Fire with Fire

It looks as if Obama is doing the same thing to McCain now that he did to Clinton in the Primaries. The popular vote is tightening a bit...but look at the electoral map. He has steadily been creating a stable and ever-growing lead. Will it hold? At this point McCain has a steeper hill to climb (according to some pundits) than any candidate in modern history. I can't help but think that we're seeing is a genuine change in the American political landscape.

There have to be many, many solid reasons for a reasonable person to vote against Obama, or vote Republican. But there is a lot of fuzzy thinking going on as well--or, at least, thinking I consider fuzzy. Clustered over on the Conservative side are not only millions of solid, intelligent citizens, but also a substantial number of people who believe

1) Obama is a Muslim

2) Ally Oop rode dinosaurs.

3) Gay people are evil, sick, or sinful.

4) Think black people are less than white people

It is reasonable that those of us who don't believe any of these four things wonder what Barack's lead would be if you subtracted these groups. Jeeze, I'm sure that Conservatives look at some of the stuff believed on the Left and shake their heads...for their sake, I hope it looks just as whacky to them.

In terms of the issues at stake in this election, one of the huge ones is Universal Health Care. I've talked with dozens of people from around the world on this issue, and some are enthusiastic about their country's system, others talk about it as if it's the Post Office. But I literally, LITERALLY, know people contemplating suicide because, after a lifetime of work, they are now sick and broken, and fatigued unto death from trying to navigate the system. UHC just doesn't seem to be a disaster, and I strongly suspect that in a generation we'll consider it as much of the Commons as Universal Education. Now, there are certainly people who (rightly) criticise our education system, but odd how rarely it is spoken that almost every system pointed out as superior to ours is...tax-based, public education. It seems to me that the wrong lessons are being learned. It isn't necessarily that we need to change to charter schools (although if that helped create a competitive environment for teachers, I might be in favor of it) but that we aren't modeling success properly.

It urks me when I see people criticise Unions, when they speak as if management can be trusted by union organizers can't. This, to me, is just blindness. They're the same people, arguing on different sides of the table. And if you weaken one, the other will take all the chips. I've been in career situations where I've earned much more than the union demanded, and therefore didn't need them at all. And others where management would have screwed me right into the ground without those union rules. People are just people. A BIG percentage of 'em will take everything that isn't nailed down, and justify it rationally and sincerely as if they are entitled to it.

Those who believe (reasonably) that there are some with greater capacity than others almost always assume they are part of that group, and it seems to me also share an underlying belief that not only is their group smarter, but also "better" morally and ethically. I've seen this in every race, gender, sexual orientation, and political persuasion. Mike Malloy is just as vile and insulting as Micheal Savage--only in the other direction. Gays rag on straights, and women are just as convinced of their superiority as men are. Blacks criticise whites for racism, while making racist assumptions of their own.

I try very hard to keep out of those arguments, considering them games for the sleeping children. When you can hold your position, and love yourself, without automatically thinking less of those who hold differing opinions...you have made a leap.

##

Regarding Obama's relatives. For a politician as astute as Obama to refuse to help a relative would be a staggering omission--assuming that he didn't give a shit about her, he should still maintain the APPEARANCE of generosity, right? That said, it might be an omission, and evidence of some lack or flaw on his part.

ﾠ

But on the other hand...there isn't a rich person in the world without poor relatives, and that is regardless of the level of that wealthy person's generosity. We simply don't know the factors here, but I can think of one, quite easily:

ﾠ

Ever tried to get an elderly relative to move from a bad neighborhood? If you haven't, and haven't heard the degree to which they cling to friends, and familiar routines, and wish to assert independence, and so forth...frustrating as hell. I remember a relative of mine who wrote a script entitled "The Ghetto...it's Hell, but I won't leave it" (honest!) that speaks to this.

ﾠ

We don't know. And without information, the assumptions we make will, I suspect, do no more than express our pre-existing beliefs. I can think of both negative, neutral, and positive reasons for his aunt to be living where she does. If you can't, you may want to wonder why.

##

ﾠ
"I just saw someone say that he'd said that Obama needed to fight fire with fire, and now he realizes that the high road was better.

And I just posted this video, which has quite a bit about how to get a good open source group by protecting where the group's attention goes. This includes avoiding fights while not avoiding useful feedback.

So, I'm wondering what virtues are needed in addition to distaste for conflict. I note that "ignore them and they'll go away" is frequently just not good enough, as was shown by Kerry and the Swift Boat problem.

So, does it take courage? Intelligence? Specific knowledge about how to deal with people? Something else?"

ﾠ

The ability to kill. Frankly, the deadliest people I know are best at turning the other cheek. If you run from a fight because you can't win, that is quantitatively and quantitatively different from walking away because you are afraid. I read an interview with Obama's Tae Kwon Do instructor, who said that O's defensive footwork was "incredible." In order to have a good defence, you MUST be able to hurt your opponent. If he has no need to fear you, he will simply wade in and take you apart.

So...understand human weakness, and your potential attack lines. I've told the story about being mugged in Oakland, and talking the guy down. What made it work is that I was thinking about crushing his larynx the entire time. Clear visualization in my mind. If he'd made the wrong choice, I was going to try my very best to kill him. He chose peace.

