from the war.

Now when you've got sunshine and skimpy clothes and tans and waves and fun-loving kids, right near Hoolywood... well, it didn't take long for someone to capitalize on that. Gidget was a huge hit that propelled the surfing scene from a few thousand to a few million in 1959. It spawned a long spate of Beach Blanket, Frankie Avalon/Annette Funicello hits. The heyday was '65-'69 when the Beach Boys promoted and provided the soundtrack for the scene, like the Dead did for the hippies.

It's very much a subculture in the sense that it is a lifestyle, people can be fully immersed in it as a way of life. But, it has a self-limiting feature in a way. Surfers are not looking to build anything, they're not trying to change the world like the Beats, hippies, communes, cults, religious communities and almost any other type of subculture you could name... they just want to catch a wave. They're not driven by ideals, or even ideas, other than to enjoy life in a way most of us dare not.

And actually, at this point, surfing has become a somewhat codified sport with it's players and hierarchies. Last time I was in Laguna I had a long talk with someone about the surfing scene which can be less than pretty because there are lots of surfers, and a limited amount of waves. They are not seeking to expand their ranks.

Now, talk about your testosterone, these guys are pretty far out there, especially the big wave riders, which is the subject of this film. I grew up a few blocks from the ocean and went there all the time, especially in HS, and even though I'm pretty adventurous and have great balance... it's a bit much for me. I've been churned in the ocean enough times to fear it. These guys are wailing down 80' mountains, often almost vertical cliffs, that are, essentially, chasing them. The strength of mind and body required to do it is greater than any endeavor I can think of.

But, that's the rush they look for. The risk, not to mention skill, is huge, but so is the payoff, the thrill of a lifetime. It's a bit like The Right Stuff, shedding some light on the mindset of people who are willing to live life on the edge. They are willing to face their fears and the awesome, uncontrollable ocean every day. These people are centered on living their lives to the fullest, finding out what they are made of, in the face of God's true expression of power, not making money. They know what it's like to be fully present in connection with God, because, that is clearly what it takes to ride those waves. I really respect that.

There is a real brotherhood, I only saw one female surfer in this whole film (and I guess women don't have "the right stuff" either). The attitude these guys have toward each other is different from the mountain climbers who do not feel particularly compelled to rescue each other, it's sort of every man for himself. But, with the advent of towing into waves, the surfers all take extreme risks to pull their buddies out of gnarly sets of successive breaking waves. When they lost one of their own, they all lined up their boards in memorial. So, check out this fantastic indie film, which was bought by Sony at Sundance. It's chock full of fascinating info on a little explored sport/lifestyle which has had a big influence on the American psyche.

The Musician's Perspective

standard contract clauses
I think it's important to consider the issues of copyright and music over the internet not only in terms of the public and the conglomerates who supply/control/brainwash it, but in terms of those in the middle of all this. When Mommy and Daddy can't get along, it's always the kids who suffer. In this case the "kids" are the artists who everyone says they love and want to protect and nurture.

The labels are suing, screaming and lobbying to protect the artists, that is their position. The consumers say, no, you don't love them, you screw them over, WE love them. We're the ones who cough up the dough, go to the concerts, buy their records & T-shirts, listen to them.... we're the ones who really care. Well now let's take a look at how those kids are really doing and how they really feel, because we need these artists to remind us what life and love and music and freedom are all about... before we forget.

Moreover, there are many players and interests in this game and even within the ranks of musicians, and other groups, there is vast difference of opinion. We have the legislatures, Federal & states, particularly CA & NY which have been active in this area. Recording contracts and RIAA's practices have increasingly come under their scrutiny as musicians have organized. The courts have been burdened with sorting out this mess, giving rise to a huge economy of lawyers who have interests of their own. We have tech companies, many of whom, from Intel to Snocap have been individually and collectively interested in this as IP is a huge area of risk and growth for companies, particularly as start-ups, which brings in the $18B VC interests, a primary growth engine of the US.

