Warning: Slant-Eye Alert

Yes, that means exactly the same thing as "Sambo Alert" only concerning Asians. I openly apologize for anyone who is offended. It was intended to represent an offensive stereotype.
Warning: I'm about to rant. You may want to skip today's column if you're tired of this subject.
##
Still here? O.K....
##

The Sociopsychological Reasons "Mummy 3" will Suck, Big Time

ﾠ

Reading the universally poor reviews for "Mummy 3" (Ah...I'll see it anyway--Can't resist Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh) I am irresistibly pulled back to what Nicki calls my "file drawer" conversation: cinematic images and sexuality and unconscious racism.

ﾠ

First, a bit of context. I looked up the ten most popular films of all time, using two different lists: Entertainment Weekly and the American Film Institute. Here's Entertainment Weekly's list:

1) The Godfather

2)Citizen Kane

3)Casablanca

4) Chinatown

5)Raging Bull

6)La Dolce Vita

7)The Godfather II

8)Gone With the Wind

9)Some Like It Hot

10)Singin' In the Rain

ﾠ

Now, the AFI top ten:

1)Citizen Kane

2) Casablanca

3) The Godfather

4) Gone With The Wind

5) Lawrence of Arabia

6)The Wizard of Oz

7)The Graduate

8) On The Waterfront

9)Schindler's List

10) Singin' In the Rain

ﾠ

Note that most of these films are driven by love and passion. The urge to build and protect family. Sexuality as goal, coin, regret, undoing. "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl" is the most common, central theme in all of Western literature (with the possible exception of "the child grows up or the old man/woman faces death" but even there, the closest thing we have to rituals of adulthood are sexual awakening and the attendant responsibilities of family life). Not much in "Lawrence of Arabia" to my memory (I won't count "your skin is...very fair") the Wizard of Oz (a child, after all), but in every other case romance, building family, and sex are central themes. Heck, Kane's entire life is initially destroyed because of passion for an untalented singer. So there we are.

##

I think I've figured out part of this. Sexuality, at least in our culture, is a twining of two threads: beauty and ugliness, supreme good and ultimate evil. Hell, the story of Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden takes on a very interesting twist if the tree in the Garden is viewed as an understanding of sex. As long as Adam and Eve relate as brother and sister, it's cool. But a bite of the "apple" and suddenly they understand the "shame" of nakedness, Eve will bring forth children through pain and blood, and Adam will have to work hard to support his family. Wow.

ﾠ

Remember I asked if there was anyone who

1)Was in a satisfying, passionate romantic/sexual relationship

2) Had no sense that sex is dirty

3) Finds their own body attractive

ﾠ

Who doesn't like sex in films? While I'm SURE that there must be some, I have a very very strong suspicion that the vast majority of people who are repelled by sex in film would, disproportionate to the general population, NOT have all three of these characteristics. In other words, a general disgust with sex or a sense of jealousy ("I can't compete with Brad Pitt, or Halle Berry, and don't want potential sexual partners comparing me to them..") is at some unconscious level, going on here. Please educate me: if you have all three characteristics, and find cinematic sex repulsive, please let me know so I can factor your opinion in.

##

So we have the incredibly powerful drive to mate paired with a powerful aversion to sex found in our culture. Leading to people sneaking around destroying lives, careers, and families to satisfy the need. In film, it's "dirty" but satisfies a deep, deep drive. But something happens when the "Other" comes into the picture. My theory is that if Brad Pitt is bare-assed, and you are white, on an unconscious level that's YOU up there (if you're a guy). So whatever repulsion you have on the one hand is balanced by the identification and need.

ﾠ

(BTW---ladies, while I DO believe women have a bit less of this racial identification stuff than guys, you still have it. I suspect it manifests in the disproportionate number of fat black women set to directors by female casting agents. It's their way of undermining the "competition")

ﾠ

So...if the star is white, sex and love are central to the story--a core human need for intimacy and connectedness and the continuation of the "breed" takes center stage: virtually all memorable fiction revolves around it. Trust me: if an adult Dorothy returned to Oz, the sequel would be all about her finding love.

ﾠ

If the lead is non-white, suddenly this core human need vanishes, and in a strange unconscious variant of "releasing sterile medflies into the environment" suddenly there is dramatic slight of hand, and something other than this core human need is central. Suddenly, only the "ick" factor remains, and both audiences and Hollywood executives get the "Ah...there's too much sex in films nowadays. Let's try something else!" attitude. It is predictable as hell. I've watched it for upwards of thirty years, and it is as predictable as Liberal guilt.

ﾠ

Which brings me to "Mummy 3." What drove the first two movies? Survival, and the mummy-priest's love for the Pharaoh's mistress, and Brandon Frazier's love for Rachel Weisz. Period. That's first and second chakra stuff, marching right up the line.

And according to all accounts, what drives Jet Li's Mummy Emperor? The lust for power. Skipping right over the second chakra. Sorry: doesn't work. That's a sterile med fly. A sucker's bet. Take that deal "all the power in the world--but no children to pass it to" and you are dead in a single generation. It's equivilent to the Morgan Freeman factor: he's played God more often than he's had kisses onscreen. We'll give you th world, but take your tomorrows.

#

ﾠ

Of COURSE I could consider this all just coincidence. But when you look through the lens of "if the characters aren't white (European) or Exotic white (Arab, pale Latino etc.) then they will be de-sexualized" then a gigantic amount of this stuff makes sense. Patterns emerge which reveal unconscious social problems rooted in biosociological drives. I only talk about this because, as far as I can see, no one else does.

ﾠ

So if Jet Li appears in a re-working of "Romeo and Juliet" ("Romeo Must Die") suddenly, mysteriously, the entire romantic story line disappears. And no one notices.

ﾠ

Remember: The major reason I consider sex scenes the important measurement here is that they are visual and quantifiable. The truth is that the total ROMANTIC content of non-white mainstream (read: intended for white audiences) films is far lower. But I got tired of arguing about whether a mysterious glance should be considered equivalent to a frenzied make-out session, so I came up with the "movies over 100 million" standard for sexual content. Inarguable. All people can say is: "well, why does there have to be so much sex in movies, anyway..?" Which is the absolutely standard response, and is entirely changing the subject.

ﾠ

Without love to hold the film together at least marginally, all you have is a series of chases, stunts, and CGI set-pieces. It doesn't work. You can't knit body parts together and make a baby. You need a beating heart.

ﾠ

Mummy 3 was in trouble the moment they cast an Asian, because there was no way that he would be accorded his humanity. And therefore, nothing that happened around him would matter, really. So the script would have no life, no momentum, and no real heartbeat. And everyone in the audience would know it on an instinctive level...without understanding what went so damned wrong.

ﾠ

Take another look at the lists of top movies. Classic movies. Top box office movies. These are NOT lists of what Hollywood makes. They are lists of what Audiences crave. Blaming Hollywood is entirely missing the point.

ﾠ

ﾠ

ﾠ

ﾠ

ﾠ

That's Rich!

ﾠ

ﾠ

I remember a friend worth over twenty million dollars telling me he was "Upper Middle Class." And I know people with two cars, two television sets, living in a house, and who have never missed a meal in their lives who consider themselves "poor." Now...obviously there are no hard and fast rules for these things, and a tremendous amount of subjectivity. "Poor" in America is at least Middle Class in most of the world. But certainly, it would be fair to say "the top X%" of the population (in Net Worth) is rich, and the bottom X % is poor. What is X? 5%? 10%? 1%? Sure, there will be other factors to consider, and "rich" people have problems of their own.

ﾠ

In monetary terms, what is rich? What is poor?

##

Stephanie: my heart breaks for you. The church shooting (the Unitarian church is one of the most open, loving, non-discriminatory institutions in America) is the act of a diseased mind. The fact that Conservative hate-books were found in his apartment screams for the need for a more civil dialog. It could have been a bombing, with liberal hate-books, but I don't see a liberal equivalent to, say, Micheal Savage or Ann Coulter. But there is quite horrific stuff on both sides, and as the country swings Left, we'll probably hear more of it. And while these thoughtless people claim "it's just entertainment" on another level they know damned well that the most radical 5% of their audience is listening, and capable of actual violence. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" he says. And then when it is done, the king wails and moans that he didn't mean KILL the guy. Yeah. You have to be careful what you put out there. That's why I was so pissed at Fox for "accidentally" dropping assassination memes into the culture.

ﾠ

There are those among us who are fragile emotionally. Who are so afraid that they are consumed with hate and anger, and brittle enough perceptually to really believe "their side" is 99% right, and the other side 99% wrong. And these poor souls have always done the dirty work, been the bully boys. While the politicians and pundits can wring their hands and say they didn't mean actually KILL anyone.

ﾠ

Yeah, right. My heart dies for the friends and families of those who died or were terrified in that church. And please, don't suggest that "If only someone there had brought a gun..."

While Unitarian Churches aren't exactly "Christian" I think it is reasonable to assume that Christ would not have brought a gun to church. There's a limit. I don't think we want a world where you HAVE to be armed at all times just to feel safe enough to pray. And in my mind, anyone who thinks that's a good idea has a Sympathetic Nervous System that is WAY out of control.

##

I am not a military historian. Some of you guys are. So the following thought is offered, knowing that I may have my head completely up my butt.

ﾠ

It seems to me that asking military officers or active duty personnel about whether we should stay or go in a fight is slightly counter-productive. Pardon me for asking (sincerely) but isn't a Gung-Ho attitude part of the job description? Isn't the psychology of stay and fight until the last bayonet is broken essential to the men and women who consider themselves warriors? So many times I've heard such people say that they aren't about politics, they aren't about overall strategy--they're there to get the job done. Bless them. No culture can survive without such magnificent human beings. How do you motivate yourself to stay in a war zone? I would think that you have to believe in the mission, or your buddies, or have the ability to fall in love with the helpless children and hapless civilians around you. To find any and every shred of justification for placing your life at risk--or justifying the taking of lives, the death of people whose faces will haunt your dreams the rest of your life.

ﾠ

It doesn't seem quite fair to ask them if we should stay or go--because they are, by conditioning and nature, designed to say "yes." It would seem fairer to ask retired officers, and men who have been in the conflict zone but have now returned to civilian life. In other words, who are no longer carrying the burden of having to be "Gung Ho" to prevent burn-out and psychic collapse.

ﾠ

On this one, you guys can set me straight if I'm wrong. Am I crazy, or are fighting men and women, especially their commanders, highly unlikely to say "we should get out" while tasked with moving forward?

Earthquake Stuff

Little knee-trembler yesterday (let's see if anyone catches THAT reference!), and everyone's fine. Jason's daycare lady actually used the quake to teach about tectonic plates! I think we have him in the right place. Anyway, I got the following forwarded to me. Seems authentic and reasonable. If you agree, please cut, paste, and send to anyone you know in an earthquake zone. You might save a life.
##

EXTRACT FROM DOUG COPP'S ARTICLE ON THE: "TRIANGLE OF LIFE"

My name is Doug Copp. I am the Rescue Chief and Disaster Manager of the American Rescue Team International (ARTI), the world's most experienced rescue team. The information in this article will save lives in anearthquake.


I was the United Nations expert in Disaster Mitigation for two years. I have worked at every major disaster in the world since 1985, except for simultaneous disasters.


Simply stated, when buildings collapse, the weight of the ceilings falling upon the objects or furniture inside crushes these objects, leaving a space or void next to them. This space is what I call the "triangle of life".

The larger the object, the stronger, the less it will compact. The less the object compacts, the larger the void, the greater the probability that the person who is using this void for safety will not be injured. The next time you watch collapsed buildings, on television, count the "triangles" you see formed. They are everywhere. It is the most common shape, you will see, in a collapsed building.

TIPS FOR EARTHQUAKE SAFETY

1) Most everyone who simply "ducks and covers" WHEN BUILDINGS COLLAPSE are crushed to death. People who get under objects, like desks or cars, are crushed.

2) Cats, dogs and babies often naturally curl up in the fetal position.
You should too in an earthquake. It is a natural safety/survival instinct. You can survive in a smaller void. Get next to an object, next to a sofa, next to a large bulky object that will compress slightly but leave a void next to it.

3) Wooden buildings are the safest type of construction to be in during
an earthquake. Wood is flexible and moves with the force of the earthquake.
If the wooden building does collapse, large survival voids are created.
Also, the wooden building has less concentrated, crushing weight. Brick
buildings will break into individual bricks. Bricks will cause many injuries but
less squashed bodies than concrete slabs.

4) If you are in bed during the night and an earthquake occurs, simply roll off the bed. A safe void will exist around the bed. Hotels can achieve a much greater survival rate in earthquakes, simply by posting a sign on the back of the door of every room telling occupants to lie down on the floor, next to the bottom of the bed during an earthquake.

5) If an earthquake happens and you cannot easily escape by getting out the door or window, then lie down and curl up in the fetal position next to a sofa, or large chair.

6) Most everyone who gets under a doorway when buildings collapse is killed. How? If you stand under a doorway and the doorjamb falls forward orbackward you will be crushed by the ceiling above. If the door jam falls sideways you will be cut in half by the doorway. In either case, you will be killed!

7) Never go to the stairs. The stairs have a different "moment of frequency" (they swing separately from the main part of the building). The stairs and remainder of the building continuously bump into each other until structural failure of the stairs takes place. The people who get on stairs before they fail are chopped up by the stair treads - horribly
mutilated. Even if the building doesn't collapse, stay away from the stairs. The stairs are a likely part of the building to be damaged. Even if the stairs are not collapsed by the earthquake, they may collapse later when overloaded by fleeing people. They should always be checked for safety, even when the rest of the building is not damaged.

8) Get Near the Outer Walls Of Buildings Or Outside Of Them If Possible - It is much better to be near the outside of the building rather than the interior. The farther inside you are from the outside perimeter of the building the greater the probability that your escape route will be blocked.

9) People inside of their vehicles are crushed when the road above falls in an earthquake and crushes their vehicles; which is exactly what happenedwith the slabs between the decks of the Nimitz Freeway. The victims of the San Francisco earthquake all stayed inside of their vehicles. They were all killed. They could have easily survived by getting out and sitting or lying next to their vehicles. Everyone killed would have survived if they had been able to get out of their cars and sit or lie next to them. All the
crushed cars had voids 3 feet high next to them, except for the cars that had columns fall directly across them.

10) I discovered, while crawling inside of collapsed newspaper offices and other offices with a lot of paper, that paper does not compact. Large voids are found surrounding stacks of paper.

Spread the word and save someone's life... The Entire world is experiencing natural calamities so be prepared!

"We are but angels with one wing, it takes two to fly"

In 1996 we made a film, which proved my survival methodology to be correct. The Turkish Federal Government, City of Istanbul , University of Istanbul Case Productions and ARTI cooperated to film this practical, scientific test. We collapsed a school and a home with 20 mannequins inside. Ten mannequins did "duck and cover," and ten mannequins I used in my "triangle of life" survival method. After the simulated earthquake collapse we crawled through the rubble and entered the building to film and document the results. The film, in which I practiced my survival techniques under directly observable, scientific conditions , relevant to building collapse, showed there would have been zero percent survival for those doing duck and cover.

There would likely have been 100 percent survivability for people using my method of the "triangle of life." This film has been seen by millions of viewers on television in Turkey and the rest of Europe, and it was seen in the USA , Canada and Latin America on the TV program Real TV

X-Files: I Want To Believe (2008)

X-Files: I Want To Believe (2008)

ﾠ

Oh, it wasn't bad. And it wasn't good, either. I was creeped out at times, but it felt rushed, and strangely disjointed at times. The search for a missing FBI agent is complicated by the visions of a pedophile priest. How are these things connected? Best call Mulder and Scully. Basically, a typical episode of the TV series rather than an expansion or true deepening. This thing is gonna die FAST, and that's a little bit of a shame, because a non-alien X-Files movie was something I'd kinda looked forward to. One thing: Gillian Anderson is just terrific as Scully. She has the ability to show the camera depths of personality and emotion beneath a calm surface. A performance that belongs in a better movie.

ﾠ

WARNING: Mild Sambo Alert.