ﾠ

If Obama wins, part of the reason is that he forced his opponents to play HIS game, fight HIS fight, dance to his rhythm. So long as you can do that, the old attacks just don't work as well. Functionally, McCain was playing checkers, and Obama was playing chess. Of course, if he loses, I'm gonna look pretty dumb saying that, but who cares?

How many perfect days do we get?

Never seen so much mail-in balloting. I wonder what influence it will have on the election, with Republicans screaming "Acorn" and Democrats screaming "Dibold" and both sides convinced that other is out of their #@$%% mind.

#

The "Golden Hour" concept assumes that you are one busy person, and that at the very best, one hour a day (more or less) might be all you get. What must be created, then, is a ritual which, if you continue to perform it, will get you where you want to go. Mine includes:

1) Triangle meditation: visualizing the end point of my three major goals, combined with heartbeat meditation. Clarifies where I'm going, and what I need to do today.

2) Five Tibetans. Ten minutes. Five movements. All basic flexions and contractions.

3) 3-5 pages on a project. Right now, it's the new Dream Park.

4) Intense exercise. Kettlebell H2H circuits (grueling, as well as wicked fun), SHOT, or yoga.

5) Connect with my family. Check in with Nicki, Jason, Tananarive.

##

I can do all of these things in ABOUT an hour and a half:

(meditate: 10 minutes

Tibetans 10 minutes

3-5 pages 30 minutes

H2H 10 minutes

Read Shakespeare aloud--10 minutes

Brief check-in 15 minutes

##

Now, by any standard, I'd like to have more time than this for the people and things closest to my heart. But if I am busy all day long, but have done these things, I'm still on-track. I won't look up months later and realize I've completely gone off the rails. In a perfect day? An hour with each member of my family, four hours of writing, an hour of exercise, an hour of reading.

But how many perfect days do we get?

##

I simply don't believe slavery would have ended without force. MAYBE it would have ended, in time, without the need of a war. That I can admit as possible. But how could anyone think it would have 'just ended" on its own when it still exists today?

ﾠ

Perhaps wide-spread agriculturally-based slavery would have ended as technology made it less efficient. But domestic servants? Sexual slavery? You find them in every big city in America. The "Company Store" phenomenon, where companies try to keep workers indebted to them, sometimes passing the debt from one generation to another? The fact that wars, and major social movements, and economic sanctions have been necessary to root out this moral rot is sufficient indicator to me that the idea that slavery would just have "ended" is wishful thinking. Larger and larger segments of society would have disapproved. Slave holders would have become borderline outcasts. But power does not concede control without a fight. People believe the mythologies they invent to justify their horrors. And something like 10% of the population are just mean, nasty people. I believe that as a culture matures morally, they begin to slough off their ugly habits, but again, without force, how do you keep the mean folks from keeping slaves because they want to? Because they like control, or have an economic model that makes it profitable, or like sexual access to women who can't say "no?"

ﾠ

And how about the people who are afraid of payback? If you screw over millions of people, don't tell ME you don't worry what will happen if you lose control

ﾠ

What happens if it's State's Rights? Wouldn't you just be inviting slave-holders to migrate to states where it remains legal? Or counties? If human beings didn't need the SPCA, and Child Welfare, and Women's Shelters, and many, many other agencies that relate to the way we can be cruel to each other, I might believe it "would have withered."

ﾠ

But despite law enforcement, and wars, and massive international disapproval, slavery exists to this day. Those who produce economic models demonstrating that it was no longer profitable are, I think, in denial about the uglier aspects of human nature, or trying to elevate their ancestors to a pedestal. Remember: these same people who supposedly would have ALL seen the error of their ways were willing to turn a blind eye to rape, murder, torture, and unjustified captivity, as well as theft of a billion man-years of life. I'm willing to consider all of this the cost of business of being human--stuff that creeps out of the psychic cellar if we're not careful.

ﾠ

But I've seen too much human venom to think that, without force, slavery would simply have "died." There were too many factors beyond simple economics at play here.

ﾠ

ﾠ

A wry smile and a belly laugh

Someone posted this under the heading: "Why Obama will win." Funny, and telling.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Confederate_battle_flag_Obama_yard_sign.html#comments

ﾠ##

And my favorite video of the election thus far, the "Dance Off" between Obama and McCain, with a surprise visitor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyT9-9lUyE

##

The Confederate flag thing is so fascinating, and says so much about the complexity that is America. No, I don't believe that the "Southern Cross" is completely separate from the racist ideology driving the Confederation. But there is some truth to the idea that many embrace it as an expression of cultural heritage. Considering that I've known hundreds of black people from the south, and not ONE of them had a Confederate flag suggests that this is a racial cultural heritage.

I remember talking at Worldcon with a writer I've known for years who is publishing a series based on the Civil War. And he tried to convince me that slavery would have ended within ten years regardless of whether there was a war or not. And that therefore, the Civil War shouldn't have happened--all those lives saved.