We have the artists, in every medium, who have to live in fear and poverty, without career trajectories, being raped from every angle, with no public support, which brings us to the public, the 6B folks in every corner of the world who've been exposed to American entertainment. A quick look at the various parties who've filed amicus briefs in Grokster give you an idea of the many competing interests (3/1/05 post).

What I'd like to focus on here is the perspective of the musicians, who are, in many ways, at the center of all this. My basic take is that the musicians are divided, as they are in any Capitalistic system, on the basis of whether they perceive themselves as owners; primarily, as owners of copyrights. On the one hand we have musicians like Don Henley and Sheryl Crow, both of whom own the rights to many compositions. They formed RAC, not a link on the right, because I only choose links that represent what I guess I'll now refer to as the workers... musicians out there looking for a career in music but who have no valuable copyrights.

RAC has an impressive list of supporters, most of the major names in popular music. Now, in many ways, these are the good guys. They are successfully educating and advocating for start-up level acts vis a vis the labels. The link on this post exposes the seedy truth of what happens to those "getting their big break", the opportunity to sign with a major label. RAC is advocating for changes and has been able to get some progress, but they still accept the current model of distribution unquestioningly, completely discounting the internet as a potential avenue of growth. They call the idea of selling music over the internet a fantasy and they are as rabid about downloading as the labels.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the increasingly long list of sites where unsigned artists DO sell music over the internet, and give it away. In the middle are a number of groups such as the Future of Music Coalition which represents musicians at a variety of levels and shows the breadth of opinion and choice. One thing is clear to me. Artists who ignore the internet do so at their peril. It is an incredible medium for promoting and purchasing music.

Copyright owners see the internet as a leaky boat, with their property interests spreading uncontrollably into the world. It's like the overprotective parent who needs to retain dominion and control long after the child grows up. Henly has contributed some great songs and wants to keep reaping their benefits as long as possible, so do the many RAC supporters. They take the desirability of their product as a given, they are not interested in promotion. But, 99.9% of all musicians DO depend on promotion, just like any company.

I think the path for most bands is to build audience through performing and internet exposure with the goal of grooming themselves toward a label. There are a number of groups geared to helping acts make that transition, such as Taxi. Once they sign, the label will look at what's been built and advance accordingly, and at that point, it's usually the end of building an audience. By the time the record comes out, the group has probably already lost it's focus and now is trying to produce a commercial sound, which may or may not be the sound and feel that nurtured the love of their fans. They also soon realize that there is virtually no hope of ever seeing any more money from the label, and they become just another one of the 99.9% who stop right there.

Of course the labels go on to say, "see why we deserve that VC dough... we take all the risk, it's one in a million that sells". True VCs with that hit rate would go down right away. But, that's because VC's lose their shirts on the losers. Not the labels, they make money off everyone because the acts make the risky investment themselves - it's all deducted against their side of the profits, not the label's. The labels advance what they know they can make from the band's carefully analyzed fan base, so they know they'll clear their outlay. The windfalls are just free gravy on top of that.

Labels exploit market factors, the huge amount of people who would love to make a living in the arts, and, who have talent, and, their exclusive monopoly on the means of distribution.

I (") Huckabees: Externally Enhanced Awareness or Clash of the Titans?

The title refers to my 12/7/04 post, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: Externally Enhanced Denial. Both these films came out last year and it's a mystery to me why Sunshine garnered so much more attention from the Academy than Huckabees... word is, it's too abstract and conceptual. Sunshine required viewers to remember only one abstract concept - people can forget. This one coughs up more philosophical theories than Will Durant. Anyway, the two films are like opposite sides of the same coin and scream for intervision comparison.