ﾠ

Rapper "Xzibit" plays an FBI agent. I am just sick of this (and so are many black actors, who have actually trained, only to find that studios cast rappers in plum roles). With the exception of Queen Latifah, Will Smith and Mos Def, most rappers present a surface, a shell, with nothing live beneath it. Acting is the revelation of sub-text, and these guys can't do it. It would be roughly equivalent to casting, say, one white actor in an otherwise all-black musical, with all of the blacks classically trained singers. The gap in capacity, and therefore the ability to express humanity, would be glaring. Now, there is one way in which this makes sense (actuallly more than one: rappers are pre-sold to an audience) and that is that most rappers today aren't singers, poets, musicians, or dancers--they "act" a particular tough and "street" personae. So I guess they ARE actors, but few of them reveal any actual humanity (as I've often said, compare rap music to Country-Western in terms of a spectrum of human emotion. No comparison at all. When rappers are cast in these roles, ESPECIALLY if they are the only black people present, it flattens them to a two-dimensional surface without love, feeling, or internal history. Black actors have complained for decades that white producers and writers denied them these things. I guess Hollywood has discovered a group that won't complain.

##

The "Daily Show" has been making great, hysterical fun of Obama's campaign. You should catch it. Anyone who thinks it isn't possible to satirize the guy isn't paying attention.

##

Someone said that I tend to make sweeping generalizations. Yes, I do--and then try to focus in from there. A couple that I use a lot ate:

1) All creatures will try to move away from pain, and toward pleasure.

2) Major human groups are roughly comparable in capacity. When you see large differences or dysfunctional aspects, look to the environment.

3) Those on the "Right" and "Left" have equivalent intelligence, integrity, courage, and patriotism. The difference is basic beliefs about the essence of what it is to be human: "does essence precede existence, or existence precede essence?" Questions that can be debated, but never answered.

ﾠ

ﾠ

I start with those assumptions (and others) and work outward from there. More esoteric thoughts such as all human beings are spiritual creatures having a fleshly experience also apply. One must be careful here. While in some senses, the oppressor suffers along with the oppressed, and all human experience, positive and negative, is equally valuable, you can use this attitude to justify incredible poverty and misery or slavery. Just as an awareness of the vastness of existence can make the suffering of an individual child seem trivial--if you lose your balance. All death, war, disease, and whatever can be trivialized, and under the right circumstances, that is a healthy reaction. It is entirely possible to care too much, to treat the suffering of every child on the planet as being as important as the cares and woes of your own children. Just try living that way: you'll destroy your family. We have to walk a careful line.

ﾠ

The question for the day: What large-scale generalizations do you use to navigate your world?

#

I got my hands on "The Adventures of Captain Marvel", arguably the very best serial ever made. Wow, it's fun, and the flying sequences (for the time) are just unbelievable. A few of them look better than anything I've ever seen, to this day: a shot of Captain Marvel jumping off a balcony and gliding down on a running man, obviously done real-time and without optical effects, is just thrilling. But man oh man, are there continuity problems in most serials. Especially in the cliff-hangers, where the filmmakers cheat like crazy. In another serial, "Undersea Kingdom" (starring a ridiculously athletic Ray "Crash" Corrigan--last seen in a monster suit in "It, the Terror From Beyond Space", the inspiration for "Alien) our hero falls down an elevator shaft--AND YOU SEE HIM PLUMMET TO HIS DEATH. In the next week's episode, he grabbed ahold of the side of the shaft, and survived: no plummet at all. Obviously, they hoped that by next week, you'd forget what you'd seen. What a gyp! Still, I love these things, and it's fun introducing them to Jason.

##

I want to state again that Jeff Martone at www.tacticalathlete.com is doing some really interesting fitness stuff. The man is a modern-day warrior who can do a Turkish Get-Up holding his wife. Yow. Anyway, his H2H "kettlebell juggling" work is probably as sophisticated a training method as you can get with a simple implement. Hard to imagine a physical attribute you aren't developing. You probably can't get extreme cardio, because coordination breaks down under fatigue: you'd need to switch to simpler motions. But his wife Maureen's KB Interval Training for Women DVD is still the only exercise video I've seen with an effective randomizer. That's just terrific. He also has something called "Superior High-Output Training" (S.H.O.T.) that takes his "juggling" idea to a higher level by using a 12-20 lb shot. The coordination requirements are a little higher than the H2H (maybe) but the lighter shot can be handled at greater speed. This feels more like a tool for developing athletic capacity, especially hand-speed, and the acceleration/deceleration strengthens connective tissues (so I believe--I've only been playing with it for a week). But a few of the drills (the "Tactical lunge with a Pop-up") for instance, look so applicable to martial arts or boxing it's just unreal. Others look like they'd be great for basketball or baseball. It looks like he's cross-bred Shot-Putting, Medicine Ball work, Kettlebells, and Juggling to create something really interesting. There are some smart folks out there doing fun stuff, that's for sure. Last Saturday, I adapted his circuit training idea from H2H to S.H.O.T. training, and did three three-minute rounds (30 seconds work to 30 second rest for each of three different combination drills), a total of nine minutes of work, using a 12-lb shot (I have a 16 pounder coming soon. Martone uses a 20-pounder, and makes it look disgustingly easy). Sunday my body felt tight, lean, and hard. After a Tibetan session, it felt loose and fast. Interesting. No idea where this goes, but it's FUN. I mean, you have to keep the thing going continually for 30 seconds to three minutes (at the higher levels), so the level of pure flow is beautiful. If I saw a man doing H2H drills at speed with a regulation 16-lb shot, I would assume that he had death in both hands. The amount of body dynamic necessary to do it is Shaolin level. He has clips on his website, so you can peek at what I'm talking about.

ﾠ

You know, as you get older, it's more and more important to entertain yourself in your daily routines. Don't let yourself get stale. I don't really mistake my enthusiasms for "wow! I've discovered the secret of the universe!" It's really more like: "here's something new to keep me amused until I find the next thing."

ﾠ

Little Stevie is rather tickled right now, and that's a good thing.

Comicon was Ludicris

After reading the complete Shakespeare aloud--it took me about three years--I'm starting to work my way through the Bible, one chapter at a time. I'll probably increase that to two chapters, so that it will only take me about 2 years to get through it. Reading today about Ham and Noah and so forth. Remembering that Southern preachers found a way to twist this story into some justification for slavery. Brrrr. Anyway, So Ham told his brothers that his father was naked. I suppose that it was some kind of cultural taboo to see your father naked. The other brothers covered him up, walking backwards so that they wouldn't see him. Then Noah wakes up and curses Ham for...what exactly? I just couldn't make heads or tails of that one. What the heck is it that Ham did wrong? Anyone have an opinion?

#

Ah, the Hollywood life. Nicki and I went to the BET party at Comicon last night. It was hosted by rapper Ludicris. I remember being near the main dance floor and the announcer said: "Ludicris is in the house!" And everyone looked around excitedly, and saw...nothing. I ran into Matt Wayne, with whom I'm working on the Hannibal project, who was with his wife and the other writer on the show (I'm tired. I forget his name. Ed? Maybe. Sorry) and we went looking for a quieter place to hang out. There was a VIP lounge for which we didn't have access, but ran into Reggie Hudlin, president of BET (and director of the highest-box office film where a black lead is openly sexual: "Boomerang" with Eddie Murphy: 70,000,000 domestic) who got us in. We sat around on the couch talking, and suddenly Nicki said: "Ludicris is over in the corner" and so he was, talking to a couple of ladies. Five minutes later, he came over and welcomed us warmly, quite soft spoken and polite, and I asked if he was a comics fan, and did he like DC or Marvel. We chatted about Spider-Man, and he went off to greet others. Nice.

ﾠ

Nicki was cracking up about my conversation with him, and then said: "Samuel L. Jackson is right over there." And so he was. He was also tightly wound into conversations with some heavy-hitters. But after about fifteen minutes I went over, and Reggie introduced us. I called him "Colonel Fury" (from his appearance in Iron Man) and we chatted about various things, he said he wanted to read "Lion's Blood" and I gave him my card to have his people call my people...you know the drill. After we were all chummy, I pulled open what Nicki calls my file drawer conversation, and asked: "So...who took the sex out of Shaft?" You could have cut the silence with a knife, and then he laughed, and Reggie laughed, and they said "do you want to tell him, or do I?" And they said "everyone." Jackson was eager to do it ("what part of `sex machine with all the chicks' didn't you understand?) and John Singleton kept promising him it was coming...but Paramont wouldn't let them do it. Scott Rudin, the producer who allowed implications of anal fisting in South Park between Satan and Sadam Huessein, wouldn't let a black man be sexual. Then there was a brief discussion about how when the lead of a film is black, the rules change. I've talked about this one with about ten actors now. They are unanimous: black actors want to do sex scenes as much as white ones. The studios say no, their justification is box-office history. Hudlin is doing a direct-to-video piece with Ving Rhames that sounds terrific and fully human. I'll have to check it out.

##

I noticed that few readers actually addressed my last question. Interesting.

Let me state another position: if you don't clearly define the terms under which you will leave someone's home, or return their possessions, and say you are the only arbiter of when these hazy terms are met--you don't want to leave, or return the possessions. You are reserving the right to constantly move the goal posts. Iraq's elected leaders? The average Iraqi? 95% of Iraqis? How about the average American serviceman on the ground? The average American? If any of these had been proposed, I might not have agreed, but at least it would have felt like someone really wanted it to happen. Not for a second do I believe that 80% of the Arab or Muslim world hates America. I think it's possible that that percentage of them hates our current leadership, yeah.

ﾠ

And I absolutely believe that the men who flew planes into the World Trade Center had a distinct political agenda. They were Saudis who wanted American troops off Saudi soil. They may have been fanatics, but that was hardly a random act of violence. It was murder, and terrorism, and deeply criminal. But it sure as hell wasn't random or disorganized thinking. Not one time on any Right-wing talk show have I heard the fact of the nationalities discussed. Much of America still thinks that the planes were piloted by Iraqis. It's pretty clear to me that nobody wanted us to consider the implications clearly. It's just as disturbing that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem to believe that someone would plot something like that without putting Iraqi bodies in there. I mean, it was a staggering level of ineptitude to attack the wrong country, but surely NOBODY could have predicted how easy it would be to get Americans to forget who actually attacked us. That one boggles my mind to this very day.

##

For an Oil-man dominated White House to "accidentally" attack the wrong country, which just happens to have vast oil reserves, and then set an invisible standard for leaving that has nothing to do with the wishes of the invaded people at the same time that American gas prices are creeping up to 5.00 a gallon, and billions of dollars are being made by the circle of "friends" around Bush and Cheney...well, there might not be malfeasance, but it would be insane to suggest there is no appearance thereof, or that those of us who smell a rat are irrational. And I REALLY don't want the same people who MADE the mistake asking for our unqualified trust of their intentions. How much money has been transferred from our pockets to those of the people around Bush and Cheney? Can it even be counted? Has money corrupted power in the past? You bet your ass. Does that mean it did here? No. But it would be a very gullible citizenry indeed that didn't hold their official's feet to a slow fire and ask hard questions.

What Would YOU Think?

I interpret Maliki's statement as pretty much: "You won! We don't need you any more. We can handle it now. Please return home with our love and gratitude."

Whether I'm right about this is immaterial at the moment. I see another, very very bad problem brewing over the comments.
And I'm not sure I see a way out of it for those who believe we should stay. Before I go into my reasoning, I'm going to take the position that those folks are intelligent, capable, patriotic--everything the other side is. But I do believe there are some differences in core beliefs and perceptual filters (let's take the position, for the sake of argument, that their attitudes are basically correct--the problem still exists.)

1) The majority of the Iraqi people, and their elected leaders, seem to want a 16-month time table for withdrawal.
2) The perception throughout the Arab and Muslim world is probably that this is the case.
3) America must look out primarily for its own interests. Like everyone else.
4) If we believe it is NOT in our best interests to leave, we can no longer say "if the Iraqi people want us to leave, we will." We must at that point say something to the effect of "when we believe it is safe for us and/or the Iraqi people, we will go."
5) This might well be sane and smart. Yes, the decision can be defended. But can you fail to admit how this sounds to Arabs? Can you fail to grasp that, EVEN IF YOU ARE HONEST AND SINCERE it sounds like a naked power grab?
6) You are then saying, in effect: "Maliki is incompetant, and the Iraqis cannot handle their own affairs." That, in effect, they are inferior to Americans. I'm not saying this is what you think. I'm saying that you MUST enter the world of the "Other" and see how this looks from their position.
7) So...you have a nationalistic, proud, cocky, testosterone-fueled generation of potential soldiers. Given one situation, they are citizens, shepherds, lawyers, whatever. But when their country or way of life is threatened, these guys (and gals) get two-dimensional, black and white, "us and them" and pick up sharp sticks. Happens all over the world, throughout all history. And you follow the guys screaming "they did it!" and go fight, whether you understand the politics or not.
8) In other words, not respecting Maliki's words, pressuring him to change them (or being perceived as pressuring him) creates the god-damnedest recruitment poster for Jihadism imaginable. Perfectly reasonable Arabs will want to kill us. Hell, if about 60% of AMERICANS think its problematic, what percentage of Arabs will think that? I cannot imagine what we would gain that would be worth what we will lose.
9) I also cannot imagine this attitude coinciding with a sense of respect for their culture, religion, and humanity. How many times on this board alone have we argued about whether Christianity is superior to Islam? And it seems pretty clear from listening to talk radio that a huge percentage of those who are still in favor of our actions in Iraq have a sense that Islam is inferior. Now, there's nothing new about that attitude. I'm quite sure at least as many Muslims feel their religion is superior to Christianity. Sauce for the goose. The problem is that we are on their soil. And that makes it horrifically easy for recruiters to go to otherwise reasonable people and claim that this is a religious war. And horrifically difficult for us to win--wars of occupation have very long supply lines, and tend to break the back of the occupier if he isn't careful.
10) At the same time, it fuels the belief that we are there for the oil. If a big chunk of Americans believe that (I don't have the numbers) don't you dare lie to yourself and say it's unreasonable that Arabs would think it. You might think it unfortunate, that we have the best of intentions, etc...but don't you dare create a situation where the only way to have peace is for the other guy to have more respect for you than you have for him. Don't you DARE.
11) Think about it. A bunch of Saudis rammed planes into our buildings, and the majority of Americans were quite content to believe that attacking Iraq was a direct response. Take the same type of thinking, transfer it to the other side (by simply giving them the same humanity you demand for yourself) and see what you get. They have no better critical thinking skills than we have. They will be, and are, just as proud. And we are taking actions that can EASILY be misinterpreted, if we don't handle this right. This is the kind of thing that could make an otherwise honest and responsible Arab customs agent turn his head when fissionable material marked "to delivery in New York" passes his desk.
##

Other people have no obligation to trust us. Trust must be earned. But too often, I hear something like "Of course they know we mean well. We're Americans!" This is such blindness, and a complete lack of being able to see the world from the perspective of others. It actually reminds me of a Christian lady who said: "of course Jews know Jesus was the son of God. They're just being stubborn."
#
I considered whether to say this next part, and have decided to go ahead.
We talk about the damage done in the oppressor-oppressed relationship. I think that both take damage, but when one group can literally exterminate the others, the underdog damage is far greater. In that situation, the fear of death is a very real thing across the entire group. That fear is an insanely powerful weapon, and if you've never been in a situation where you had to genuinely fear for your life at the hands of another, you may not be aware of how deep it goes. I have often commented that the legacy of slavery includes both the pain of generations of soul-withering "We will kill you if you complain, resist, or run" and the belief patterns that said "We have the right to do this because we are superior to you." It just began to break down in the middle of the 20th century, and arguably has really only broken down within the last generation--leaving hundreds of years of damage to repair. Fair enough.

But there's another side to this. Even for white people, I now suspect, there was real damage from slavery (not as much a there was to slaves, but damage nonetheless.) During slave days, there was a theory of a disease called "Drapetomania"--a slave's desire to run away was, in fact, considered by many to be not a natural human response, but a disease. In other words, a slave was insane for not recognizing how wonderful it was to be chained and abused by white people.

In a slightly milder form, it seems that I've heard this from other empires: the Brits seemed to think that the Indians, Africans, and Chinese should feel blessed to have British rule. The Germans, I believe, did some of this too--although I never heard anything as insane as Germans thinking Jews should be grateful for the Holocaust. The Nazis weren't THAT crazy. But Native Americans should be grateful that we rescued America from them, and them from themselves? Yep, I've heard that one.