I smiled at him. Let me see: millions of black people should be falsely incarcerated for a decade, tortured, raped, murdered, and worked to death, to save a bunch of white people from dying (yes, sure there were black soldiers...and my guess is that every one of them would have wanted those slaves freed NOW, not in ten years). My answer: no. If you don't care about a decade of torment (and that's the best case scenario, assuming Southerners are, frankly better than human beings really are. Slavery is profitable, and a useful social convention--that's why it has to be outlawed. It doesn't always just wither away by itself.)

I mean, I don't hold slavery against the South, or white people, but I reserve the right to chuckle at vast and violent battlefield scenes in Civil War movies. About as close to Reparations as I'm ever gonna get. I take my entertainment where I can find it.

After the ball is over...

ﾠAfter this election is all over, it will be interesting to see what an impartial analysis can reveal about the relative negativity of the campaigns. My guess is that the candidates should get 10 points for each negative comment. V.P candidates maybe get a 5. Close surrogates a "3" or something. Total them up. The interesting thing is that somehow Obama put McCain in the position where trying to "Swift Boat" him only hurt the Arizona Senator worse. That probably happened as a result of a series of very careful strategies to evoke the public's "better angels," linked to a very deep desire for change. In that sense, being black helped him, because he represents change on such a deep subconscious level (especially visually) that to a huge chunk of the American public there has simply never been a choice as stark. I start to believe that Powell might have been able to be elected twelve or sixteen years ago (a black Republican-Conservative is a unique paradox for racists. If they don't wanna vote for Powell, where do they go?)

ﾠIf that's true, (except for that pesky assassination thingie) then there has been potential energy building in the American hindbrain for half a generation--the desire to see a non-white in the office. I mean, either you assume non-whites ain't got it, or you look at the exclusive club that the White House and Senate represent, and it looks bad to the world...and we care about our image.

ﾠCompare this to Halle Berry winning the Oscar for "Monster's Ball." I mean, she was good and all, but I think the Academy was LOOKING for someone black to give that award to. We'll not discuss the implications of Berry winning her Oscar for whoring herself to Billy Bob Thornton, while Denzel got his for being a murderous criminal who dies like a dog in the street. Ooops, we just did. Sorry.

But the people who whispered that Berry got the Oscar because she was black were right...but wrong if they think that being black is an advantage in Hollywood. It's been a serious disadvantage, but those who have survived the winnowing will find they have certain advantages over those who never went through such a selection funnel.

On a far larger canvas, something similar is happening with Obama. From my POV he is WAY smarter than most candidates, has run an almost perfect campaign, sufficiently good to make both the Clinton and McCain campaigns look quite bad in comparison, comparable to a Superbowl team making a lesser team fumble all over the field.

His skin color...as well as his name and his father's religion made his candidacy incredibly unlikely. But when people talk about black (or white) people voting for him "because of color" they are dancing around the edge of a truth without putting their foot right in it. Alan Combes, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are all black, and don't trigger a response anywhere near that of Powell or Obama. My belief is that they simply aren't on the same level...and EVERYONE knows it. That it wasn't "just" the skin color, but the recognition of what a large percentage of the voting population considers a freak good politician and a sublime social theorist (his speech on race was arguably the best public discourse I've heard on the subject EVER.) People inclined to vote for him were and are definitely jazzed by the fact that they get a "twofer": a President they believe will be excellent, AND a chance to express their racial politics. But if they didn't consider him exceptional, they wouldn't have gone that way.

I've heard LOTS of black people talking about black politicians, and trust me, they don't talk about Obama the same way. They are just giddy that this guy is "one of ours" but I think that if he were white, he'd get almost the same percentage of their vote.

How good will he be if he's elected? My guess is considerably better than average. But the incredible thing is that it looks as if we're actually going to find out.

What an interesting ride this has been. Looks like I chose the right election to start paying attention. I'll let that part of my head go back to sleep I suspect...except to keep one eye open to see what happens when a high-functioning and (apparently) balanced human being reaches high office.

By the way--Bush seems to be decently balanced in the three major arenas. The problem is that he didn't have to work for the power he inherited. That's the problem with inherited wealth: the average person who EARNS a million is probably smarter than the average person who INHERITS the same amount. For those who want to argue with that, please try to grasp the difference between having a father who is a former President and head of the CIA and head of a dynastic fortune...and having a father who was a rural Kenyan. Bush was standing on the shoulders of a giant, Obama standing in the deepest hole any candidate for President ever dreamed of. No comparison at all.

#

"Lifewriting" has apparently been voted one of the 10 best free writing courses online...in the world. I get sign-ups from India and China and it's just strange. I guess some things are universal, and I'm humbled to be part of the process of knitting this world more tightly together. That is exactly the gift I want to give my children. Well, one of 'em, anyway.

#

The 101 Program hits snags in the desire to create the best and most attractive deal possible for paying customers, but I want to get the basic beta going as fast as possible. My web guy had a very serious eye operation recently, (and I've been swamped on "Hannibal") which was gloriously successful, so hopefully we'll be running soon.

##

Here's another bet: within the next year, some black actor is getting laid in a movie that breaks 100 million. I'm reading comments on various blogs and magazine articles praising the obvious and powerful attraction Barack and Michelle feel for each other. People are getting all teary-eyed over it, in a way I've never seen before. This is DIFFERENT. Somehow, some little switch has been thrown, and people are empathizing with this man's humanity in a way that I've never seen...with the possible exception of Bill Cosby.