They also represent trends in films that analyze and explore reality like Memento & Being John Malchovich. More recently, as in Butterfly Effect & Big Fish, the trend is to use composing CG in more mundane backgrounds. I believe Forrest Gump was one of the first films to do this. In this one they had some great Picasso/Brach-like effects of reality breaking up into cubes that provided a great visual theme for the film. Film is the medium most like reality and suits this kind of exposition beautifully, visually showing the nature of reality.

So, in Sunshine, we have the Dr. Pangloss Protestant approach to life, the guy wants it all nice & superficial & goes in for the mini-lobotomy. Jason Shwartzman's character, Albert, is not looking for repression but answers. He wants to understand what connects these disparate experiences and feelings that compose his life. So he turns to the dynamic duo of Lily Thomlin and Dustin Hoffman, who demonstrates the interconnected nature of the universe as explained by almost all the Eastern religions by using a blanket. They then follow him 24/7 to find his answers.

The service is far more than most psychologists today provide, most of them require the patient to verbally expose their lives and only step in to observe if the law requires it to protect a child, as with social workers. However, patient reportage is highly subjective and the advisor is at the mercy of the exposition they receive. I went for counseling after my divorce, just to see if it would help. I knew far more than the counselor, at least about my own life, she spouted the usual stuff about helping me see what I wanted.

That's what they do, help people see what they want or need. Fortunately, my best friend of twenty years knows me well and is constantly upping herself, she's a noted psychologist herself, running a growth and leadership center. Thank God I have her because it is not easy for me to find people who can understand me. There's so much going on in my life and mind, it's too overwhelming for someone who hasn't been kept up to speed.

Anyway, back to the two films, I'm sure you're expecting me to compare the two approaches, and I will, but, only one is a philosophy. The other is a neurosis. The reason I compare them is that I believe most people employ repression and denial as a de facto philosophy because they've never bothered to develop a real one. They fail to understand the need for one. I've met so few people who can speak about their lives in such a way that shows an understanding of how their life experiences, particularly in childhood, affect their day to day decisions & positions or how all of that plays into a larger goal for their life, much less the world. Along with the gloss and denial goes a smallness of mind.

Now, don't think I haven't tried. I've put together a number of consciousness-raising type groups, including one at my church which lasted for years and dozens of women from the church attended at one point or another. We explored our faith as Christians and got pretty philosophical, and also revealed more of ourselves than we were typically allowed. Since this is a Congregational Church, "one step away from the Unitarians", it was very liberal in terms of the doctrine, barefoot & pregnant stuff, but still, I would say the primary focus for the moms was their families and not larger issues. It's the same with the men, only it's more about jobs, tech, sports.

I look at it like this. Cameras can have a close up lens or a wide angle lens. So do we. We need to pay attention to the daily reality, especially when we're driving cars, but, also when we're driving ourselves. There are kids, colleagues, demands coming at us constantly, endlessly... one thing after the other. Is each thing totally separate? In a way, yes, each probably demands a certain amount of our time. In other ways, no. It's all connected, if in no other way than it's all coming in to our mind. Because time is limited though, I like to use it efficiently.

When you take the time to construct the paradigms and understand the bigger picture, the wide angle lens, you know where to put stuff, so that it's there when you need it, but don't have to carry it around all day. You don't end up wasting your life looking at the small stuff only to get to the end and wonder if you chose the right course or what it all means. And when some challenge or issue or new idea comes my way, I know where to find the answer and connection that will give me comfort, direction and understanding... something denial can never provide. In my physical and mental homes, it's organized.

As to the last part of the title, Clash of the Titans, the Titans are the two basic world-views. There are six major world religions and as many philosophies as there are people. This film accurately portrays the thinking of many of the world's great philosophers. As you can tell by David Russell's commentary, they guy knows his shit. It's a virtual smorgasbord of ideas about the ultimate nature of reality.

But, there are only two basic views; God or no God, order or chaos, meaning or coincidental occurrences. This is different from denial, some people are more than willing to look at the unsavoriness of life, may relish it, but still not believe in any greater consciousness or interconnectedness. Where others see God, they see an absence.