Individuals vary, but every group seems to think that God made them first and loves them best (with the exception of black Americans--but that's another subject.)

The point is that it is natural to think you are the best, most honest, smartest, bravest, closest to God. Perfectly natural. And natural perhaps to forget that others feel the exact same way about themselves. But in order to enslave other people, and have an empire over them, it seems that people develop beliefs that they are not only superior, but that there is something WRONG with the other guy for not admitting it. That slaves should be GRATEFUL to be enslaved, and any who aren't, well, there's something wrong with them. Or even that, of COURSE they know we're superior--they're lying if they say they don't.

And that attitude is a sickness of power, of the slave owner, of the Empire-builder. You can't just say "We're stronger, we're going to take it." That would be refreshingly honest. Instead, for whatever reasons, some people have to believe that it is GOOD for the other people to be dominated or enslaved, and if they don't acknowledge it, if they fight back...why, they're a terrorist!

This is a kind of super-hubris, a swelling of ego until it blinds logic and obscures humanity. In researching the South for "Lion's Blood" I came across so many references to Southern superiority and valor that seemed to imply: "We are great enough to rule men as if they were beasts. We are the super-breed. Outnumbered and outgunned, we will turn back the Northern tide because God is on our side." And a number of scholars commented that when the end came, there was a sudden collapse that seemed more moral than material, as if (my words) that false ego-wall came crashing down as the reality of lost battles made them question. Were we really superior? And if we weren't, what does that mean about what we did to these Africans..?

In this case, the hubris of being the "most powerful country in the world", former slave holders (as a culture), led to a massive sense of entitlement. Not just that we were the best, but that everyone in the world should know it, and trust us no matter what we do. I remember when Nicki and I were in Tanzania, there was a Floridian tourist lady who was behaving with such a level of entitlement--she could go where she wanted, do what she wanted--she almost got us killed with an elephant charge--and it hit me that while I've certainly seen worse behavior on the part of black people, there was a very specific attitude that she had, and that some others have had, that I have NEVER seen from black people.

That sense of entitlement, that the world exists to serve you, that you can go where you want ot go, do what you want to do, and that the world loves you for it. That has to be what it was like to be a part of any royal family, or any conquering empire, or any "master class" in history. A pathology of power. And it warps the mind of the master as well as the slave. Iraq will welcome us as liberators. The war will be over in a few months. The oil will pay for it. Help the war effort by shopping. Even if they want us to leave, they're too stupid to realize they need us.

You could take a perfectly reasonable, loyal American. Re-wind the tape of his life until he is an infant. Slip him out of white (or brown or black) skin and put him in Arab skin. Have him watch what is going on in Iraq, and he will come to the conclusion--just as I did following 9/11, that "it's time to go and kill them." For me, the "them" was whoever the hell had hit us. I heard that voice in the back of my head, very clearly. And so will they.
Toward us.
##
I can understand if you think America must do this, and that it is right. That's not what I'm discussing. It is the fact that, if I am right, trying to spin this in ANY way will create more enemies than we can kill. And they will not be centrally located, so no army can simply smash them. And we can win that war at the cost of gigantic amounts of our precious wealth that should be invested in moving America toward our future. It could take generations to recover.

But...how can we know if I'm right or wrong about this? We can't, but I humbly offer an experiment, as follows:
The Question of the Day Is: "If you were an Arab or Muslim, would America setting a time-table to leave Iraq make you more or less likely to want to kill Americans? Why or why not? Would America refusing to set a time table now make you more or less likely to want to kill Americans? Why or why not?"

Let's assume that those answering on either side are honestly conveying their attitudes. I suggest to you that we can use this to estimate the response toward our actions, worldwide.

Remember: in communication, it doesn't matter what is in your heart. What matters is the way your actions are interpreted. And there is grave danger of our attitude being interpreted as:
"We're better, smarter, and closer to God than you. We know what's good for you, better than you do. We're powerful enough to take whatever you want. We're having an energy crisis at home, and you're sitting on an ocean of oil. Do the math."

And any brilliant arguments you have "proving" that that's not what Republicans , Right-wingers or Neocons want has NOTHING to do with whether reasonable people could interpret our actions in such a way. And if you say: "Well, anybody who thinks that's possible is an idiot!" you're just kinda proving my point, unless said people routinely get worse results than you in terms of health, income, and happiness. If you ain't outperforming them in these arenas, any superiority complex is completely unearned.

Anyway, I think I've expressed my concerns here. The rest is up to you guys. Remember, please. The question is not: "Does America have good reasons to stay" but rather "could the refusal to make solid plans to leave be interpreted by a sane, intelligent Arab as an act of war against the Muslim world?" I think, to a disturbing degree, the answer is yes. There is a gap between action and interpretation, and we could flush our entire way of life down the toilet if we don't stop blaming slaves for running away...or patriots for fighting for their own damned country and culture, just the way we would.

Unions and Management

ﾠ

Got Comic-con coming up, and a couple of good parties. Then in two weeks its Worldcon. Better make damned sure I've got all my work done before I leave...

##

Anyone want to know why unions are important? I got involved with a non-union writing gig last November. Turned in my outline...and I STILL HAVEN'T BEEN PAID. I can understand why people might say that Unions are no better than management--they're the same human beings, after all. But when people complain about "evil companies" or "evil unions" I have to shake my head.

ﾠ

Everyone will get away with everything they can--it just depends upon whether they have the power. If they have it, they use it: money, rank, physical size, whatever. If you don't have it, you're not a "better" person. You just didn't have the leverage to express your hunger for control in that arena. Oh, you'll find another one.

ﾠ

The woman who called me from the company two weeks ago, swearing up and down and sideways that she was new, that she had nothing to do with all the grotesque incompetancy, that she could be trusted...wow. Like, I've never heard that before. I mean, I suppose having a cute-sounding lady on the phone is their way of offering me a reach-around, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, I asked her a simple question: "when was the last time you got paid?" She said last week. "And the time before that?" She said the previous week.

ﾠ

"And how long would you work for your company if they hadn't paid you...ever?" She was quiet. I laughed. "Well, now that we understand each other, let's talk." She promised me that she would send me her emailed communications with my agents and so forth. Nothing.

ﾠ

They need the work by the end of the month, so I know they'll come through, but not because she keeps her word to me. Obviously, they intended to sit on their money until I would sign any contract they put in front of me. They didn't realize I didn't need their money--the project sounded like fun. This is the way they throw young writers into the meat-grinder. The only way to fight this is to either be in the top 10% of writers--and not care about what happens to the bottom 90% (and trust me--we'll all be there one day, either at the beginning or end of our careers) or you have to organize until, as a group, you have as much bargaining power as the entities with which you negotiate.

ﾠ

Obviously, there are problems if EITHER side has "too much" power. The people I don't trust are the ones on either side who seem to imply that whichever side they oppose has less intelligence or morality than the other.

#

Steve Perry made a comment about not trying to be in Olympic shape. There's one factor he didn't put in there: you can't keep Olympic conditioning. You will wear your body out, if you aren't a monk who does nothing but exercise, meditate, and sleep. The body isn't made to maintain "peak' conditioning for an extended period of time. Not just psyche, but our joints, kidneys, and more--it may be theoretically possible, but in reality the road of fitness performance is littered with the groaning, ruined bodies of those who tried to get into the top .001% of human performance and remain there permanently. Can't be done. Even Jack LaLane cycles between higher and lower performance levels. So Steve IS in Olympic condition for a writer. For a writer in his 60's? Jeeze. He's Batman. We have to be careful, and remember that "fitness" means fit for OUR lives, not someone else's. As long as you have plenty of energy, find yourself attractive (and the right person agrees with you!) and you have the ease of motion to do the things you hold precious, you are "in shape". Beyond that, you're talking sports performance, and that's a very specific thing.

##

And the question of the day is: How long does it take you to wake up in the morning? I mean, until you feel fully functional. What, if anything, do you do to help yourself along? Have you any rituals?

Head's I Win...

ﾠ

Tails You Lose...

ﾠ

You know that game? When someone plays it with you, it is obvious that the intent is not to distribute wins equally, but for the one who sets the rules to win every time, depending on what their definition of "win" is.

ﾠ

Well, now that the Iraqi Prime Minister more or less agrees with a 16-Month withdrawal plan (while maintaining the right to adjust for conditions), it will be very interesting to see how this shakes out. I am more and more certain that the bundle of reasons for being there includes things that everyone knows and talks about (The War on Terror) and things that everyone knows, but fewer talk about (Our Energy Crisis). But one thing I am more certain of every day: when someone says: "if conditions on the ground are good, it means its all right to stay." And "if conditions are bad on the ground, that means we need to stay" the real truth is that they want to stay, and are looking for reasons to do so.

ﾠ

In general, people have said "if the Iraqis want us to go, we will." Will 100% of Iraqis want us to go? Hell no. Never happen. There are undoubtedly Apaches who drooled at the thought of losing their land and being shut on wonderful, barren reservations. What becomes obvious is when some one desperately searches for the little group who wants us to stay, claiming that that's the real reason we're there: pure humanitarianism! Nothing to do with that ocean of oil, or the hope we can find a way to get back some of the 600-800 Billion dollars this whole thing has cost, let alone the after costs that could push this whole thing toward two trillion. The beauty of the honesty of the Bush "Time Horizon" concept is its unconscious precision: you cannot reach the horizon. No matter how fast or how long you run, you'll never get there.

ﾠ

I think that Maliki is gaining courage now that Bush is almost out of office, and McCain looks like a loser. They want us out, and it's been hard to say that with American hardware in their streets. Obama's visit gave them hope, and leverage. It will be nine kinds of fun to watch and see how people try to twist this. The Iraqis want us OUT. They believe they can handle their own problems. The only possible reason to stay is that either we believe they cannot, or there is something there we want. But respectful altruism is out the fucking window.

##

I'd like to repeat that, for experienced Kettlebellers, Maureen Martone's "Kettlebell Interval Training for Women" with the 78 randomly-selected exercises, is a fantastic resource, in some very interesting ways the single best KB video. You can take a peek at it at TacticalAthlete.com, or busywomansworkout.com

ﾠ

Minimum workout time? Four minutes. No bullshit. But you'll need three kettlebells (two medium, one heavy) and be prepared to go all-out for 20-second sprints. Combine this with the Tibetans, and you actually have both health and fitness for fifteen minutes a day. Hell of a deal

ﾠ

##

So there's no way to ensure positive results in relationships, fitness, or finance. But there are some pretty solid ways to avoid disaster. In general, I'll settle for that. One major point of having goals in all three arenas is that as you develop unconscious competence in one arena, the positive effects take hold in the others as well. As you grasp that lying is a critical flaw in a life partner, you can see it also in a business partner, or a training partner. The world can begin to look like an externalization of your inner being.

ﾠ

There was a very reasonable question about martial arts: can you deceive an opponent without falling into the "lying" category I believe weakens our being? Yes...and no. I think a separate question begins to arise if one finds oneself in situations where we are attempting violence against others with regularity (not in a school context). I have known soldiers, police officers, bouncers, and security guards. Combat takes it out of you. The game is great fun, and the expression of a profound sense of responsibility to country, family, or God. But the maintenance of proper healthy balance in such situations...let's just say that the percentage of PTSD, divorce, alcoholism and suicide is way above normal. And these are in many ways our very best and brightest. It is not a flaw in the individuals. It is the difficulty of killing and hurting other human beings while keeping your own humanity.

ﾠ

It can be done. I know those who have. But they are extraordinary, and by definition, the average person is average. There is real moral peril lurking here. There is something I call "Brown Belt Syndrome" where someone standing at the threshold of sophistication NEEDS to test their chops. They just "happen" to get into fights in bars, parking lots, whatever. They become magnets for it, can't avoid it, but rarely actually directly instigate it. There is a creature inside us that ordinarily emerges only in dire circumstances.

ﾠ

But if it ONLY emerges then, you'll lose to someone who has been selectively bringing it out and polishing it over the years. So while we can turn farmers into soldiers, we need a warrior class--people who actually maintain that fire and can pass it on to others in emergency. They are career officers and NCOs, for instance.

ﾠ

That creature within us (I call mine "the wolf") has to be nurtured and controlled very carefully. It is a fire that can cook your eggs or burn your house down. Cultures that don't have much of it must either be protected by natural boundaries (mountains, seas) or live somewhere that no one wants (Kalihari hunter-gatherers, anyone?). But if you have ANYTHING that others want, and you don't have that killing spark, and those who keep it alive...your children will be slaves, and your women bear the children of the warriors who slaughtered your men. That's not 100% true, but we see the pattern repeated over and over again.

What this means is that lying can be considered a kind of violence, an interruption in the natural flow, a mini-seizure. Clearly, lying is better (in most cases) than being mugged or killed. But the goal is to live a life where violence toward others is never needed. Wanted, perhaps--in the context of sport. I'm not sure I'd want to live in a culture that had this all bred out of them. It is creativity and destruction together, in a dynamic whole, that create existence.

ﾠ

Each, out of control, is disastrous. Each, in its proper place, allows life itself. The problem is keeping them balanced.

ﾠ

The Dark Knight (2008)

ﾠ

The Dark Knight (2008)

ﾠ

Best Batman movie ever. Probably the best Batman story. Ever. Somebody finally realized that since Batman cannot really change, the focus of the film needs to be on the people and forces surrrounding him: Gotham City, the police, the thugs he terrorized. Remember the "Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, so my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts..?" Well, he did that. And as a result, they have engaged an urban terrorist, a creature of equal and opposite obsession...the Joker. Simply one of the great unhinged villains of all time, Heath Ledger's performance is as good at Anthony Hopkins in "Silence of the Lambs," once corrected for the source material.

ﾠ

And that's no insult or excuse. Every form of art has its strengths and limitations. The fact that it has taken 100 years for film to figure out how to treat comics and graphic storytelling is in part due to the fact that the images, morality and storytelling have been flattened out, and in great part dumbed down for kids. DC had no really unified universe: a collection of different creative talents spun all their major threads. Over at Marvel, Stan Lee stood at the center, even if Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Steranko and others were titans in their own right--NONE of them created anything in the comics field a fraction as lasting as what they did with Stan. No matter what one thinks of the true history of Marvel, Stan was a pheneomenal catalyst if nothing else.

ﾠ

But at DC, they have Superman the God-figure, and Batman the dark avenger. Clearly a nutball--(so his parents were shot in front of him as a kid. Get over it, already!) the Batman character is so much more interesting than Superman that there is little real comparison. What has Superman to offer save spectacle, and the inevitable arrival of kryptonite? Batman has always been the best and worst of us. Nolan's Batman is more human than ever: like "Iron Man" he is just barely plausible. Given unlimited wealth, time, and obsession, and the backing of a huge research department, perfect genetics and world-class mentors and high intelligence..we might actually be Batman.

ﾠ

And when we interject this figure of obsession into the corrupt Gotham stew, there is an equal-and-opposite reaction on the part of the criminals. They have to seek out their own creature of the night. The Joker has long been positioned as Batman's mirror image (Batman is th equivilent of Dr. Evil--never just killing the crazy bastard, settling for locking him up in Arkham Asylum...yet again...although he has to know that the Joker will escape and kill more people. It's what he does. And Batman is willing to sacrifice those people for the sake of his own desperate grip on reality).

ﾠ

If Christian Bale (at the quiet center of Dark Knight) is the first actor to play Batman and make me believe it, Ledger COMPLETELY destroys any previous incarnations of the Joker. This guy is actually frightening. When he grabs Michael Jai White and punks him out, I believe it. Crazy trumps strong and trained. It's a shame they had to cut away from the most violent material to get their PG-13, because if ever a comic book movie needed an "R" this was it. Eh, that's allright. No, this isn't "Godfather 2" or "Empire Strikes Back." But it is possibly the greatest comic book film ever made. Certainly one of the top three or so. And that's enough. (A+)

ﾠﾠ

##

Space Chimps (2008)

ﾠ

Name of God. Oh I guess this story of space-going Simians isn't a complete insult to its intended audience. I suppose that's enough. Jaw-droppingly average. (C-)

##

The Hammer (2008)

ﾠ

Former "Man Show" host Adam Corolla scores a knock-out. A terrific little low-budget slacker comedty about a 40-year old carpenter trying out for the Olympic boxing team. Funny exciting romantic. Former boxer (in real life) Corolla has made a very very wise choice for his first film. It' s "Rocky" meets "Knocked Up."