ﾠ

You know? Fictional images matter. If I didn't think that was true, I'd find a different profession.

"None of us is as smart as all of us."

ﾠﾠTrue or false? I'll look at that in a minute. First, Frank asked me where I got the idea that the upper-levels of Hollywood were less liberal than lower down. That's not an exquisite rephrasing, so please pardon me--I'm not trying to play games, it's just first thing in the morning.

I claim no scientific data. From the time of my first involvement in Hollywood more than forty years ago that the office workers in this town were about the same as office workers in any other job I'd had--if maybe a hair giddier about working in "the industry." But on issues like Civil Rights, marijuana, the Vietnam war, etc.--not much difference. As I got to know executives at higher levels at CBS, Universal, and so forth, it seemed to me that the artists and the management were two different groups when it came to their politics, with the actors, writers and directors shading much more to the "Left" and the higher-ups seeming to become more Right on a number of issues. Now, those executives seemed to me to be slightly less "Right" than executives with comparable power in other industries...but this is all impression. Listening to political conversations, having those conversations, looking at bumper stickers and political buttons, etc.

ﾠMy former agent, was a Conservative Republican (and an extraordinarily good guy) and sometimes bemoaned the dominance of Liberal POV in Hollywood, especially after 9/11, when he was afraid that many of his liberal friends "just didn't get it" about the danger of radical Islam. we had conversations in which he spoke of his perspective, and it was fairly similar to my own.

ﾠALL of this is subjective, but wherever I've gone in America, artists lean Left. And those entrenched in large organizations seem to lean Right more than average. Actors and writers tend to value their union--most of them, even successful ones, are middle-class IF THEY'RE LUCKY, and are very familiar with studios screwing artists over if they can--that for all but a few, the power of collective bargaining means the difference between getting totally screwed by the studios, and having a decent living. That definitely skews them to the Left. During those same strike deliberations, the execs are defending a very different perspective, and that would SEEM to put them on the road to leaning Right.

ﾠThese impressions have never really changed over the decades, but again, I could be wrong.

#

"None of us is as smart as all of us." Well, yes. Bobby Fischer would be a better choice to play chess than a hundred members of the local chess club. So I see that point. However, it has to be balanced with the opposite perspective: smart people are usually just exactly smart enough to screw themselves up, especially if they have so much faith in their intelligence that they think it can solve all their problems, or give them a more profoundly accurate vision of reality. Need I mention how Bobby Fischer ended up in life? Chess is an artificial game--it is not reality. When it comes to navigating the waters of our actual reality, I would look at what the very smartest people say...and then look at what the consensus of the "average" says...and then, usually, do what both sets agree upon.

If there is a radical thought coming from some genius somewhere, I would want to test it small-scale in the real world first. I'd also like to take a look at the "genius" and try to get some sense of whether that genius is actually calibrated for the real world, and not just an elaborate hallucination that he is able to dance around and, on the basis of brilliance, convince others that they should try it. I'm not a real "A priori" kind of guy when it comes right down to it.

ﾠSo I think that there are people who legitimately believe it is better for everyone if those at the top get the largest breaks. And others who just want to hold onto as much of the goodies as possibles, but couch that greed in the language of "trickle-down." I don't know what the percentage is one way or the other, but I think that greed and dishonesty are pretty evenly distributed between groups. And if you give them an inch, they'll take seven hundred billion dollars. But then, there is also a force that would like to give all power to the government. Some feel that they will BE that government, and want the power. Others that they want a "Nanny State." But I've met very very few people who really want to be taken care of completely--at least between the ages of say 20 and 60. So the problem to me is, how do you cancel out the worst at both ends? Money is the greatest corrupting force in the world, I think, because it is power that is more liquid than any other kind. Education, political office, intelligence, military rank...none of these things can be passed to your children as easily as money. None can be used as secret bribes as easily. None increase even when hiding in the dark of a bank vault.

ﾠSo I look at the temptation to grab a fistful of money as more immediate and poisonous than the urge to ascend to public office and be Kingfish. So I think we need a bit more political power pulling at private industry than we need the idea of unregulated free market. You just aren't taking human greed into sufficient account.

ﾠGreed and fear...we want to develop a system that takes both of them into account--as well as honesty, courage, sacrifice, and wisdom.

Rising Complexity

ﾠ

ﾠ

A thought on economics. Don't know much. But certain things make sense to me, mapping knowledge over from other arenas.

ﾠ

In yogic discussions of the raising of "intrinsic human energy" or "Kundalini", one looks at the chakras, ranging from core survival up to emotion and eventually to intellect and spirit. The goal is to have this energy alive in all seven "chakras" simultaneously. "Awakening the kundalini" its called. Now they say some thing that is of interest in terms of economic theory. It is that you can awaken the kundalini from the bottom up, or from the heart outward, but NEVER from the top town. This is called "Awakening the Kundalini backwards" and is basically the door to insanity and black magic.

ﾠ

I perform a thought experiment: can you have a healthy, happy working class without a healthy middle class and upper class? It would seem to me that, given the differential in values, capacity, and inherited wealth, that if the lower classes are healthy, there will always be an even more prosperous "middle" and "top."