Whereas the vast majority of us believe in a higher power, at least when asked about it, nihilists & existentialists are focused in the present and tangible. They can deal with some abstraction, but not as much as someone who can focus totally on the present as well as the theoretical superstructures at the same time. That ability is more like the gurus and yogis, monks and nuns, who attempt to do both simultaneously but often need very simple lives to do it. Zen also focuses very much on experiencing your life fully as you live it, but sees a higher order.

Anyway, I could go on like this all day, and used to. I spent many years very deep into philosophy, meditation, Eastern religions, communes, exploration of more conscious ways of living and thinking. In the 70's there was a big push into this self-help stuff that we now take as part of the landscape. Attention to Eastern thought in the West grew out of the music and drug scene, particularly when the Beatles got interested in the Kesey/Dead scene and went to India to visit Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. This was no dry philosophy class but very experiential in every way. Philosophy is useless as an academic exercise, which is how most people learn about it and continue thinking about it. An active philosophy is like what the Christians call the living Christ or living Bible. It's something that guides your everyday experience.

I liked the fact that the characters in this film, weird as they were, took the time to question and look at what was happening in their lives. The purpose of a good belief system is that it can provide great comfort, direction and inspiration. But, it's important to keep that belief system alive by paying attention to your feelings. Sometimes people set it and forget it. They've got the church, the structure, the routine going, but you have to keep resizing it or it can start to constrict.

Sometimes the bigger picture shows us who really supports and loves us. Often those closest to us want to keep us in a certain place, the place they found us, a place that is convenient for them. They know us and love us and we want to deliver... but, at what cost. Sometimes the cost is a compromise of who we are and what we need.

Other times, we seem to be at odds with someone, but realize ultimately that the conflict or itchiness spurred us to where we needed to be. In both cases, the picture looks very different depending on the perspective. That's why it's important to talk to others about ourselves, our lives, and get real with others... to get perspective.

Amicus Briefs for Grokster

The Post is pretty good about tech news, this hasn't even been put on their on-line docket yet. I'd like to see the complete list, it should be pretty interesting, just like the Petitioner's amicie. For instance, it appears Orrin got the entire state of Utah to file an amicus.

Here's a list of who is appearing at the Press Conference today.

Oscar's Rock

Chris was the only thing that rocked this staid crown jewel in the American entertainment dynasty... hence the apostrophe in the title. Although the Oscars, and all the award shows are losing audience, film remains one of our most lucrative exports. Hollywood is the entertainment capital of a world that has adopted English as its most widely spoken language. The glamour, the bling, the bods,... the values espoused at the Oscars create our image throughout the world. Trumping the Superbowl as the epitome event of the entertainment world... Oscar is a multi-day analysis of entertainers who live only on screen for most of us.

Rock started off on just the right note, making that exact point, which I think about every year, particularly this year because of the blogging. At the Grammys, the nominees perform. It's an incredible show, I always tape the music award shows, but not the Oscars. Even though the music industry has been co-opted into a record industry, most musicians still tour at least somewhat, they often write as well. There tends to be far more connection to fan-base in the music world and bands often have loyal followings who like their particular message, style & sound. Fans tend to show much more loyalty to their favorite musicians and pay more to them.

I believe the primary reason for this is that film is so labor intensive and collaborative. It has always been a director's medium, not a performer's medium, the way music is. The film industry is entirely a construct of the technology. There was music before Edison, not movies. But, that's what film is - recreation of reality. And the Oscars are about fantasy and glamour and the selling of the American dream, and American product, all over the world.

And we have done well. My favorite part is always the film montage. That is what demonstrates the art form to me. Making films is the height of creative achievement in my opinion and those that make statements, heighten our awareness, make us think and feel and learn, while entertaining us and being visually beautiful, encompassing music... these are the diamonds of our cultural heritage and it saddens me that we are steadily losing our film archive because so many areorphaned.