ﾠ

My favorite line: "Right. The Black Man can finally start getting a fair shake in professional boxing." While the potential perils of telling yet another Cinderella story about a white boxer are obvious, this one earns not a single Sambo point. Loved it. (B+)

An Apology

I think I'm wrong, and some of you guys are right. I write this stuff in the morning, never edit, just let it flow out. As a result, I can say things that are general enough to be misunderstood. Issues like race, and theories like the "10% Disconnect" are volatile. I'm going to try to be more careful with my language, knowing that I get thousands of hits through here every week, and I don't want my thoughts quoted out of context, or people taking offense unnecessarily. This is potent stuff, and the more I believe I've put my finger on a hidden aspect of evolutionary social psychology, the more responsibility I have to be precise. My apologies.
##
One key of everything I've tried to do in life is find the principles that apply in all three major areas of life, figuring that if they do, they are MUCH more likely to actually represent "Truth"--or as close as we can come to it with the conscious mind.
A few threads have run through the question of Relationships which are also valid in the arenas of Finance (hunting and gathering) and Health (Fitness, energy, aliveness).

1) Honesty. Musashi's first principle "Do Not Think Dishonestly," also rendered as "have no sinister designs." Lying to other people, I suggest makes it very difficult to be honest with yourself. As a general principle, I stand by it, but there are definitely situations where deception is necessary. In war, sure. But if you find yourself in combative situations repeatedly, there is a good chance that some part of you LIKES IT. Likes the violence, the challenge, the stress, the Great Game of life and death conflict. If business is war, and you are made an honest offer of a buy-out, is it your responsibility to tell the truth about any problems with your business? We have to be careful. But in general, honesty is important in the world of business because you can usually only cheat someone once, while money is made long-term by repeated dealings with people who believe they can trust your word.

In fitness, if you aren't honest about the Calories In/Calories out thing, you evolve truly bizarre belief patterns that suggest bodies disobey physics, or that there is something "wrong" with your body--when it is just doing what it's supposed to do: save every calorie, and encourage you to energy efficiency. But if the problem is emotional, that is threatening to the ego: we must change our concept of self to change our external manifestations. We have to be honest about the direction in which the problem lies: not with the world and its judgements, but within us.

In relationships, dishonestly obviously leads to infidelity, miscommunications, and hidden agendas. It is the death of trust.

But all of this must begin within ourselves: to be honest with ourselves. Scrupulously. Painfully. Perhaps you have no responsibility to share this truth with others: it is honest to say "I don't want to talk about it." Children get their "self esteem" from those around them. To become an adult is to cut yourself off from this, to be who and what you are based upon an internal locus of attention. Most people are children. Most societies try to keep us children, to keep us needing their opinions of us, to slather us with guilt and shame until we ask forgiveness just for having normal human desires.

You are lying if you think others can save you, or that if they love you enough, you will finally love yourself. You are looking where the light shines, rather than where you dropped your keys.
#
2) Love. Love is not weakness. It is not blindness to flaws. Love is a perception of the divinity within us all, or the purity and good. It burns away ego walls and frees the energy trapped in self-image. You must love your child to discipline her: do your homework BEFORE you play. Your child will cry and protest and say you're not their friend. My answer? "I've got enough friends. I'm your father."

If you do not love yourself, why in the world go through the grueling effort to change? To wake up day after day after day and do the things that must be done to maintain forward progress?

What is the reward for all the work? Why do I care for my family? Because I choose to love them. I love Nicki, and Jason, and Tananarive, and Joyce. Love them. Period. And in some ways, it doesn't matter if they appreciate what I do. (In other ways, it matters a lot--but I notice that the voice of the "me" it matters to is about eight years old.)

Self-love leads to wanting a healthy, happy life. Most game theory I've seen suggests that long-term gain is best achieved by honesty, trust, compassion and empathy. You cannot receive love from others unless you already feel it within yourself.

Stripping away the false walls of failed expectation, negative programming, and so forth leaves a burning core of sheer life energy. It is both creation and destruction. It is both love and the fury to protect that which we love--which sometimes manifests as hatred or fear.

Love does not mean sacrificing your children to the mercies of your enemy. It does not mean allowing some lying brutal bastard to rape or abuse you. It does not mean allowing your wife to browbeat and cheat on you. It does not mean letting yourself be walked on in any way. The most dangerous human beings I know, if emotionally stable, are filled with love. They have faced death, they have no fear of men, they see a truth beyond the world of opposition. They have an almost beatific Buddha-baby nature, a secret smile as if they understand something the rest of us have yet to discover.

3) The Way is in Training. Every day, you will earn your bread by the sweat of your brow. You have to connect with your family every day. You need to connect with the love within yourself DAILY. You should look at your goals and plans for their achievement daily. Every day that you eat, you should exercise, even a little. If you don't, you will look up and wonder where your love went, your dreams went, your waistline went. And tell lies: "who has time for sex?" "I didn't have time to balance my checkbook" "I don't have time to manage my time"(!), "exercise takes hours. I tried dieting, and it didn't work."

Get over it. Life is hard. Children complain about this. Adults accept it as true. Probably the best advice my mother ever gave me was "you're going to work hard your whole life. Find something to do that you love." Or: find a way to love what you do.

4) Clarity. Know what you want. Talk to those who already have it. Decide if you're willing to pay that price. If not, change your damned goal, or live a life of SERIOUS pain. Know what you want your body to look and feel like. The relationship you want. The career path you desire to walk. All of these things are attainable, if you're willing to pay a just price. Nothing comes free.

Balance: in business, in relationships, in physical health...all things in moderation. Nothing to excess. And a person who is GREAT in one arena and deeply flawed in another should be seen as very badly balanced. Unless you are un-balanced in exactly the opposite direction, and can base a relationship on THAT, eyes wide open, it is doomed before it begins.

So these four seem to be at the foundation:

Be honest: life takes effort. Know yourself, and you'll see right through the deception of others.
Persist: The effort must be continued for a lifetime.
Love: Find a way to tap into your love, express your love, share your love.
Clarity. Have goals. Know what you want. Write it down. Move toward your goals: as you do, you will learn what is true about yourself, and the world.
Balance: Don't trash your relationships for money. Or your body to fit into current social webs. Or your money so that people will love you.

If you can't be sure of a good apple...

Maybe you can at least avoid some of the rotten ones

More specifically in terms of relationships, we may not be able to come up with a way to ensure success. But we can probably look at some things that raise the chances of success--or pretty much guarantee failure. Each of the following has doomed at least two relationships I know of:

1) Track record. If you have to ignore the person's track record with relationships...watch out. If they've left a trail of angry partners, willing to lie about abuse, drugs, infidelity, etc: you have to ask why they're so angry, or why your potential mate has such terrible taste in partners. And...what if it's true?

ﾠ

ﾠ

ﾠ

2) Lack of track record. What if you can't find out anything about previous partners? There is no discernible dating or mating history? Based upon the instances I've seen, be VERY careful. Can you speak with his/her friends about previous relationships? Their family? If not, if there is no one you can trust to give you a sense of why their past relationships went wrong, keep your guard up. Example: when I met Tananarive, I wanted her to have every chance in the world to know if I was good for her. The first chance I got, I put her in a room with my ex-wife Toni, and daughter Nicki, told them to talk about whatever they wanted, and left the room. She deserved to know if I've left a trail of destruction behind me, didn't she?

3) Dishonesty. There is a gap between what they say and what they do. 90% of your opinion of someone should be based on what they do--or have done. In comparison, what they say is irrelevant. Do people deserve a second or third chance? Sure, but you have no obligation to be the one who risks your heart, home, finances and family to give it to them.

4) A serious mis-match in values and life goals. They need to be either similar or complementary.

5) Sexual heat is a very nice thing. If your partner doesn't groove to you, and vice versa, don't think its gonna get better.

6) Financial security and calm. I hate to say this, but finances screw up more relationships than infidelity. If you can't save and balance your checkbook, if you're still living with your parents or working a job you hate, don't be surprised if others can pick up on this subliminally, and you find yourself unable to attract an appropriate partner.

7) Someone who does not like/love themselves. Danger, Will Robinson. Someone afflicted with self-loathing CANNOT be loved enough to "fix" them. They do not see the divinity within themselves, cannot make contact with the loving child within them...were not loved without reservation by their parents...this person has work to do. Unless you want your bedroom to turn into a battleground, stay away.

8)Someone who expects you to follow their commands. Unless you like being dominated, stay away.

9) Someone who expects you to read their minds. Often with the b.s. "I know what you're thinking/want/need. Why don't you know what I'm thinking/want/need?" Utterly infantile, but we all do it a little bit, and some of us do it a LOT. Buy into this crap, and you're sunk, locked in a can't-win position with someone who has never gotten over the fact that, once upon a time, all needs were eat/sleep/change me/love me. When they grow up, they might be fine. Until then, beware.

10) Someone at a very different level of energy. This might be intellectual, physical, spiritual--whatever. "Energy" here is a deliberately vague term. You should feel either matched or complemented by their strengths and weaknesses.

11) You can't be in a relationship with someone crazier than you. If crazy people keep falling into your life, YOU are the one who needs help. Something is very wrong, and you may have a blind spot large enough to swallow your entire life.

12) Don't expect people to change. You can't fix people. If they have taken responsibility for changing, you can support them (there was a GREAT scene at the end of the second episode of the second season of Dexter that deals with this. I LOVE that show!)

13) Don't expect people not to change, either. Human beings are dynamic not static. Note the direction of their growth or decay. Does it match their stated values, beliefs, and goals? If so you can be pretty sure they'll continue on that path...but there will be change. We grow, we are wounded, we learn, we advance, we decay.

14) Know yourself first. If you've had a bad relationship history, take a year off and journal every day. Watch relationships around you. Specifically seek out people who have been happily married for ten years or more. I PROMISE that they did different things than you. Find multiples of them. Interview them about their relationship attitudes. Overlap the resulting data: where do they agree? Disagree? How does this agree or conflict with what you have done? Assume that your external relationships mirror your internal aspect. What would this say about you if this were true? The conclusion may not be "true" but it is likely to be embarrassingly fascinating. At the least, it points out potential directions for growth. And frankly? I'd rather assume it was true and do the work...and have it turn out that the work wasn't needed...than ignore the evidence, assume it was "those women" (or "those men")...and years down the road, after myriad heartbreaks, finally realize it was me, after all.

ﾠ

That all I ever had to do to find happiness was take responsibility for being an asshole...and change. I sometimes suspect that such insights come to too many of us only after we're run out of places to hide from ourselves. For too many I suspect that doesn't happen until we are old and broken. And God, that would suck.

##

What other principles have I missed?

The Busy Woman's Workout

At the website "thebusywomansworkout.com" there is a DVD called "Kettlebell Interval Training for Women" which has 78 KB exercises randomly shuffled into an infinite series of workout possibilities. It allows you to program level (beginning intermediate advanced) and whether or not you get a warm-up or cool down, and the length--4, 8, and 12 minutes. And the creator Maureen Martone, is one lean, muscular, coordinated lady. Some of the techniques include her husband Jeff Martone's (Tacticalathlete.com) "H2H" kettlebell "juggling" techniques. These not only increase general fitness but balance, hand-eye coordination, hand and foot speed, and more. For those who get easily bored, this is kinda unique. Very interesting stuff designed for stubborn fat loss. And yes, they're not kidding about a 4-minute workout. When you spike the intensity you enter "Tabata Protocol" sprint efficiency. And you jack up your metabolism much more efficiently than with steady state movement.

ﾠ

Jeff Martone is a Department of Energy counter-terrorism guy and boxing coach. His approach to fitness seems to have a VERY low BS quotient. His wife strikes me as a top-notch coach. Worth looking into .

##

The New Yorker cover with Barack and Michelle Obama in terrorist garb I found rather funny. I also understand why lotsa people were upset. If people didn't keep making the kinds of "Obama/Osama" comments, I'd tell them to just get over it. As it is I'm not sure if the cover is a very good thing or a very bad thing. I am completely convinced that the artist might have created the exact same cover if he was an Obama supporter (I have no idea if he is). Nah. I think it was just a rather sophisticated joke perhaps gone awry. Too bad.

##

I hear rumors that "Dark Knight" is as close to a perfect Batman or Superhero movie as you're gonna get. Gives me hope for "The Watchmen", based on the greatest comic book of all time. Good year for fans!

#

I've watched the entire first season of "I, Spy" and am delighted. It actually holds up to my memories. The writing is often exceptional, the action terrific (for television of the time), the acting equally so. Cosby has often suggested that his Emmy wins were due to liberal guilt. I'm not so sure at all. While it is unfortunate that his co-star (and acting coach) Robert Culp (who also wrote and directed one of the season's best episodes) did not get the same glory, it is also clear that Culp's subsequent career trajectory was perfectly fine for a good television actor, while Cos went on to become arguably the biggest star in the history of the medium. He was a natural, and while the first five episodes displayed some poor timing, by the last ten episodes, he was motoring.

ﾠ

So far, the second season (all three seasons are now available at around 15 bucks a season. Fifty cents an episode to reclaim my childhood) isn't as good, but still interesting television. I give Culp MAJOR props for developing the concept, guiding the writing quality, re-tooling the concept for Cosby's personae, and fighting with the affiliates to accept a black co-star. And yep, it was the Southern affiliates that gave them trouble. My guess is that the quality went downhill for numerous reasons, but maybe I'll be surprised. And whatever I ultimately think, "I, Spy" was a landmark series, and all concerned should be very proud.

What you hear is not what I say

ﾠ

It could be that I'm using sloppy language somehow, but I notice there are certain thoughts I have about race in America that seem, based upon repeated comments in this blog, easy to misunderstand. It may be that people are finding meaning in my words that was not consciously intended, that they are simply misunderstanding, or are projecting their own stuff. Maybe there are internal inconsistencies in my position that people are seeing, or that my sometimes teleological philosophy conflicts with yours--we can't really discuss events until we are viewing the world through a perceptual lens with sufficient similarity that a common language of thought can be devised between us. Otherwise, words just bounce off each other.

ﾠ

But a few things kept coming up, and I think it important to address them. Some folks seem to think that:

ﾠ

1) I think white people are different from black people: more racist, evil, whatever. No, no more than I think they're more intelligent or closer to God. I think that people are people, and that certain human tendencies get REALLY damaging when you outnumber the "other" group largely, or hold massive power advantages. If I say "white people can see the humanity in demons more easily than the humanity in black people" is it really that difficult to think: "oh. So Steve thinks blacks can see the humanity in demons more easily than that in whites? And that it just doesn't matter as much because there are fewer of them, and they don't control the economic and judicial systems. Hmmm." You can agree or disagree with this, but its fascinating how few of you seem to grasp what I'm saying. I suspect there is HUGE cultural programming, much of which you are not consciously aware of, to believe groups are very different, at core.

ﾠ

2) I want white people over 50 to die. Hmmm. No more than I want black people to die, no. I think there would be certain positive changes when they do, as certain negative attitudes will die off to a critical degree. But that doesn't mean I'd push a button, even in secret, to make it happen.

ﾠ

3) I want Hollywood to make more movies with black and brown people represented as fully human beings. No. I want Hollywood TO BE ABLE TO make more movies with black and brown people represented as fully human beings. A subtle difference, perhaps, and one that people keep missing. I think that America, as a whole, has voted against it with her dollars, the only vote that counts in a capitalist system, or to a corporation. Am I being politically incorrect to say, specifically, "white Americans"? No, just honest and seeking greater clarity. Do you think BLACK people are refusing to watch sex scenes with black actors? Please. I've spoken endlessly about a universal 10% disconnect, that the average person empathizes about 10% less with members of another group than members of their own. It's enough to doom movies---but also fill prisons and cause shootings. Now that means that 10% of people are actually "Xenophiles"--actually feeling extra love for the Others. Of course, that means an equal number on the other end feel actual venom. You are perfectly welcome to consider yourself in this group. But it's a small boat, folks. And you'll rapidly notice that more people CLAIM to have tickets than will actually fit. Make of that what you will.