ﾠ

How about middle class? If you have a healthy and prosperous middle class, you have an attainable ladder for the lower classes--a target within reach, so to speak. And upper class? Well, a bell curve handles that. Of COURSE there will be those considered rich, and in essence the middle class provides a safety net for them: if their fortunes collapse, they don't fall through the bottom of the world.

ﾠ

How about upper class? Would it be possible to have a healthy and prosperous wealthy class, without a healthy middle class and working class? Unfortunately, I think the answer is "yes." It would be completely possible to find a society in such a position: rich people who think life is great, and grinding poverty at the bottom. And this is where I feel "Trickle Down Economics" ultimately sounds great, but is the expression of a theory of humanity that applies the Parado Principle to say that 20% of people create 80% of the value. If you believe that, then the idea of giving those at the top every benefit of the doubt, every advantage, and total social support makes sense.

ﾠ

Of course, hidden within this group will be those who believe it's more like 10-90. Or 5%-95%. And those are some pretty poisonous people. It would also be poisonous to believe that all good in society comes up from the bottom.

ﾠ

I think that the healthiest, safest approach would be to protect and nurture the middle class, while providing a safety net for those at the bottom, and opportunities for the best and brightest to get rich. But the idea that if you raise taxes people stop working only applies to those who work primarily for money. That is some people, but hardly all. Most of the wealthiest people I know will at least SAY that it isn't money...its the game of seeing how good they can get, what percentage of the market they can dominate, how much they can contribute...expressing themselves in an art form that happens to be financial instead of virgin marble or something.

ﾠ

That makes sense to me. The difficulty is setting the proper tension between greedy people at the bottom, and greedy people at the top. Those of good will will work things out just fine, I think.

#

Really enjoying the "Big History" course from the Teaching Company. Just gotten to the creation of life on earth. The organizing structure is the increasing complexity of the universe: from pre "Big Bang" to Nebulae, to stars, to planets...at each step, we are becoming more complex. Then a chemical soup, and then the first life forms.... I love the idea that a yeast cell and a 747 have a roughly equivilent level of complexity.

ﾠ

Can't wait to watch Dr. Christian apply the same structure to human society. This may turn out to be the absolutely perfect course to give an aspiring SF writer.

Why are artists so liberal?

Beyond a doubt, most of the actors in Hollywood lean liberal. In fact, I suspect that most artists, anywhere, lean to the left. Since "Hollywood" the industry is composed of film, television, and music, the business of Hollywood is maintaining a flow between artists and marketplace. So, more than probably any other industry or town, it is concerned with the artistic temperament. New York has fabulous theater, publishing, and a healthy television industry, but is primarily the economic center of America.

Even though actors are merely a fraction of the production crew of any film or television show, many of the people behind the scenes: craft services, writers, directors, prop and costuming...are also artistic types. Above them you get MBA types (producers, execs, etc.) and above those you have the people running the multi-national conglomerates buying up everything in sight. I'd say the actors lean way left, and the business types calling the shots lean right.

Personally, I think that the hunger for cash on the part of the congloms overrides everything. But the actors are the only people most folks know. They're the ones who go on the talk shows and so forth, and they certainly drive public opinion of what "Hollywood" is like. The question of why so few Right-leaning actors/directors are willing to put up their own money to produce a pro-Iraq movie (actors DO use their own money. Mighty rarely, but remember "Passion of the Christ"? Mel Gibson made about half a billion dollars on that one.) I know of no profitable film that Hollywood hasn't tried to duplicate. Nature of the beast.

People who think that such a film would be profitable but are not interested in betting their own money on it...well, that's interesting. Don't know quite what to say about that. Clint Eastwood can make any damned movie he wants. I doubt VERY seriously that he worries that "people won't want to work with him anymore." Maybe they don't think there is profit in it, and aren't willing to take the loss? Clustered production deals would raise the money--but then if the film bombed, you've lost clout and gained nothing.

I'm really not sure what's going on there...

But the question is: why do artists lean left? I think that you have to start with basic definitions of "Right" and "Left." Needless to say, if you let either side define the other, the results wouldn't be pretty. As I probably lean Left at this point in my life, I can't claim to be above this. But I'll try, by defining "Conservative" as looking backwards to the strength of proven past performance, and "Liberal" as looking forward to the possibility of a shining future.

Unfortunately, we have to live in the Present, not the past or future, so anyone who is too attached to either is, from my point of view, missing the point. If we accept this definition (and hopefully, it is equally supportive and denigrating of either side) then artists would seem to be those who are trying to take current reality apart to create something new. Actors, writers, directors, etc.--they thrive on the image that has not been seen before, the new combination of emotions, and so forth. Quite commonly, executives complain that the artists are naive children, while the artists complain that the executives are brainless Nazis. Sound familiar?

The only problem, as far as I'm concerned, is between the people on either end who don't get the joke, and think that their end is superior. Each then accuses the other of the exact same crap that THEIR side does when upset. A perfect example: take a look at the Primaries. Clinton's supporters were no more "Conservative" than Obamas, but as they began to get desperate, their attacks sounded just like the Republicans. The PUMA sites are just pitiful, venom and yearning mingled into a truly toxic brew. I wish them healing. I mean, these women are suggesting that Obama is flying home to Florida to POISON his grandmother, because she can verify that he wasn't born in the U.S.