The copyright holders can't be found and so they can't be restored, or used by others, or seen. Although the beauty of film, as compared to digital, is that it usually can be cleaned up, at least until it disintegrates, copyright "protection" frequently prevents that result. In fact, Lessig has been trying to alert the blogoshere that it's time to write the Copyright Office about this as they are now reviewing this issue.

Anyway, Rock made some great Moore mentions & Bush bashes... gave Christ a nice clean slice. He got good grades on his stand-up, though I thought he played it safe and I kind of miss that goofy, fast-paced Billy Crystal/Whoopi/Robin feel and visuals. Lets just say it's a good year for black men.

Morgan Freeman - Who wasn't rooting for this guy, long overdue. He's slated to play Nelson Mandela in yet another male biopic.

The Incredibles - Pixar's sixth of the seven pic deal for Disney. Kudos to our locals for another great film. Once you dump the megalomaniacal Eisner, try some local distribution and help build some industry here... unlike Eastwood. PDI (Shreks 1 & 2), which was acquired by Dreamworks a few years ago is in Palo Alto. ILM is in Marin and I believe Lucas purchased the Presidio for a new campus. I think entertainment content in the Bay Area is a very good thing and we should be building up our own distribution and promotion so we can go tell Hollywood to take a flying fuck when it's time. They've siphoned off enough of our economy.

The Future of MUSIC website even said that it's estimated that two-thirds of all US economic growth is in the tech sector. Hollywood is so visible and so is their agenda. I just got an email from Ren Bucholz saying he & some IPac guys were in DC and the awareness of our side of this issue was just so far under the radar. It's not that the legislators have no sympathy for freedom from copyright oppression, they just have absolutely no awareness that there even is an issue here. Tech has far more money but we don't use it the same way and we have nowhere near the organization a mature monopoly does. Vertical integrators like Sony help... but not enough bridges have been built and I don't even know who the builders are.

One of these days, people are gonna realize their new VCRs, DVD players & CD burners are not doing what they used to. And then, god willing, the shit will hit the fan... or maybe not, they'll just keep cinching the belt and we'll just keep going along. We now accept unavoidable ads in movies we pay $9. to see & videos we pay $20. for. We thought we were going to be able to bypass TV ads, no such luck. DRM will increasingly prevent us from copying our own CDs & DVDs... but, I digress... back to watching overpaid stars doing their best acting of the year... portraying humility.

Sideways - another one of my favorites. It's such an uphill battle to get indie films made and this one struck the right chord, performances with heart. I wish it had won even more awards. The Academy needs to do far more to draw attention to indie films.

Jamie Foxx - the man inhabited the soul of a great artist and portrayed him so well that Quincy Jones, who knew him since childhood, and Ray's own kids could barely tell him from the original. He had the statue locked up for a reason.

Million Dollar Baby - I like Scorcese, though that NY toughness gets kind of old for me, it's not how I like to see my home. But, it went to Baby, which opened in seven theaters, with almost no promotion, and built up on word of mouth on the strength of a surprising twist (which the Academy loves... from The Crying Game to Sixth Sense) and yes, heart.

Sometimes, as when Oksana Baiul won the gold medal over the more technically perfect, not to mention sympathetic, Nancy Kerrigan, emotional involvement supercedes appreciation of craft. The Aviator did get a number of well-deserved technical awards plus a gift for Blanchett, who got the old voters for her because she portrayed the beloved Katherine Hepburn. Virginia Madsen turned in the best performance.

Sydney Lumet - One of our greatest living directors, going back all the way to Twelve Angry Men. He shone a light on all of our social evils, commenting on our generals and cops and the frailties of the powerful and powerless. He deserves the award for Network alone, but has a huge and impressive body of great films.