ﾠ

ﾠ

4) I expect white people to do something about this situation. No, I don't. I expect time to fix it, so long as people are honest and follow their long-term selfish interests. I've never asked anyone to do anything specifically to "fix" this. I've never asked anyone to do anything other than take care of themselves, live balanced, healthy lives, follow their dreams, and be gentle and strong. Can anyone out there remember a single time when I ever, to a single person, black, white or whatever, given any advise that was less than positive? Actions speak louder than your interpretation of my words. How could I want white people to die out, and simultaneously encourage them to actions that lengthen their lives? You are perceiving a duality that doesn't exist. My pain doesn't control my desires.

ﾠ

5) Although I certainly see innate differences between individuals, I don't believe in them between groups when it comes to basic qualities of humanity like goodness, sanity, or intelligence. I am perfectly aware thatabout 20% of good, intelligent people DO believe there are such differences. And I also believe they rarely state this belief bluntly in public. In other words, about 20% of whites think blacks less capable, 20% of blacks think whites intrinsically evil, 20% of women think men are innately less "good" than women, 20% of men think women less capable than men, etc.

ﾠ

I've been crystal clear that I believe the differences in performance and attitudes in racial groups in America is due to different starting contexts and perceptual lenses. That means that black culture was horribly damaged by slavery--and is still healing. I am horrified by the criminality, justifications of abandoning children, lack of reading, misogynistic music, and so on--all symptoms of damage and disease, passed from generation to generation: and until the late 60's reinforced by legal pressure. You expect us to get over this in a generation? People damaged in childhood routinely take decades to sort through their shit. I find the expectation that a culture could overcome 400 years in 40 years to be sheer blindness.

ﾠ

But it also means that whites were just doin' what comes naturally--to all human beings. Nothing especially sick and twisted on either side, just a burp in history that we're still getting over, and that it sucks to be in the middle of.

ﾠ

But if you have a different philosophical position, I suspect it is difficult to believe that this is actually mine. I get the sense that you think I'm kidding. That deep down, yes, I think whites are especially bigoted. Yes, you think that I secretly, deep inside, fear blacks are inferior (frankly, before I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" I had to fight a bit to keep from worrying about that, yep.)

ﾠ

But when I talk about differential behaviors, and you KNOW I believe the negative behaviors on either side are mostly historical and environmental, not innate, it is interesting how few of you take the next step: "if Steve thinks this stuff is mostly programming and environment, what programming or environment would cause differential criminal behavior, prejudice, violence, or whatever? Who created the context? Can it be changed? Is it changing?"

ﾠ

Etcetera. Instead, constantly, the assumption leaps to: "you're saying whites are especially bad! Racist!" Or, even more interestingly, there seems to be a bit of "how dare you say that whites aren't special!"

ﾠ

Of course there are biological factors. It is even possible that they are the cause. But until I see the playing field level, I reserve the right to suggest that that is the basic problem--especially since the only people who believe the problem is biological are members of the group who "win" that contest. Not exactly courageous to devise, administer, and interpret a test, and then declare yourself the winner. And even then, is looks like only about 30% of the experts agree that the results indicate racial differences in capacity. When black experts agree, I'll look more carefully. Or are you saying that blacks, (even those few you believe are operating at that intellectual level) wouldn't be honest about what they see? I can understand that position, but what reason would I have to believe a higher percentage of blacks would lie about it (for the sake of political correctness, perhaps) than whites would lie in the other direction (for the sake of political correctness to racial identity?) If we suppose an equal percentage of liars and bigots on either side, the whole thing looks like the absolutely standard "we rule, you drool" scenario, just monkeys climbing trees and throwing shit at the other monkeys, then saying "who, me?"

##

The point is: have you ever heard me suggest black people ask white people for anything? That blacks shouldn't raise their children, pay their bills, study hard, whatever? Why not find a single instance, and get back to me.

ﾠ

But this doesn't just go for black versus white. That would also go male versus female, rich versus poor, gay versus straight, Christian versus Muslim, and a few others. I don't buy ANY of this shit, remember? Dan, how many times have we argued because I don't believe different violence statistics mean men are worse?

ﾠ

And if you think they are...then I ask you how you come up with one answer for men, and another for blacks? I mean, if men are worse than women, because they commit more violent crimes, shouldn't blacks be worse than whites on the same account?

ﾠ

But the reflexive corollary applies: if there is something wrong with blacks because we commit more violent crime...isn't there something "wrong" with men, by the exact same standard? It seems to me that anyone who attributes one but not the other to basic "goodness" or whatever isn't thinking clearly, or is changing their beliefs whenever it is convenient, whatever makes them feel good about themselves.

ﾠ

ﾠ

I have taken shit from black people for suggesting, yes: there is damage aplenty. Our culture has some serious holes. There is work to do, and no one to do it but us.

ﾠ

And I have taken shit from white people for suggesting: nope, I don't think you would have done one whit better if the shoe was on the other foot.

ﾠ

That's my attitude, my only core attitude. If you're irritated that I keep bringing up the movie thing, think how it feels to be the only one who seems to see it, or have the courage to speak. Think about how it might feel to run into this stuff every day, and have the perpetrators constantly deny its happening, or that it might affect behavior and potential on a wider level, in more important arenas.

ﾠ

I have counseled entirely too many smart white people on their obesity, lack of money, and poor relationships. And it always goes back to choices, and those choices are always based upon damage that happened to them early, rotten beliefs, distorted values. Their software is buggy. Their hardware is fine. Black hardware is fine. Our software is buggy, or designed for an operating system we are always just a little incompatible with. We didn't create it, but we have to find a way to cope with it. And are. But in my experience, software emulators always run just a little slower than native software.

ﾠ

No, I don't want white people to do anything except be honest, work hard, and love one another. Live long, and prosper. And: if you think you would have done better, given the same situation, please say so clearly, and not hide behind political correctness. That serves no one.

Hellboy II (2008)

ﾠ

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

ﾠ

Well, any worry that the great Guillermo Del Toro wouldn't be able to direct "The Hobbit" can be laid to rest. For the first fifteen minutes of Hellboy II, I thought I was watching another film on the level of "Lord of the Rings"--I was honestly tempted to consider it that level of masterwork. No, it isn't. What it is is an exceptional piece of fantasy, and a phenomenal comic book movie. I think that we can now safely consider comics to be as much of an art form as any other medium: stage, novel, film, television, whatever. Mostly crap. But capable of rising to the level of the sublime.

ﾠ

None of Hellboy's effect would be possible without Ron Perlman, who is as close to perfect as the cigar-chomping, beer-swilling son of Satan as it is possible to imagine. This time "Red" and his companions at a "Men In Black" style paranormal investigation force, including pyrokinetic girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) and geeky amphibian Abe Sapian (Doug Jones) are up against an entire army of the Fairy Folk, resurrected to spearhead an assault against humankind. I don't want to get into it too much, because the joy is in the telling of it. And Del Toro delivers an avalanche of visual wonders unlike anything I can remember in commercial American film in many, many years. Simply wondrous. And at the core of it all is a touching love story--two of them actually, one between Red and Liz, and the other between Abe and a princess of the netherworld. This is cinema at its most purely entertaining and imaginative, with a dash of real humanity. Just great summer entertainment. And if it isn't quite classic, it's still a mile above most of what passes for film these days. Or any days. A very easy "A".

##

WARNING...SAMBO ALERT

ﾠ

You knew THIS shit was coming, didn't you? Even a demon from hell can get the girl. Compare with "Hancock." Del Toro understands very well that the core of most story, second only to survival itself, is love. In my opinion anyone who thinks men hate women is either out of touch with their own emotions, or doesn't understand men at all. Men love women desperately, feel incomplete without them, will die to touch them, and pay just to look at them, especially naked. They are men's only route to immortality, (especially for heterosexual men) and that urge to control the reproductive function leads to loathsome levels of possessiveness and jealousy. The need leads to fear, and the fear to violence. But the primary emotion is love, and fear of loss or rejection. That drive powers a fantastic amount of literature, and the joining between male and female is the fusionary energy powering all of human life and civilization.

ﾠ

Hellboy uses that yearning beautifully, in the on-off relationship between Liz and the misshapen, ugly spawn of Satan. Hancock couldn't touch that third rail. Del Toro's last foray into comic books: "Blade II" couldn't touch it.

ﾠ

The oblivious will immediately say something like "But Hellboy didn't get laid, Steve"--oh, please. Haven't you been listening? I use "laid on screen" simply to have an objective statistic to point to, otherwise those of you who benefit from this situation (and trust me, if you are white, you and your children, on average, have benefited from the image systems showing you as more beautiful, intelligent, successful. As men have benefited by images of women subservient. As women have benefited by images of men willing to die to protect them or compete for them). The point is the lesser degree of humanity accorded black actors and characters. What does it say that I've seen black men playing God more often than being simply genuine human beings? If you can't progress up the chakras, you can't get there. The "Spiritual Guide" image is purely for the entertainment of whites. There is no way to get there. We can survive, be sexual, develop the power to raise our families safely, open our hearts to love, learn to express our truth, develop the ability to communicate, develop a map of the world, and prepare ourselves for death. And the Path opens in that order. Cut off the earlier steps, and the later ones rarely develop.

ﾠ

Let's just put it bluntly: on an unconscious level, white people can see the humanity in a demon from hell more easily than in a black man. They can empathize with his yearning for love, his need to touch. True, we don't see him make love to Liz (I'm not sure they even kiss) but Hellboy is clearly accorded the greater intimacy. Someone might say that this is reflective of the source material. Fine. Then how should I phrase this: "when whites create black characters, they invest them with less humanity than when they create either white characters or fantasy characters". What have I said about the SF/Fantasy field? "SF is 99.9% White people and their imaginary friends."

ﾠ

Just as the tendency to shoot black suspects more rapidly than white ones can be ameliorated by training (bringing the conscious drive up to the level of the unconscious, imprinting images from childhood on), I believe that honest discussion about this can bring about changes in the media.

ﾠ

Remember: the images on the screen wouldn't matter if I didn't think they connected to cops shooting black men dead in the street, as well as unemployment, incarceration, and violent death statistics. On both a conscious and unconscious level, for 400 years we've gotten the following message "you are, on average, less than us. Less beautiful, less intelligent, less important. If you cannot be utterly subservient, please go away and die. We like your beautiful women, and some of your men...if they promise not to cock-block, or complain that we screw your women and program your children to think us closer to God. If you forget what we did to you, and never, ever seek redress."

ﾠ

Well, that's fine. Remember my theory: every group tries to keep all the power for itself, and then tries to pretend that's not what it's doing. Men want what they want. Women want what they want. Black people want what they want, and White people want what THEY want. Hell, adults want what they want, and children want what they want. And each of these groups will do whatever it can to gain as much control as they can, in every way that is pleasing for them. Everyone wants the world to revolve around them.

ﾠ

Popular media responds to culture and also drives it. In these comments, I'm talking about film as evidence of widely-spread unconscious drives, like looking at the grass bending to know if the wind is blowing. Those committed to remaining unconscious will try to blame it on "Hollywood" or "Racist Liberal filmmakers" or "sexist rich men" or something.

ﾠ

If you take a look at those 300 or so films that earn above 100 million, you'll find only about eight of them with stars over the age of 50. About six male, and about two women. Clearly ageism. But suggesting that this is "Hollywood" is blind. Hollywood has no ethics. They certainly respond to conscious and unconscious drives, but their primary drive is to make money. While studio execs tend to be young, the OWNERS and primary stockholders are older. They could push decisions to make any movies they want, and know that their American audience doesn't want to see themselves age. The vast majority --if not the totality of stars in 100-million plus films are those who are in the "Breeding Circle"--young, heterosexual, lean-bodied. Note that the males who appear in 100-million plus films who ARE over fifty (Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford, Sean Connery) are, almost without exception, demonstrated to still be "fit and powerful"--in other words, still warriors of their tribe, capable of reproducing and protecting those babies. Women are almost exclusively young and fertile--or still have the "hourglass" body configuration that signals youth and fertility to the male hindbrain. First and second chakra stuff, kiddies. That's what America wants. Considering that our films are the most popular in the world, it is arguable that that is what all the world wants. We want to survive: as individuals, as a family, as a nation, as a race, as a species.

Right after those two chakras, it's tribalism. Race. So we get into conflict. Denzel, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy, Wesley...these are all smart, fit, sexual warriors. Women drool over them. But they are also, on a racial level, warriors of the "other" tribe. So the male hindbrain will feel entertained by them...as long as there is no sex, reproducing, potential cock-blocking, ESPECIALLY no interracial yum-yum.

Fantasy characters represent the unconscious longings of the creator. Look at Del Toro's composition of secondary characters. Fantasy in the front. White actors with 100% of the dialog. A tiny sprinkling of non-whites way in the background. Blink and you'll miss them.

I understand where he's coming from. His racial filters are on overdrive, but I still love him. His fantasy world has no room for us. When he represents us, we can have power, and save the white world, but not experience love or sex. But he sees the heart of the demon quite clearly. It is so sad and sick. I've watched the dynamic for so long. And every group is oblivious...or pretends to be oblivious...to the way they do everything in their power to control, while pretending not to.

The racial complexion of this country is changing. Your white children are going to be on the losing end of this one day. I promise when that happens, if brown people do the same shit to you you've been doing to us, suddenly you'll notice. And be angry that we "don't notice."

I wonder: had the shoe been on the other foot, would I have noticed? Probably. But I doubt if I would have spent much time worrying about it. Oh well. What does it matter? It's just movies. Make your own movies! I would say, pointing to the bending grass, over and over again, no matter how many times white people said: "you're looking at the symptoms, not the disease. I'm talking about the hurricane, and you insist on focusing on the grass." And I would nod my head, tsk-tsk, and know, deep inside, that white people are simply obsessed with long-dead history, trivia, and obscure pop statistics. Why don't they just get over it?
Because when it comes right down to it, humans forgive, but we never forget.

A little help with sex and violence?

ﾠ

ﾠ

Because a few people have said something to the effect of "most sex scenes in movies are misogynistic" I have to admit to confusion. The dictionary definition of misogyny is: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. "

If I assume that a lot of people feel this way, then clearly I'm missing something, and would seriously like a few questions answered.

Those who feel this way, please answer some questions for me:

1) is this the definition you're using? Or is there another one?

2) Can you PLEASE give me examples of love/sex scenes you did NOT consider misogynistic? If there are some easily avoided traps, I'd like to know them.

3) I have a chain of thought I find unavoidable. Sex in gay porn is more aggressive and dominating (from what I've seen) than typical heterosexual porn. If the level of aggression/domination in heterosexual movies means men hate/dislike/mistrust women, does this mean they also hate/dislike/mistrust men? Or just their sexual partners?

4) Wouldn't that ultimately mean that men hate/dislike/mistrust themselves? Is that what's really being said?

5) Do women like/trust/love men more than men like/trust/love women? Do they like themselves more than men like themselves?

ﾠ

I guess this troubles me because it points to a really pale, ugly view of humanity: everyone mistrusting everyone, and hating themselves. I am truly confused on this one, and wonder if I'm missing something, or a lot. If you feel men hate women more than they hate other men, is it an "out-group" thing? (Hate them because they are the "other"). If so, why have I had to fight so hard to convince people that there might be a "10% disconnect" between white people and black people? Wouldn't the same reasoning lead you to believe that racism is deep, pervasive, and incurable?

ﾠ

I honestly don't get it. And I'm really trying. A little help, please?

###

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily

/2008/07/police_usually_are_able_to_cur.php

ﾠ

This article, sent by a reader, has to do with racial bias in police shootings, and how they can apparently be trained out by conscious awareness. I am not sufficiently savvy to interpret their data, and would love if readers who are would take a look. It would seem to go along with what I've been saying.

It also helps explain why I am apparently "obsessed" with racial images. Conscious awareness can overcome innate tendency/prior conditioning. If I am the only person who notices the racial stats regarding black male sexuality in film, it would be cowardice of the very worst kind not to continue to beat the drum. I may lose some readers, but you know? I knew the job was dangerous when I took it, George.