Good Lord.

Each side accuses the other of stealing elections, of playing dirty, of harboring bigots, of being disloyal to the American dream, of not caring about the poor, and so forth. Each side produces its statistics and experts to try to "prove" these charges.

Could you have an artist class that was MORE conservative than the general population? Possibly, if, for instance, there was a major artistic movement that proclaimed that some period in the past produced the superior art, so that everything was measured by what has come before. I'm sure it's happened in the past, and will again.

And will we ever have a time when the blue-collar workers, executives and CEOs are, on average MORE liberal than the average American? I really don't know. It would take a better political theorist than I am to figure out how that might fit together.

What I do know is that, should Obama win, he's really got his job cut out from him in terms of bringing the country together. I'm pulling for him. I grasp the tight-rope he's had to walk his whole life, and that if he didn't learn to care for both sides, he would be torn apart emotionally. He may be uniquely suited to bring America back together after seasons of damn-near civil war.

Or not. We'll see.

The "Goldfinger" Defense

ﾠ

ﾠ

One of my favorite expressions comes from a James Bond novel, "Goldfinger." It goes: "Goldfinger said: "my friends in Chicago have a saying, Mr. Bond. Once is Happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time, it's enemy action."

ﾠ

I kinda feel that this applies to my reaction about Colin Powell. There is no doubt that he shamed himself in the whole WMD thing. But the REASON his presentation to the U.N. worked is because people trusted him so much--in other words, no matter what you think of him, he hadn't had a pattern of lying up until that point. I believe that it is possible to make a case for Powell being misled and coerced. That he was, in effect, a Good Soldier doing what his Commander In Chief told him. Easy to imagine Bush saying "I've got sources of information I can't even discuss with you. You have to trust me on this one, Colin. Your Commander is asking you to go out and protect the American people."

ﾠ

Some such scenario makes sense to me, absent a pattern of prevarication on other issues. I consider it "happenstance" instead of "enemy action." So I was thrilled to hear his endorsement of Obama, and sat back to see who would leap to a racial conclusion first. Proving, in my mind, that that person has racial problems.

ﾠ

Does race influence my support of Obama? Sure. But if I thought his opponent was 1% better, it wouldn't. If Obama was white, I'd still vote for him. And if he'd been white, given the same approximate birth circumstances, his history would have been different, but he'd still be thought of as a wunderkind. And the election wouldn't even be close.

ﾠ

ﾠAnd I'd bet anything that the tolerance is a hell of a lot tighter for Powell: maybe .1%? Because it is possible to take the position that even if everything else looked even, the social power of electing a non-white President is difficult even to convey. But black people didn't flock to Obama because of his race: they didn't flock to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes. Nor did Powell endorse one of them. Blacks flocked to Obama because he inspired them--spoke to them in a language they could understand, and was sufficiently brilliant that they began to hope that he might not only win, but actually be a fine president (not embarrassing us, if you understand what I mean.) Remember that initially Hillary Clinton got more of the black vote.

ﾠ

So when people say "It was race" about Powell, in my mind, all they're really saying is: "Race is the most important thing to me--it MUST be the most important thing to these black people. And Powell is a traitor for turning his back on the White Man who put him where he is."

ﾠ

Listen to Limbaugh and the like, and notice just how little it took for Powell to turn into a nigger.

ﾠ

Oh, I'm sure much of this is unconscious. But if the flock of white officials, editors, pundits and voters who vote for Obama can do that on the basis of his intellectual and leadership qualities, why not Powell? Or are they saying that EVERYONE is voting for Obama because of race? I kind of suspect that there is a touch of that, and that, again, it is racism so tightly wrapped that it simply is considered the status quo. All my life, I've heard (some) white people saying such things about ANY black man running for office, getting jobs, whatever: "there was a more qualified white man. Blacks just vote for their own, and all these whites are nigger-lovers."

ﾠ

There is something sadly satisfying about watching the Republicans flinch as the flat rocks flip over, and the ugliness comes crawling out: bear cubs (!) murdered in effigy, exhortations to murder, accusations of traitorous behavior, claims of Manchurian Candidate-hood, claims of "palling around" with terrorists (sounds like they went fishing every Saturday morning, doesn't it?), calling a Harvard scholar a "street" person, and on and on.

ﾠ

"I just don't know who Obama is!" some white folks bleat. What a crock. Can you tell me where McCain went to elementary school? Where his father was from? How many of you know his middle name? How many Americans do you think could answer those three questions off the cuff?

ﾠ

The media crawled up Obama's ass with a microscope, and people still make this absurd comment. I know coded language when I hear it.

ﾠ

There are many, many good reasons a Conservative (or even a liberal) might not want to vote for Obama. But I am frankly hearing a level of vitriol that I just don't remember.