Beyonce - love her. Were those rocks real? It must've taken every child in South Africa twenty years to find those puppies. Now that we're getting to the rock related portion of the post, let me point out the most sexist part of the evening... when Chris Rock introduced Salma Hyack and Penelope Cruz as the next four presenters and then they introduce a group of nominees that comes out in a 100% sea of black tuxes.

Even I get sick of constantly having to point this stuff out, but really, they listened to the comments about the lack of African-Americans then you have one of them come out with that, in a year filled with male biopics. There are many women worthy of attention like that... Georgia O'Keefe, Clare Booth Luce, Katherine Graham, hell, Martha Graham. I mean really, this is big stuff, big industry, visibility, power, inspiration. What is in there to encourage women to go into the film industry? Crew, tech, effects, graphics, animation, visuals, sound, editing, DIRECTING... all 90% men, at best. Well, not best for women, or our culture.

In acting, as Sean Penn said, right up on stage, (thanks for making the one meaningful, non-phony/canned comment of the whole evening) there's usually five women to every male and yet most roles are male. I've seen this in theater, from grade school on up, I guess the verbal skills make it easier and more attractive to girls. Terry Hatcher, the amazing resurrection of an actress over 40, was newsworthy enough to make the Barbara Walters special and she talked a bit about the grim reality of being a woman over 40 in Hollywood... it's not pretty.

I'm also sick of watching the film industry slight the music industry. Why was Antonio Banderas, an actor, singing with Carlos, instead of Marc Anthony or Ricky Martin? I'm very glad Motorcycle Diaries won though, and I loved Carlos' Che T-shirt. His wife, Deborah, just published a book. The geriatric Academy voters dissed Mick Jagger and Dave Stewart (Eurythmics) for Alfie. They trot out the young Beyonce to sing stuff that sounds like classical music, which was probably all the rage when the voters were young but there's this thing called change.

So, let's all hope for some positive changes in the entertainment and tech sectors in what is sure to be an exciting, combative year. Feminization of both these great industries will bring forth cooperation and a more grounded vision, which is what we need to take this issue forward without wasting more time futilely fighting.

Peoplesize

I'm conceptualizing a few in-depth posts at the moment and came across a quote I liked so much, it's worth a post of its own. It was made by Brian Austin Whitney, the founder of Just Plain Folks, an organization dedicated to helping musicians find a livable income from making music, at a forum for the Freedom of Music Coalition Summit '04. He says he got it from Sears, and applies it to hires, but this little quote struck me as being extremely accurate for such a specific comment. I think it's universally applicable and truly conforms to what I have found in my own experience.

So, enough prologue, here it is.

Small people will always talk about people. Medium people will always talk about events. Big people talk about ideas.

BTW, I do think "always" is an operative word there. I mean, jeez, if you're not talking about people at least some of the time... go get yourself a fuckin clue. I actually think it's more the WAY you talk. With some, it's all about the personalities and egos, clashes of will without any real design, plan or point. For instance, my ex used to come home every day and whine for hours about the people he worked with, particularly the one woman who was once on the team.

With companies around here it's like bands or sports, it's guys on the team sort of stuff for all the start-ups... sometimes a token woman. In fact, at some WSGR panel the other night, the VCs used the term "guys on the team" repeatedly, referring to the Board and management. Out of some 50 entrepreneurs there, I was one of three women.

Anyway, after the whining about all the poor interactions with the co-workers (of course it was always their fault), I would try to show the big picture (a concept I'll go into much further in my post-Oscar post), and say, "did the company sell anything?". Did the company he put ten years into ever sell anything? No, it was a fucking loser and I spent years trying to get him to see that. Of course, as soon as the bust came he was fired... his whining brand of loyalty was not mutual... another point I could not seem to get across.

I even told him flat out, you know, honey, they expect strategic thinking at your level.... oh well, enough of my petty personal problems, they're mostly gone now, and you have the big picture as to what went wrong in my marriage. For someone constantly clicking on that wide-angle lens, it becomes frustrating trying to communicate with someone who can't seem to do that.