ﾠ

Sex in Films

Because several folks have specifically commented that they aren't fans of sex in movies, (and therefore wonder just a bit why I like it, even wondering if I'm "overcompensating") I thought I'd address that. Most simply, I enjoy, and enjoy depictions of, all the pleasurable animal aspects of life, as well as the intellectual aspects, and the spiritual ones. The whole thing, right up the chakras. Fighting, mating, eating, falling in love, self-expression, whatever. I like watching people drive fast cars expertly, and teaching babies to walk.

I find attractive male and female bodies aesthetically pleasing, a form of living art. And watching two beautiful people couple is delicious. Now, that said, I've never liked porn much: sex devoid of context is meaningless to me. I'd be just as bored by fight scenes without a surrounding story: just choreography.

Interestingly, there are similar rules: a fight scene can't just stop the plot for athletic choreography. There must be something at stake, and ideally, the scene must explore or reveal a character. Ideally. The best Rocky films did that: twelve rounds of boxing that turn the plot and reveal character. Anyone EVER seen a love/sex scene in a Hollywood movie that lasted as long as the fight scene in any Rocky movie? Ever? I haven't. Now, why in the world should it be more offensive to see two people making love than two people beating the living hell out of each other?

Frankly, the only reason I can think of is that deep down inside, you were taught that sex is "dirty", "nasty" and so forth. "Bumping uglies," "fuck you" as the ultimate insult (instead of the highest complement!) "screwing someone" as a negative, "filthy movies" gutter talk" and on, and on and on. We get a gigantic amount of reinforcement for sex as a negative. Violence in film is ten times more tolerated, and while I have a theory as to why, it still strikes me as pretty sick.

Why do I think society is more cautious about showing sex than it is displaying violence? Because every child WILL eventually have sex. Few of us will kill. The only question about sex is "when," not "if." Children are physically mature long before they are emotionally or financially prepared for the responsibilities of adult relationships. We need to slow them down.

I further suspect that societies get a lot of their power by putting toll booths on the sexual highway. You have to be "approved" by parents, church, state before you can express your sexuality. If they can convince you of this, force you to finish school, have a stable job, be presentable to parents and so forth, you can support the next generation, pay your taxes, and continue society as it currently exists. I think there are REAL disadvantages to boys and girls screwing before they are emotionally mature--both for them, and for society as a whole.

But what this means is that the easiest way to control sex is to try to anchor enough pain to it to balance the fantastic amount of pleasure. Literally, Hellfire is the punishment. Shunning. Sometimes death.

All this does, of course, is often make it more forbidden and delicious instead of a natural pleasurable human function, capable of being as expressive as dance. Moreso. No human activity expresses as much about human beings as quickly as sex: smell, touch, taste, sight, hearing, all going at once. The baud rate of communication during sex is fantastically high.

We enjoy "eavesdropping" on people's private, intimate conversations in film, so saying "it's too intimate" strikes me as avoiding the real question. Why, unless sex is dirty, or wrong, should there be any greater taboo for adults to watch it than to watch dancing, eating, or any other basic social or personal function? We discuss basic body functions in G-rated movies: poop and pee and vomit and eating. What is the problem with sex...unless it is in some way dirty? We watch people kill each other with incredibly graphic prosthetics and CGI--but you'll never see a vagina or erect penis in a film. A little pubic hair, sure. But that's about it. (Yeah, there are very rare instances of a flash of pink, but you know what I'm saying.)

I don't have real hang-ups about sex. Well, I have some kinky friends who think I'm very, very vanilla. I can live with that. But my drives are fairly simply, and direct. I love sex, and I love making love even more, and have zero guilt about it. I like my own body, and am not intimidated by beautiful bodies onscreen. I honestly don't see what the problem is...unless there is something intrinsically evil about sex. And since there is a huge amount of reinforcement for that attitude (there are, so far as I can see, no positive references to sex in the entire New Testament. There are NEGATIVE ones, but no positive ones. Now, the Old Testament rocks in this regard) But since we are in a Christian culture, I honestly think that a lot of the negatives have seeped in.

I remember talking to one very Christian lady about "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the premise of "The Da Vinci Code." In my mind, if Christ ate and slept (and apparently approved of wine), he had basic body functions, and I failed to see what all the uproar was that he might have been sexual, or lived in a sanctified marriage. She was absolutely horrified. "I don't want to think about my Lord screwing some bitch" she almost screamed. What? I backed away from THAT conversation. Minefield. Minefield. Danger, Will Robinson.

So...I would love to hear from people about this. I am most especially interested in your opinino if you are in a healthy, active sexual relationship (and therefore not resentful), think sex intrinsically neutral at worst (and therefore not dealing with guilt and disgust), and find yourself physically attractive when naked (and therefore not jealous, or fearful your partner might be more attracted to what's on the screen than what is in your bedroom). Please, take away any of my automatic suspicions about the kinds of people who are offended by sex onscreen, and help me understand this.

Why exactly is sex onscreen more objectionable than a car chase, fight scene, or whatever? Or watching people eat? If you mean "unmotivated sex" or "abusive sex" or something, well sure...but if sex isn't evil, and you aren't intimidated, and you are happy in your own sex life..what exactly is the problem? What exactly is confusing to you about why healthy adults would enjoy watching depictions of other adults making love? The number of times someone has said: "well, you don't watch people go to the bathroom" is telling in two ways: first, they are in denial. I've seen people peeing in G-rated films. Second, equating sex with producing filthy and near-poisonous body waste like feces tells me that they have a MASSIVE aversion.

If I'm wrong here, can you help me understand what's going on?
#
Today I did Steve Maxwell's "300 Kettlebell Workout." Dear God. Amazing, brutal...and I used a smaller KB, and took rest breaks. Twenty-six minutes of brutal fun. This guy is a monster, and HE only used a 16 KB bell. Now, yes, he was talking instruction while doing it, but still sweating like a horse and blowing like a steam-shovel. I used a 12 Kb, and Tananarive used an 8. Lethal. Really comprehensive, and brilliantly designed. A few days back, someone mentioned Maxwell's joint mobility work. I'm sure it's excellent, but it is my belief that he "borrowed" a good deal of it from my dear friend Scott Sonnon. If you like Maxwell, check Scott out at www.rmaxinternational.com.

The Same Garbage In Different Bags

I have the strong suspicion that VERY similar dysfunctions underlie problems in all three basic arenas.

ﾠ

1) In body, people blame diets that make them hungry and uncomfortable, exercise that is "boring and painful" and the cruelty of people's attitudes. Lack of social support, and early family programming. Genetics.

2) In relationships, people blame lovers who lie and deceive, matchmaking services that don't deliver, bad role models when they were children, a judgmental society.

3) In finance, people blame the economy, dishonest customers or partners, inability to save money, the pull of advertising to buy useless goods, and lack of fulfillment at work. Lack of role models for success.

ﾠ

I'm sure there are others, but are we seeing a pattern here?

Let's try to boil this stuff down to the smallest possible number of excuses/reasons, separate from specific context:

ﾠ

(and by the way, PLEASE remember that the main reason for this blog is reminding MYSELF of the principles I try to live by. I'm talking to myself, not to any of you)

ﾠ

1) Confusing the external and internal worlds. "Society doesn't support me being fit/making money/finding love." That may well be true, but that is a child's excuse. "They don't like me at school. My friends are doing X, why can't I? They won't help." All may be true. Would you accept these reasons from your children? Then why the hell do you accept them from yourself? And if you do, don't you DARE expect to guide your children to maturity, when you won't accept it yourself.

ﾠ

2) Not knowing how to motivate yourself. Boredom is internal, not external. There is nothing intrinsically boring or interesting--it's all our perceptual filters. Children do the "homework is boring!" routine, and we have to tease and cajole them. Adults learn how to pull their own strings, to align their goals, values, and beliefs. To know WHY they are doing things, and attach pain to the negative results, and pleasure to the positive ones. It is boring to pay your bills, study, exercise, help kids with their homework, listen to your spouse's stories of daily trial. Unless it isn't. Would you tell your children that you lost their home because going to work was "boring"? If so, you are a child, and should never have had sex in the first place. Adults don't have that luxury.

ﾠ

3) Mistaking short term for long-term action. Do you know people whose savings plan is buying lottery tickets? I do. And diets, dating services, and get-rich-quick schemes are roughly equivilent--unless they are integrated into a plan designed to last a lifetime.

ﾠ

4) Lying to yourself. Remember Musashi's first principle? "Do not think dishonestly." Let me give you a perfect instance, from my own life. Over my career, I've made a LOT of money. Millions of dollars. Not LOTS of millions, but millions nonetheless. Since childhood, I've known a simple principle about money: Pay Yourself First. 5-10% of everything, right off the top. Goes in a secure savings account, never to be touched. Now, what do I actually do? Spend it almost as fast as it comes in. I take trips. I buy electronics. I have a great time. And when my career has a burp, or I have unexpected expenses, what happens? I suffer, and so does my family. Because I don't have the discipline to do what must be done. And how do I avoid the discipline? By avoiding the personal pain. I blame the economy. I blame the industry. (No, I don't blame racism in the industry for any financial problems I have. I blame that for my inability to meet certain lofty goals, or to express myself at the highest level, or stay on the specific career path I desire. I CHOSE to make a living in the arts, and knew that would be difficult. Racism is just a specific difficulty. Has nothing to do with how I pay my bills.) I put the blame everywhere except where it belongs: on the Adult Steve. Now, I grew up lower-middle class, although we were broke a lot. There are people who are GENUINELY poor, barely enough to eat...but note that in America, a sign of poverty is obesity. That's not poverty the way the rest of the world experiences it.) What I'm saying is that in my entire circle of acquaintances, including inner-city folks, poor-as-churchmice fans, and so forth, a VERY tiny percentage of these people literally have no money for color TVs, entertainment, non-essential calories, etc. In other words, it might be very difficult to save 5-10% of their money, but it would be difficult to pull your daughter out of a burning building, too. The burning building is your finances. Or your relationship. Or your collapsing health.

ﾠ

I have lied to myself, and done it chronically, for years, and am now correcting that. And you know what? As soon as you begin to discipline yourself to live on 90% of what you earn, surprise surprise, you find yourself making more money, and automatically finding other ways to save it. But as long as I lied to myself (as most Americans do) that I HAD to have that toy, or vacation, or whatever, my life conspired to support the notion that I could not save. As soon as I admitted I was lying, and FORCED myself to Pay Myself First...things started moving in the right direction.

ﾠ

People lie about not having enough time to exercise. Or meditate. Or manage their time (!) It's all bullshit. If you have time to watch television, you have time to perfect your life. Period.

ﾠ

A few principles that arise from Musashi's first principle:

1) You should never accept an excuse from yourself that you would not accept from your children.

2) You have no right to expect the world to work better than you do. Can't balance your budget? How dare you complain about the economy. Can't balance your metabolic checkbook in terms of calories in/calories out? Don't act confused by beaurocratic bloat. Can't keep your house clean? Stop complaining about the environment. Can't have an honest, open-hearted conversation with your spouse or lover? Stop wondering why there are wars. It starts with you. And curiously enough, when you DO master these things, you will gain huge compassion for the people around you, and the source of all the world's problems will be revealed. It is us. We are the problem. We are the solution. People who mock "We are the one's we've been waiting for" scare me, just a little. But they don't surprise me.

3) You will never be able to trust other people more than you can trust yourself. Never.

4) You will never know other people better than you know yourself.

5) You cannot lie to others and be honest with yourself.

6) You are as sick as your secrets.

7) A corollary to #6: there really aren't any secrets. We wear our wounds on our sleeves. But for every lie you need the world to believe about you, you must buy into a lie from others. If you didn't need people to buy into your bullshit, you wouldn't buy into theirs. Every single time someone disappointed you in the past, I ask you honestly: weren't there clues? Didn't you feel something wrong? Why didn't you pay attention? Because you twisted "judge not lest ye be judged" to mean "don't pay attention."

8) Your relationships are only as healthy as the flow of information. I don't know a single relationship that went bad where lying, or the withholding of information was not at the core of it. Do you? If you fall out of love with someone, that's sad, but hardly tragic. If you conceal your emotions and cheat, or savage your partner by withholding your beauty or sexuality or power, on the other hand, you can destroy your family.

9) Your relationships with others will NEVER be healthier than your relationship with yourself.

10) Tomorrow doesn't exist. Neither does yesterday. There is only Now. Saying: "I'll wait until I'm healthy" to lose weight, or explore relationships is often just your ego trying to slow you down. It's like saying "I'll wait until I'm making more money to save" NO NO NO!!! You have it EXACTLY backwards. You start saving money while you are poor. The excuses for not saving money loom just as large when you have more money.

11) Operating on theory rather than demonstrated reality. The engagement with the process of health teaches you where you are, and where you are not. Otherwise, you are merely hallucinating, working on theory, practicing A Priori as opposed to A Posteriori philosophy. Hell, any exercise system, relationship theory, diet, economic policy or whatever will work in your mind.

12) Listening to experts who have not themselves accomplished the goal. Would you take economic advice from someone who is broke above someone who is self-made wealthy? Weight-loss advice from someone who yo-yo diets as opposed to people who lost and kept the weight off for a decade? Relationship advice from someone married eight times as opposed to someone who has been married and happy for thirty or forty years? I'll tell you why we do this: we don't want to hear the hard truth.

ﾠ

We are desperate to remain children, to blame the world, genetics, or whatever for our health and happiness. The instant we admit that WE are responsible for our health, wealth, and happiness we have nowhere to hide. Yes, in a bad economy, 20% of people might be unemployed...but why are YOU one of them? If you have a slow metabolism inherited from your parents, how exactly does that stop you from exercising every day that you eat, and learning more efficient techniques? If only 50% of marriages survive, why isn't yours one of them? Where is personal responsibility? Where is the belief in yourself? WOULD YOU ACCEPT THESE EXCUSES FROM YOUR CHILDREN?

ﾠ

If not, how can you call yourself an adult? I have been a child in too many ways, through too much of my life, and will not do it any longer. Nor will I speak less than my truth at any time...anything less than that is dooming my children to repeat my errors, rather than face the future with courage and hope.

The Biggest Lie

ﾠ

Kukulkan:

ﾠ

you quoted me talking about Clinton supporters voting for McCaine, thinking that I resent them if their reasons are racial (and am therefore hypocritical because I don't call blacks to task for voting along racial lines). Nonsense. I resent people who don't admit that many votes have been lost on this basis, and do the "Obama has an advantage because he is black" routine. You were detecting sarcasm, not resentment. I know damned well that many blacks vote for him BECAUSE he is black. Maybe even two or three times the percentage of whites who vote AGAINST him because he's black. But because whites outnumber us ten to one, he's lost one hell of a lot more votes on that basis than he's gained. That's people's right. But it pisses me off when people don't ACKNOWLEDGE that that has happened. That's really all. Frankly, I am far too busy being tickled that whites have been as accepting as they have. I would have to have been either incredibly naive, or harboring seething, murderous hatred for whites to be pissed by something that is so glaringly obvious and predictable. Anyone who knows me can tell you I am in neither category. Why in the world would I resent people following completely typical human behavior? It really sucks being on the losing end of that equation, but hey, that's the biz.

ﾠ

I understand people who harbor such resentments (about this and other issues) but unless I was willing to go out and kill some white folks, the anger and pain would do nothing except poison my own life. THAT is the real reason for forgiveness. Not for the other person's benefit, but for your own. The philosophy that I evolved to deal with this stuff is tied intimately to my sense of what it is to be a human being, and how the basic biological drives of our physical shells motivate our individual and social behaviors. It is this reason that I can't be swayed by arguments that men are less than women, or Muslims worse than Christians, whites worse than blacks...or vice versa. This stuff is all tied together. The exact same evaluative procedures that would create any "this better than that" about one of these arenas (say, men less moral or evolved than women) would lead me in an instant to believing whites were less than blacks, for example. I would be one lonely, isolated, unhappy, and unhealthy dude.

#

In the last two weeks, Jason has made HUGE strides in his swimming. From being scared to stray beyond the steps in the shallow end, he's now leaping into the deep end without his Floatie vest. Amazing. Not quite swimming, he is completely oriented to the pool, and knows how to thrash his way to the sides. Heck, I'm not much better than that, and I snorkle in the Bahamas and swim with dolphins. Watching your kids grow up is a neverending circus.