ﾠ

This thing could cause REAL damage to the Republican party, and I don't want that. I believe that two healthy parties (maybe more) are vital to this country. But the same people who crowed over that 33% rate of negative racial attitudes among Liberals have no comment at all about the fact that that number would have to be about 47% among Conservatives. And without looking at that, and the way homophobia has been stoked on the Right, and asking the hard, hard questions about how human bigotry is so intractable...and why so much of it is collected in the Republican Party...you can't fix the problem.

ﾠ

You CAN'T. And if you stay in denial about it, then the very worst aspects of your party and ideology are going to take over, and it won't be pretty to watch. If you look at the lack of minorities in the Republican party (aren't you embarrassed by the rallies, even a little?) and basically take the position regarding lack of brown faces on the Right: "Oh! It's because minorities are too stupid and brainwashed to know what is good for them" (which, basically, in one form or another is the ONLY answer I ever heard for this phenomenon from Republicans) then in order to protect a perfectly sane and intelligent set of beliefs about how a society should be governed, taxes should be gathered, and morals maintained (note I said sane and intelligent--I didn't say I agreed)--you are allowing yourself a MASSIVE blind spot. Massive. And it's warping your reality maps.

ﾠ

I am quite, quite certain there are equal problems on the Left. Probably, they have to do with moral and cultural relativism taken to the point of cultural suicide. But as I see the shape of how this is shaking out, I felt a real need to try to speak honestly to my Conservative brothers and sisters out there. If you react to this with denial, or finger-pointing, you've missed the point. At no time have I suggested that Liberality is better--although I think that for the next eight years it is more appropriate, in the sense of balancing the scales. If you just try pointing out all that is wrong with the Democrats, you are pointing at my runny nose while your cancer runs wild.

ﾠ

Someone is going to have to wake up, and notice that you can't just "ignore" race (it cracks me up when people say: "I don't see race." Right. And I don't see gender. Or hair color. Trust me: if you don't consciously see it, your hind-brain does. And all that is necessary for racism to flourish, is for us to consciously pretend that it doesn't exist. The bigots of the world are just drooling for us to stop paying attention. Trust me. ) they your party will begin to implode. And that won't be good for anyone.

Patch, Patch, Patch

What an interesting world it must be from Rush's POV. On Friday, he's accusing the Democrats of making everything about race. On Sunday, Colin Powell endorses Obama, and the first thing out of Rush's mouth is to say the endorsement was just about race. Right. Ahh...then why not Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or even Alan Keyes?

ﾠ

Then George Will and others said the same thing. Including that thing about race being an advantage. My honest, polite assessment: you can't believe that Race is an advantage to Obama without holding at least an unconscious belief that blacks are somehow inferior to whites, on average. Yes, that's exactly what I think.

ﾠ

I can see many, many reasons someone might not want to vote for Obama, reasons that are intelligent, honorable, reasonable. But I also know that bigots, and those holding negative feelings toward black people are looking for reasons not to vote for him, and that my antenna should twitch at LEAST 33% of the time.

ﾠ

ﾠPowell's comments:

1) "I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim."

2) "I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists."

3) "John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions."

##

I note the "nondiscriminatory" comment, and will take it at face value. O.K.--whatever problems McCain has with Obama, I will not consider race one of them.

##

Now, you can discount this, and I'm sure many of you will. Or you can grant it, keep your political and economic beliefs, but still take a stand against the bigotry and ignorance in your own party. If enough of you do, you have a chance of attracting more of the black vote. As long as you stay in denial about this, you don't have a prayer.

ﾠ

Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help out here.

##

I look at most exercise as generating energy, but yoga seems to unlock it and make that energy available. It is also important to note that exercise will mis-align your body in selective ways: it is trying to upgrade you to being a higher-output machine. But if you don't realign your body, especially your joints, tendons, and skeletal structure, you will accumulate micro-trauma wear and tear, and your body falls apart sooner. Tai Chi, yoga, Pilates, and other disciplines have much to offer in this regard. The Five Tibetans is very very good for the time expended, but I DO notice that if I do the Tibetans without other yoga, when I return to the yoga my joints "pop" a bit, and I can feel some muscle imbalances.

ﾠ

What's that line from "10"? "After 40, it's all patch, patch, patch..."

"W" (2008)

ﾠ

ﾠ

I think I know why there haven't been movies supporting the Iraq War: it was the WMDs. The initial reason for going there was about 80% WMD, and if they'd been found, then a movie could be made that was supportive and congratulatory. But their absence is a HUGE embarrassment. No one who supported the idea is going to be happy about talking about it in a film. Now...if we "win" and withdraw "victorious" then there's a happy ending. WW2 films were made while we were still in the war, yes, but there was full expectation that "The Yanks" were going to kick ass, and the notion that we were teh good guys there was totally undisputed.

ﾠ

Suggesting that "Hollywood" won't let such films happen betrays a lack of understanding about how movies get made and distributed. A 10-million budget film could be put together with Stallone, Eastwood, and Willis' pocket change, let alone the production deals each of them have. If one of them starred, it would get SOME distribution, even if only the kind of distrib deal given to ego projects. If there was then a positive audience response, Hollywood, being the whores they are, would make more.

