I filled my weekend with activities unfamiliar.

FRIDAY

I drove to Madison to audition for a film. Having been told to prepare to read for Billy — a 19-year old badboy seducer — I did not expect to be cast, but had a good feeling about becoming a member of the stunt crew, should my schedule permit.

When I arrived, I made small talk with the pretty young college students who were also hoping this might be a big break. They were perhaps more starry-eyed than me, so I tried to ease their shaking hands with a few stories from people I knoew “in the business.” Strangely, as we waited longer, my nonchalance transformed into a sort of panic. While I always want to do well in these situations, in this case I assumed that my read was mostly a pleasantry, as I am hardly the type. So why fret?

But I was fretting. I memorized and paced. I tried lines in ways unnatural. I pried into the psyche of a stock character who would be killed within moments of the audience meeting him (spoiler alert!). I imagined scenarios where my theater training would allow some talent scout to see past my less-than-photogenic exterior and note the intensity of my performance. Johnny Depp’s career was built on this!

Finally, the door opened. Applause for the previous audition; no pressure. “Good luck,” I said honestly, but quietly, to my new acquaintance and competition. Shake hands, smile, make a quick joke. It’s all going well. The director, who has seen my headshot, the headshot where I am dressed exactly as I am now, looks me over and immediately changes his mind. He hands me a different cutting, where I play a right-hand man to a crime boss, out on a wetwork assignment to kill a disobedient hired killer.

The stunt coordinator and I run the scene, after a brief moment to read. They seem impressed when I drop names (or the equivalent thereof in stunt terms): “I am well-versed in combat and weapons, but I am inexperienced with jerk harness, air ram, burns, etc. I have done high falls, though.” My first read is weak, uncharacteristic of me. My second read gets the polite applause and a broad, seemingly genuine smile from the director and producers.

Stunts? I am in. Speaking role? As I was handing in the script, my eyes darted across a stage direction I had missed. “… over the bodyguard’s distinct southern drawl…” Oof. I could have done that. I did not see it. Should I ask to read once more? No. Not my way. Let’s hope they believe the special skills section of my résumé where it says “Good with dialects.”

— from a few years ago.

Controversy has followed a scheduled “back-to-school” speech U.S. President George W. Bush is set to deliver on Tuesday.

A small group of protesters gathered outside Wakefield High School in the Washington suburb of Arlington as the president’s motorcade was arriving for his midday speech.

One sign read, “Mr. President, stay away from our kids.”

The seemingly innocuous speech welcoming children back after the summer break has been overshadowed by the politics surrounding the “No Child Left Behind” debate that has gripped the country’s attention.

In the speech, scheduled to begin a little after noon ET, the president will speak directly to children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school, the White House says. An advance copy of the speech suggests he will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

When plans for the speech were first unveiled, it was accompanied by a set of directives to schools opting to broadcast the speech. The directives concerned ways to get students to write essays about how to help the president do his job.

Critics saw that as political interference, even as the administration dismissed it as a harmless way of helping schools in their civics curricula.

His opponents further suggested the address to schoolchildren was part of his strategy to overhaul the education system in the United States. That divisive debate has dominated the nation’s attention all summer.

“President Bush has turned to American’s children to spread his conservative lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves,” said the Florida Democrat chair, adding, “It’s inappropriate to use taxpayer dollars to broadcast White House politics into the nation’s school system.”

The White House attempted to put cold water on the controversy by releasing the speech without any such directives on Monday.

But based on the presence of protestors, that may not have been enough to quell outrage.

—

No, this never happened. But I wonder if it had, if the people now opposed to having this speech in schools would instead have been accepting of its arrival. Similarly, would they have brushed off the protests as “typical liberal soft-hearted nonsense?” It seems to me, this issue has nothing to do with any policy or rational belief against indoctrination. After all, I do not remember hearing a “liberal” agenda telling children to think like them or they are somehow unpatriotic, weak Americans.

Rather, I have heard an emphasis on individuality, even on sedition, if one were to take after Thomas Jefferson. Would such encouragement be responsible, or “better?” I am in no position to say. But I can say that — empirically, based on evidence — one group is more noted for their ability and willingness to indoctrinate. And the other is not.

I suppose which is which changes based on your individual perspective.

Well, music has been getting to me lately. Thanks to Carina for this gorgeous little chanson.

Thanks to colleague ChrisKras for turning me on to Next to Normal and The Last Five Years. I wish the first song had a different ending. Up until then, it’s perfect.