#

I'd been planning to try a new workout today, one of Steve Maxwell's kettlebell complexes. Maxwell is the very best designer of such programs out of Pavel's whole crew (he and Pavel seem to have had a falling out) but at 52 Maxwell is in smokin' shape, and his "Cruel and Unusual Kettlebell Exercises" is an awesome series of 4 KB complexes that are designed to whip your metabolism through the roof in 10-20 minutes. Really amazing stuff.

#

The second season of Dexter is being rerun on Showtime. Simply an amazing show, morbid, violent, sexy, heartbreaking...I just love it. Almost perfectly performed. T and I feel like it's Christmas in July.

#

Apparently, both Hellboy and The Dark Knight look to be superb comic book movies, with real heart as well as spectacle. Can't wait. And of course, both reflect the human reality of love at the center of our existence. Apparently, Dark Knight has six action scenes shot in IMAX, so see it in this format if possible.

#

We can't predict the future behavior of others, but I remember something one of my teachers said: "Do not trust people. Instead rely upon them. Rely upon them to do whatever it is they consider to be in their own self-interest." The only way to do that is to be able to determine what that self-interest is. And in my mind, the only way you can possibly do that is to know yourself. To look fearlessly at your own flaws and fuck-ups, and take responsibility for them, to get real about the way you've lied and sold yourself out...or stood up for yourself and been courageously honest in the face of pain and disappointment. If you take responsibility for all three aspects of your life, you have a good chance to see right through other people's B.S., because you'll know all the rationalizations. Over and over again, I've had people with weight problems straight-up lie about being "unable" to lose weight because of physical issues, when eventually it turned out the problems were really emotional. A student recently emailed me, confessing that when she loses weight her sex drive increases, and her husband's lack of sexual interest frustrates her more deeply, risking their marriage. In other words, she slows herself down to remain hobbled to a man with low energy.

ﾠ

I've run into versions of that many, many times. But here's the trick: I'd bet ANYTHING that there are parallels in the domain of money and relationships: people who blame external circumstances for lack of financial success, but actually cripple themselves out of resentment, fear, or programming. It isn't the economy: in the worst economies, the top 20% are still doing fine. The real question is: why aren't YOU in the top 20% of your field? Or ladies who say that there are more women than men, and that's why they're not in a relationship. Really? All that does is explain why X percentage of your group is unmarried, NOT why YOU are one of them. Stats don't have that much to do with the individual.

ﾠ

But I suspect it is miles easier to blame genetics, or the economy, or gender statistics, or racial statistics or whatever than it is to examine your own motivations, beliefs, values, and actions. So easy. For one thing, when you stop behaving like a typical member of your group, you lose your protective coloration. You stand out and become a target.

ﾠ

You take the chance of being alone. The trouble is that we are all "alone" and the "protective coloration" is just an illusion. I am male, American, of mixed ethnicity, a writer, etc....but all of these are just interesting labels. If I hide behind any of them, I inherit not just their strengths but limitations. It is simple: in terms of playing the game of life, either you take responsibility or you do not. Life doesn't care. You can be happy, healthy, and successful, but the doorway to adult rewards comes from adult responsibilities. And the instant you blame society, your family, or your genetic circumstances for anything that can be modified by action, you are being a child. Adults realize that they are all that stands between the next generations and chaos, and that they are going to die...and vow that their death, and therefore their life, will have meaning. That that meaning will be found in their actions.

ﾠ

If you can't admit the ways in which you sell yourself short, lie to yourself, are asleep, you cannot rise to your greatest level, and walk the world awake and alert. Complaining about injustices is one thing. Suggesting that those injustices control how you feel about life is quite another. Every day, you have to polish your perceptual lens, and take responsibility for living fully and honestly. Either you make that commitment, or you allow the external world to control your internal experience. And that is one of the great existential fallacies.

##

Who you are to yourself influences the way you are with others. The lies you tell yourself will blind you to the lies others tell to you. The more honest you are with yourself, the harder it is to be conned.

ﾠ

And the question of the day is: what is the biggest lie you ever bought into from a friend or lover?

More on "Hancock"

Back to Hancock, both because a reader asked it, it came up at a 4th of July party, and because I've decided that I actually am angry at Will Smith. I think it is reasonable to hold people who have his wealth and power responsible for their actions. How else can we control and guide our society other than expressing approval for the behaviors we approve of, and disapproval for those we don't? He didn't create the game board, but he's playing at such a level that there is no way that he, his children, or grand-children would be hurt if he decided to make nothing but small movies from here on out.

ﾠ

But there is a balancing view: that Morgan Freeman's spiritual guides, Sam Jackson's emasculated bad-asses, Denzel Washington's noble neuters, Eddie Murphy's prosthetic camouflage and Smith's harmless Vunderkind personaes have set the stage for Barack Obama. And when (I think it was) Butterfly McQueen was asked "why do you play maids?" she replied "Honey, If I hadn't played one, I would have been one." So I don't resent Halle Berry whoring herself to get an Oscar for "Monster's Ball"--there is a tremendous insult if one applies McQueen's comment to Berry's screen personage, but I'll let you work that one out for yourself.

#

Back to "Hancock", those caveats aside. At the 4th of July party, a lady made a tremendously insightful observation that I will amplfy a bit.

ﾠ

"Iron Man", "The Hulk", "Fantastic Four" "Spider-Man" "Bat Man" and so forth have a common thread running through them: the heroes are all brilliant scientists who are courageous if not also wealthy and sexy. In other words, they express the healthy self-image of white people, especially white males.

ﾠ

"Hancock", the first major film with a black superhero, is about a foul-mouthed, alcoholic bum who is occassionally useful but destructive. He is rescued by a white man who, in order to rehabilitate him, demands he go to prison (!) to "serve his debt to society." Irresistably drawn to a white woman forever out of his reach, she is his Delilah, and he weakens if he touches her. They cannot have sex. He can't have sex at all (they cut a scene where, shades of "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex") he blows a woman through the side of his trailer with his super-sperm. On the other hand, the white woman, who has equal powers, appears to have no trouble at al having sex. Her involuntary vaginal contractions seem to have no real bizarre attributes. As Superman can have sex. Hancock cannot.

ﾠ

We learn that he lost his powers because racists didn't like him holding hands with a white woman.

ﾠ

At the end, he sacrifices everything so that the white couple can continue to screw happily ever.

ﾠ

In other words, Hancock matches the most negative stereotypes imaginable that whites have of blacks. And the film was ruined when half-way through, I think someone realized the road they had accidentally traveled, and tried desperately to stop from saying what their subconscious was so eager to reveal.

#

Smith probably knew, just as he knew that "Wild Wild West" was off the rails. But it's hard to resist 20 million dollars. How many of you wouldn't have appeared in that movie for twenty million dollars? Be honest. But I can still be angry.

#

Casting the white woman? Just the toxic frosting on a rancid cake. The fact that she is South African is just an incredible "coincidence", in a universe that has none. In all likelihood, not one person involved in the project consciously thought about this, but think about it: this movie will probably be Smith's biggest bomb in a decade. The subliminal message? DON'T TOUCH WHITE WOMEN.

ﾠ

Now, most people will probably stop with the interracial aspect, without grasping that black men don't have sex with ANYONE. It isn't just white women. And sisters, I feel you on the discomfort you felt when she appeared. I hear about it on the radio, in conversations, in magazines: you don't want Denzel or Will boffing white women. But, and I say this with all affection, you do NOT complain as loudly when Halle screws Billy Bob Thornton or Pierce Brosnan, or Thandie Newton screws Tom Cruise. You remain curiously quiet. As black men weren't likely to complain much back when Jim Brown screwed Stella Stevens in "Slaughter" forty years ago. That's natural. Every group wants all the advantages, and every group wants all the advantages for themselves. I remember back in the 60's I heard black radical males saying it was better for black men to screw white women than for black women to screw white men. I thought they were full of shit, and said so.

ﾠ

And I know black women now who say that it is better for black women to marry white men than for black men to marry white women. This is exactly, precisely, the kind of self-serving nonsense that allows any group to claim they have the right to control what others do using judgement and shame.

ﾠ

So when you flinch to see Will Smith approach Charlize Theron, I empathize. I hope you flinched as much watching "Die Another Day." If you did, bravo.

#

Denzel and Will both understand the game, and both lie about what they're doing. Denzel supposedly refuses love scenes because he's "promised the sisters he won't screw white women onscreen." Note what was left out there? Think about it. All right, what's left out is: then why don't you have love scenes with black women? Eddie Murphy? After "Boomerang" (God, I had hopes!) America bought him off by offering him obscene amounts of money for PG family-friendly movies. Don't be dangerous, Eddie. Don't drop trou, and we'll make you incredibly rich. All you have to do is leave your dick at home.

ﾠ

Will Smith talks about making family movies, and the fact that he and his agents sat down and calculated the most successful films: science fiction action family films. So that's why he doesn't have sex in these movies? And what explains "Bad Boys II"? If you cut out all the R-rated material, you'd have a short subject.

ﾠ

I first noticed the game Smith was playing with America during "Bad Boys." The lead woman was sexy, and Smith played a playboy detective. The natural outcome? Sex, of course. Because the lead was white, I KNEW that wasn't going to happen, and sat in the theater wondering how they were going to work around it. Oh! Martin Lawrences' character was married, and the two characters got 'confused" so that the woman was with Lawrence while Smith was with Lawrences' wife. Hilarity ensued...for anyone who didn't see the naked manipulation.

ﾠ

Step back. "Six Degrees of Separation". He's gay. Hmmm. "Independence Day"--BIG leap forward. Love that movie. He gets a big, juicy kiss. I have no complaints, and rub my hands, anticipating nookie to come. "Men in Black"--some "sexy" double entendres, but nothing.

"Enemy of the State." Well, his wife wears negligee in one scene, although they're nowhere near a bed. Still, I have hope. Maybe next time. "Wild Wild West." He's kissing a nameless woman in the beginning, so I had hope. Then...another kiss or two, and he ends up riding into the sunset with Kevin Klein, who appeared in drag, and was also in "In and Out" as a homosexual. Hmmm. Nice way to make the threatening Black Male unthreatening, no?

"The Legend of Bagger Vance" pure, humiliating spiritual guide. "Ali" Ah! Smith's only love scene. But even though played with his own WIFE, (could you get more non-threatening than that?) the film failed at the box office. Coincidence, of course.

"Men In Black II" Nothing.

"Bad Boys II"? A "Clever" situation where he's dating Martin Lawrence's sister, see, and Lawrence can't know they're dating...so in the entire movie he gets exactly one kiss.

"I, Robot"? Nothing.

"Shark Tale"? Well, I believe his animated character kissed an animated Renee Zellwegger. Yum.

"Hitch"? The most interesting yet. An actual relationship, although non-sexual. This script went through vast re-writing, and I can bet why. A bunch of things made this film possible (from my perspective)

1) the lead was Latina. Since "Bandolero" with Jim Brown and Raquel Welch, Latinas have been a safe middle ground. Not a white woman, and without the genetic threat of watching a black man and woman indulge in reproductive behavior.

2) The entire (unusually strong) B-Story involved helping Kevin James get a white woman. No cock-block here!

3) The coming attraction PROMENENTLY featured Smith kissing Kevin James. Again, emasculating the scary black man. No threat here!

4) No sex

#

Honestly, I loved 'Hitch" and again my hopes raised...

"The Pursuit of Happyness"--never so much as kissed Thandie Newton.

"I Am Legend" --the original book by Richard Matheson, "The Last Man int he World" with Vincent Price, and "Omega Man" with Charton Heston all made much of the lead's encounter ith the last woman in the world. Heston screwed Rosalind Cash (a black woman). In contradiction of the original story, and all biological and sociological impulses, when the "last man in the world" meets the "last woman" in Smith's movie, he is completely uninterested in sex, and commits suicide as quickly as possible. NOT ONE WHITE CRITIC NOTICED. Of course not. These images work to the advantage of white males, who, as long as they don't consciously notice, get to bask in the myth that they are the hottest, smartest, sexiest, deadliest critters on the planet.

ﾠ

And then Hancock. Knowing Smith's history, and the game he's playing, it is glaringly obvious what went wrong, and why it did: nobody was honest about the game they were playing: giving white people the image of black men they're comfortable with, while SLOWLY increasing the range of roles available to black men. God it's slow, and painful. And twenty years from now, Smith will probably be honest about what he was doing. Right now, he's making bank, and in his one way, changing the face of Cinema.

ﾠ

I still bet that he'll be the first to break the barrier. My guess: the movie that features him as sexual might cross the 100 million threshold...but his FOLLOWING film will take a big drop. Just my suspicion. "If Will Smith Can't Get Laid, Obama Can't Get Elected" is actually a reflexive social equation: "If Obama can get elected, Will Smith can get laid." With his half-white heritage, his African last name (he is not a product of slavery, and therefore doesn't hold the anger and fear that black American men feel, and doesn't trigger the same guilt reactions from whites) Obama has a real chance of his blackness not working against him as strongly as it does for most. And if he makes it, that changes the image systems in a heartbeat--you watch. Within one year of his taking office, there WILL be images of black men being sexual, and those films will be successful. And everyone will wonder what the fuss is, and try to pretend the last 50 years didn't happen.

ﾠ

But they did.

Seducing Ourselves

ﾠ

##

I still want to talk about relationships, because I believe our relationships with others are our best mirror to our true relationship to ourselves for about 99.9% of people. It's a great place to start. And I have a hard time thinking of someone with a healthy, lusty committed relationship that has been stable for say, 10 years who doesn't have the other major aspects of his/her life under decent control. On the other hand, I know people in GREAT shape who are broke-ass and alone. And people with lotsa money who are in terrible shape, and have travesties for relationshps. So...it is very possible that our relationship with ourselves, USUALLY (but not always) expressed through our relationships with others, is the core of the entire question.

ﾠ

First Question: does this seem reasonable?

ﾠ

#

The reason this comes up is that last night I woke up at 3 in the morning (even with air conditioning, somehow I don't sleep as well in hot weather) and remembered a conversation I had with a student.

ﾠ

He was complaining about how his wife won't give him sex. I asked more questions, and it was obvious that he had his hat on backwards on this one. She works a hard job, and when she gets home, she is tired. She made it clear to him that if he wants sex, she needs to be romanced a little. Her request was really quite reasonable. But he pouted and sulked: she should give it to him when he wants it, without hesitation. Because he won't slow down and give her time to depressurize and get in the mood, sometimes they don't have sex for months. I happen to know this is one VERY lusty lady, so in my mind, the problem is all his.

ﾠ

But you know I think that men and women are the same spirits having slightly different experiences in biologically different bodies, so I ain't blaming the guys. I've had three different family therapists/ councelors/relationship seminar leaders say something similar to me:

ﾠ

Asking men and women about the relative importance of sex in relationships, men invariably list it as first, second, or third most important. Women invariably list it as third, fourth, or fifth. You know what, being a guy, I forgot to ask? What is the relative importance of ROMANCE? I'd bet anything that those numbers would be reversed.

ﾠ

Recently, there was an article about a reality-show couple, where the guy was complaining that they hadn't had sex in six months (Jeeze, and they're only 30. That's freakin' scary.) The woman is always "busy" with their multi-million dollar empire, or their kids. Six months? That is NOT busy. I have a suspicion that that isn't even a "neutral" (I don't care one way or the other about sex). Because if there is something that means nothing to you, but means a lot t your partner, you do it just to keep harmony in the relationship. I mean, no one likes taking out the garbage, right? I hate to put it like that, but if you have a neutral charge on something, maybe you do it less often than something you like, but...six months?

ﾠ

My strong suspicion is that there is actual aversion. Call it...resentment. In other words, he withdrew the romance, and she withdrew the sex. When men are courting women, they try everything to trigger the sexual response. They try words, actions, scents, sounds, different touches. Once they find "it" and she responds, huzzah! Then...either they stop trying, figuring that THAT wall is breeched, deliver the goods, babe. Or, they keep doing the same thing every night (or week. Or month.) and get frustrated when it doesn't work.

ﾠ

Of course, men have the opposite complaint of women: in the beginning they are experimental and red-hot. After kids and marriage, the sex almost ALWAYS drops off and gets more perfunctory: several men and women have phrased this the same way: she is "servicing" him. Frankly, I can't clearly remember either a man or a woman talking about the man "servicing" the woman in quite the same way.

ﾠ

Another piece. I have a friend who is wealthy, and provides all material needs for his wife, but they aren't strongly connected emotionally (actually it's gotten better these days). But back in the day, I noticed that her bookshelf was packed with romance novels, while his was packed with Playboy and Penthouse-level semi-porn. I thought: hmmm. They love each other, but he's not romantic, and she, well, she had let herself get rather dumpy. So my guess was that they were giving themselves the vitamins they needed to be able to stay in the relationship: she needed romance, he needed visual 36-24-36 stimulation and "nasty" fantasies.

ﾠ

Now, obviously there are exceptions, and the lustiest ladies and the most romantic men will protest that THEY aren't like that...but I don't think that in general, I'm generalizing too much.

ﾠ

And this is really most important because I want to look at the aspects of our personality that might be called "Male" and "Female"--not because there is actually a man and a woman inside us, but because we separate things into dualities so that we can discuss them. Language sucks at discussing undifferentiated wholes, even though that's the way we actually experience reality. So pardon, please: I'm not trying to confine men and women to boxes, just to discuss a phenomenon that strongly affects our relationships with others, and with ourselves.

ﾠ

Because my tendency is to consider the different aspects of our personalities as regards a particular outcome. If "Fitness" is the child, might the "Parents" be Self-Love and Discipline? If Income is the child...well, maybe the same. Romance is a mood, a feeling, a communication of softness, while sex is an action (yes, I know that sexual stimulation is more mental than physical, but I'm just trying to understand something here.)

What we know about the patterns of male and female stimulation, their reproductive imperatives and so forth, makes sense of this. But try using evolutionary justifications to get your lady to drop her undies on demand, guys, and see how far THAT gets you. You have no more right to demand that she yield to your imperatives than she does to demand you yield to hers.

ﾠ

And that biological stuff is just the base level. Marching up the chakras, you enter the levels where sex and romance are expressions of power, love, human communication, artistic expression, and spirituality. Complicated, no?

ﾠ

A woman told me once, a long time ago, that the difference between male and female sexuality could be described as follows:

ﾠ

Women are like a combination safe. The combination changes every day, and even she doesn't know what the combination is.

ﾠ

Men are like a balloon. You just blow it up until it explodes.

ﾠ

Now, that's obviously an oversimplification, and overlooks the fact that both men and women have male and female aspects...but it contributes to understanding, I think. And if our internal worlds mirror our external relationships, it suggests that there are aspects of our creativity, intellect, and self-discipline which must be "romanced", "seduced" or approached directly. The danger in a relationship is when we assume the other person will find satisfaction in what satisfies US. I suspect that in th relationship between different aspects of our personality, the conscious mind assumes that the best way to service or coax varying guests at our "parts party" is to approach them the way IT wants to be approached, rather than observing and asking questions like:

1) Under what circumstances do I take the best care of my body in terms of diet and exercise? Under which do I take the worst?

2) Under what circumstances do I do my best work? Worst? Under what circumstances do I manage my money the best? Worst?

ﾠ

And so forth. Observing the results, remembering the precursive actions and emotions, and duplicating them to the best of our ability until we figure out our "combination", always remembering that it changes slightly every day.

ﾠ

The Great mariah Moore Knife Auction

Hi, This is Steve's webmaster coming at you here.

Steve asked me to post this and point you at a worthy cause we are working to support.

This last winter, Steve met a young lady named Mariah Moore at the World Eskrima,Kali Arnis Federation National Championships, which were held in Southern California.

Mariah, who took two gold and one silver at the last WEKAF world Championships, fought her way to a place on the American team to represent her country in this years World's in Cebu Philippines.

Here is a promo clip of her showing off her skills just a bit.

.....

.....

Because of the rising price of everything, it has been very difficult for Mariah's family to make it possible for her to get to the tournament on their own, so several people and companies have stepped up to help.

One of the things we are doing is auctioning off a knife donated by Tribal Edge Knifeworks to help with the expenses.


You can find out more about the knife and the auction at the Eskrimadora blog.


We are also giving away a couple of autographed galleys from famous author (and friend of the blog) Steve Perry.

Please take a moment to check out Mariah and her auction. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Steve will say something more about this when he gets a spare moment.

(We will now return control of your computer screen to you)

Namaste

ﾠ

I wanted to start talking about relationships, and maybe the disastrous "Hancock" isn't a distraction from this. Take away the ability to reproduce, or protect and nurture your offspring, and a species dies. The question of building and sustaining a healthy relationship is inextricably connected to either the rules of relationships as learned culturally or in observation of parents, or arises from a deep well of love within you.

ﾠ

Love for self, brimming over until you have love to offer others, is a perfectly good starting place, and from my perspective, the very healthiest. It connects you to your survival drive, both being kind to yourself, and being disciplined enough to push through fatigue and emotional detritus to achieve disciplined excellence. Second Chakra is sexuality. While not everyone wants children, I believe we should not open this Pandora's Box before we are mature and focused enough to create goods and services that can be exchanged with our community LEGALLY to put food on our table and a roof over our heads. This is one of the doorways to adulthood.

ﾠ

A healthy relationship between two adults which includes sexuality should, therefore, be in alignment with the pair bond instinct. Pretty silly to fight against it! Gay or straight, birth control or no, there is no down side to having the most basic aspects in place. And I think that they are:

1) Self-love and love of others.

2) Financial security. More relationships break up over money than sexual infidelity.

3) A body in alignment with your own values: in other words, you would be physically attracted to yourself.

4) Honesty and trustworthiness.

5) Passion for life, which translates into sexual passion, the heat that forges a bond between human beings.

ﾠ

If we have these things, there is the potential for creating a long-lasting connection that would protect the life and security of a child. And if you don't want children? I can't imagine there being a disadvantage to being ABLE to provide security for a child, even if you don't want one.

Everything here is vital to an individual human life. To a partnership. Or the health of a community.

ﾠ

When abortions like "Hancock" come out, it is glaringly obvious (from my perspective) that something has gone very wrong. The consistency with which it "goes wrong" when the films deal with black or Asian males, strengthens my belief that there is a core, essential cause that can be isolated and examined like a pathogen.

ﾠ

This isn't about "are white people racist?" "are men racist?" or "Is America a racist country?" I feel the need to say this over and over again, because I don't want o be misunderstood. It is about the universal human instinct toward tribalism, and the way it manifests in our purchasing patterns.

ﾠ

In a classic science fiction story, "The Screwtape Solution", aliens trigger an atavistic response in human beings so that men kill women. If you disrupt the breeding patterns of a species, you can destroy the species. The aversion to watching mating behavior in members of a group you are in competition with is the unconscious expression of just such a drive, and we must be very careful of it.

ﾠ

What could they have done in Hancock to save it?

1) Cast a Latina. History has proven that casting a Latina opposite a black man offends far less than casting a blonde white woman...or, oddly enough, casting a black woman.

2) Have Theron's character not actually married to the PR guy. Girlfriend, or fiancee, perhaps. People still would have been uncomfortable , but not quite as much.

3) Play their relationship as tragic, but give Hancock a romantic possibility at the end. Like, say, the policewoman he rescued. Have her transfer to New York to be near him at the end, offering a ray of hope rather than the "black man sacrifices so that white folks can have hot sex" thing that made "The Green Mile" one of the vilest films ever made.

##

Enough of that. We want healthy relationships, and want to pursue them in a way that is in alignment with having a healthy body, and a healthy financial life. Starting with passion, health, self-love, empathy, and honesty is great--these are all things that we need whether we are seeking a relationship or not. We need these things to survive and thrive as individuals. It is critical that if we are to grow as a species or society, it starts with individual action. Ultimately, WE are all we can affect. In that way, every hour of every day can be occupied making the entire world a better place. When you love yourself, and love life, it is easy to be kind and loving to others. The sanskrit word "Namaste" means: "The divinity within me perceives and acknowledges the divinity within you." That is a hell of a place to start changing the world: to find God within ourselves, and to learn to see Him (or Her) within every other human being we meet.

ﾠ

Makes sex REALLY interesting as well. Lovemaking as prayer...sign me up.

Hancock (2008)

ﾠ

ﾠ

WARNING: SAMBO ALERT

ﾠ

I'm sorry. I'm not going to sugar coat this, or beat around the bush. This is the most egregious example of what I've been trying to say, the most blantant Sambo movie since "Driving Miss Daisy"--no, it's worse. Will Smith is not Morgan Freeman. Will Smith can do any film he wants, and what he wants is to make successful films. Well, take a look at the critical reviews, and you'll see that he's probably blown it there. He'll have a huge weekend. And then boxoffice will drop like a frozen butterfly. I admire Will greatly, and don't blame him for this--he's just working the system, folks.

ﾠ

In my opinion, not one of the reviewers has put their finger on what went wrong. It's all "it was great for 40 minutes, and then it fell apart..."

ﾠ

No one knows? Really? No one lets themselves know. The truth is too painful, and everyone wants to believe that human beings aren't what they are. And this particular disaster comes out of that. Let me get to the meat of this, and then go on to say why this was one of the most painful, insulting movie-going experiences of my life. Tananarive was crying--THAT'S how bad it was.

##

Hancock is about a superhero (Will Smith) who is an alcoholic bum. A P.R. guy (Jason Bateman) has his life saved, and decides to rehabilitate Hancock's image. Bateman's Wife, (Charlize Theron) doesn't much like the idea.

ﾠ

(SPOILERS GALORE. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK)

ﾠ

Hancock is revealed to be a god-like being, the last of his kind in the world...he thinks. The point at which the movie goes to shit is where Hancock is alone with Therone in the kitchen, and is powerfully attracted to her...and she throws him through a wall. You see, she is also a god, and in fact was his wife eighty years ago (they don't age). When they are near each other, they lose powers.

ﾠ

The fact is, that this is a brilliant set-up for a send-up of the superhero genre, and the first 30-40 minutes ROCKED. Then they ran into a problem we've discussed many, many times:

1) Statistics show that movies in which black men have sex underperform at the box office--badly.

2) Because this smacks of racism, no one will admit it's true...often, even to themselves.

ﾠ

This means that the natural erotic tension between these characters cannot be allowed to develop. It is glaringly, painfully obvious that there were extensive re-shoots and last-minute edits in this film. Smith and Therone refer to a kiss that we never see--which must have been clumsily excised at the last moment.

ﾠ

They also refer to Hancock being beaten eighty years ago in Florida (the South) while walking hand-in-hand with his wife. To raise the specter of the racism that horribly scarred my parent's generation while bowing to it's present-day manifestation is simply vile. So Hancock is doomed to live alone, forever...while Theron can have a husband and child. And we are treated to several tender kissing scenes between her and her husband. So touching.

ﾠ

The fact that she is a blond South African is some kind of sick joke. They cut the kiss from the kitchen, launch into an incoherant action scene, and the movie never, ever recovers. What's missing? The natural rhythm of boy-meets girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets girl.

ﾠ

Know what? There would have been many ways to write this so that they didn't end up together, really. But I doubt that for an instant anyone in the gaggle of writers who must have worked on this EVER looked honestly at the producers and said: "this is our problem. We can't have them end up together. We can't show them making love, or kissing. We can't even play with the erotic tension, because the audience isn't leaning forward in pleasurable anticipation...they're leaning BACK, away from the screen, hoping like hell we won' t show them Will's bare ass pounding away at a blond. What do we do?"

If they were honest, they might have cast, say, a Latina, which would have diminished the color shock, and allowed the relationship to progress more naturally. Then, if they couldn't be together, you have a tragedy. And I could have bought that! Really, I wasn't looking for "Happily Ever After." Just an acknowledgment that I am a god damned human being. Will Smith has to know EXACTLY what's going on. But when Denzel tried to comment on this phenomenon years ago, he was accused of being a bigot. He now shuts up and takes the money. As does Will. And Eddie. And Sam. And everyone else.

ﾠ

Damn it, did she HAVE to be South African? Could they have found a less insulting metaphor? That he needs sacrifice so that the white man can fuck his white wife and have white babies, Hallalujah, Hallalujah?

ﾠ

Can any of you grasp how it feels to have spent my entire LIFE watching this, while people remain asleep and pretend it isn't happening?

ﾠ

ﾠ

For God's sake, please no one hide behind the "It's Hollywood." Yeah, and New York Publishing. And Washington politics. And everywhere else. It's the heartland. Memphis. Florida. It's the whole world of people who can't look at their flaws and shortcomings, the fears that plague us all and the way we try to hide in groups and demonize the "other"--or at the very least believe they are less human than us. It is the human tribal instinct, in all it's ugly glory, alive and well in 2008.

ﾠ

And people wonder why I get pissed when they say that it was to Obama's advantage to be black.

ﾠ

Will Smith is the first star in history to have six 100-million movies in a row. Oh, Hancock will probably be his seventh. But it will be a real disappointment. Read the reviews. All of them will notice that "something" happened. Not one of them will know why. None of them will LET themselves know. Whites don't want to know because it triggers guilt and shame.

And it is, frankly, to their advantage. Want to know one of the advantags of being white? You can be Seth Rogen and be thought sexier than Denzel Washington. Hell, if I was white, I'd pretend not to notice, too. When you're winning, you don't ask if the deck is stacked.

ﾠ

Many blacks don't even have conscious awareness--it triggers fear to feel so alone, outnumbered and outgunned by people who smile in your face, tell you they like you (and mean it) and apparently don't give a living shit that they are entertained my images that emasculate and dehumanize you. And don't for a second think that the psychology that allows a "Hancock" is disconnected from the psychology that allows eight cops to pump a hundred bullets into an unarmed black man. Oops!

ﾠ

As I work in this industry, I've been warned dozens of times not to talk about this publicly--usually by friends who genuinely care, and are worried I'll hurt my career.

ﾠ

But I have a four year old son. I don't want him wishing he had blond hair and blue eyes so he can get the girl. And when he notices that that's the way it is, I want to be able to look him straight in the face and say that I didn't lie, I didn't go to sleep, I did my part to create images of power, and to scream and rave and try to awaken the sleeping crowd. If you wake up, if you notice it, you have to either do something, or admit you don't give a shit. I think most people would care, if they were forced to notice.

ﾠ

This was just one of the worst movie-going experiences of my life. I thought we were further along than this.

ﾠ

If Will Smith can't get laid, Obama can't get elected.

ﾠ

John McCain should take heart. While I doubt he WANTS the world to be this way, I'm sure he'd be happy to reap the benefits in November.

ﾠ

My rating?

For sleeping white people, a "C+." For anyone awake, an "F."

New 007 Trailer up!

ﾠ

Aintitcoolnews has a link to the new James Bond trailer. Yow! They've definitely learned from Bourne, but that's only fair, considering that Bourne built on the Bond mythology and might almost be considered a specific reaction to it. Hell, even stole 007s initials...as did Jack Bauer. Anyway, the bond movies have lasted 40 years by adjusting to the times, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE seems to be doing this brilliantly. Can't wait. Hey, Dan! Another theater party?

#

We've got until 4pm tonight to get IN THE NIGHT OF THE HEAT back to the publisher, so today's entry is mighty short. Tananarive is in the dining room doing her run-through checking dates. I cannot even tell you how comforting it is to have someone to watch my back like this. I might even say it's the most important thing in a relationship designed to last.

ﾠ

Recently, I had a conversation with one of the ladies I knew from the Quodoshka native American spiritual sexuality workshops. Trust me, she knows how to bring the heat, but has reached a point in her life where she wants something lasting and real. A partnership. "Someone to watch her back, and trust her to watch his." The similarity of our thinking struck me. I want to talk about relationships in the 101-Day program (note how that number just shifted? A suggestion from Mushtaq) and wanted to open the door to such speaking. We've all had bad relationships. Hopefully, we've all had good ones, as well. I have my opinions on what bonds one human being to another, and what breaks those bonds. I have a question for you guys: what was the foundation of the BEST relationship you ever had? And what was the basis of the WORST?

ﾠ

Is it at all possible to predict which will be which in advance?