ﾠ

The only question to ask yourself is, why won't Conservative actors put their fortunes and careers on the line for their beliefs like Liberal ones? They have the motive, means, and opportunity...and don't do it. Vanity projects get made all the time. Why not one about Iraq? My suspicion: as badly as anti-Iraq films do at the box office, pro-Iraq film would do even worse. There is simply nothing much entertaining about this. It isn't a "good war" in most people's minds, costing more in lives, time, and treasure than we were told. We're kept away from the body bags and funerals, and the Iraqi fatality total is something the media would put front and center, 24/7, if "they" were really that Left-leaning.

ﾠ

I don't believe that Righties are moral cowards. Why they don't pool their funds and make a film, if that's what they really believe, is beyond me. But money talks in this town...make no mistake. I think that's the closest thing you can come to truth about it.

##

Saw "W." yesterday. It is hardly a masterpiece, but it is certainly Oliver Stone. It doesn't demonize him, and it's portrait of his father suggests that Bush Sr. is a genuinely Presidential man. But I watched some people walking out of the theater, and I don't think they were going to the snack bar. It clearly takes the position that Bush was not qualified for the job, and made mistakes a more prepared man would not have made. I wouldn't enjoy it if I was a Bush fan. Stone clearly wanted to get it out before election day (feels a little rushed at times) probably both for the profit and the cultural influence. I'd only give it a "B." If I was a Republican who still believes Bush is a great president, unless I had one hell of a sense of humor, I'd probably stay away.

But Josh Brolin deserves an Oscar nod.

Miracle At St. Anna

If Mozart had been born in the Kalahari, he'd have been known as the best drummer in his entire family.

#

(SPOILERS)

Saw "Miracle at St. Anna," Spike Lee's new joint, yesterday. There's a masterpiece lurking inside that mess somewhere, but it wasn't on the screen. Spike is a real artist, with mastery over the basic and advanced filmic language, used to express his own view of the world. He is dancing to his own beat, and for those of us on the outside, it's a mixed bag.

ﾠ

In "St. Anna," an elderly postal employee blows away a customer. Investigating police find a million-dollar statue head in his apartment, missing from Florence since WW2. A reporter tries to discover why and what. You know the drill.

ﾠ

Most of the movie is a flashback demonstrating the lives of the "Buffalo Soldiers," an experimental combat brigade made up of blacks, and commanded by whites. The entire film starts with images of John Wayne from "A Bridge Too Far," Spike's announcement that he's about to get into Hollywood's face for excluding blacks from heroic war movie roles.

**RECAP FOR THOSE NOT PAYING ATTENTION**

(And remember, those of you who will insist that it's "just Hollywood"--

1) According to most accounts, a majority of the talent working in Hollywood is Liberal Democrat

2) The percentage of Democrats who have negative views of black people is 33%

3) The percentage of white Americans with such negative views is 40%.

ﾠ

THEREFORE, Hollywood is MORE likely to create positive images than America is likely to want to consume them.

**END RECAP**

The trouble is that Spike is carrying heavy damage, for all his brilliance. This really shows up in the arena of sexuality, most especially black-white relationships. It is so strange to watch John Leguizamo with his black girlfriend in the beginning of this film. Or Ed Norton with Rosario Dawson in "25th Hour"--sexy, naturalistic, lovely scenes. I can't remember the last time Spike gave us something like that with two black people. And a black man with a white woman: Sex is shown as uncomfortable, erotic without romance, and often tied to violence if not death. He is REALLY messed up on this count, and watching how even a BLACK director gets programmed culturally is part of what makes me reject the "Hollywood is more racist than the rest of America" argument.

ﾠ

(And don't ring in the "Americans voting for Obama" argument. It ain't a popularity contest. An election is more like hiring a plumber. You don't much care about the race of the guy unstopping the toilet: you just want the shit off the floor. Doesn't mean you want him dating your daughter)

##

Anyway, Spike seems to have a profoundly depressive streak. "St. Anna" often feels like a succession of static shots, punctuated by his trade-mark full-screen face shots. He SEETHS with pain and resentment. And will someone keep this brilliant director away from writing scripts? I had very little sense of location and perspective, the writing was often pedantic, and tension was a sometime thing. Oddly, a couple of the performances were even fuzzy--and Spike is a WONDERFUL actor's director. I think he just cared too much.

ﾠ

He wants to make up for a century of films that exclude those of dark hue, or confine them to secondary and degrading roles. And I think that the fire burning inside him has produced some of the most exciting cinema of my lifetime--he has a unique and precious vision.

ﾠ

But as a commercial film-maker, his passion interferes with the narrative, and his pain disrupts the natural flow of human emotions ("in 'Bamboozled' he missed such an obvious relationship between the tap-dancer and the executive that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. In the HISTORY of Spike Lee films, I'm not sure there has ever been a relationship between a black man and woman I would covet. One I would want my own children to have. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe in the background somewhere, but not in the foreground with a "Boy meets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy gets Girl" variety. And that is CENTRAL to the survival of a species, and is CENTRAL to the literature of every culture on this planet. The lack of this precious imagery is no accident, although I'm pretty sure it's unconscious).

ﾠ

(MORE SPOILERS)

ﾠ

And...there have certainly been other war films in which almost everyone you care about dies. "Saving Private Ryan," for instance. But

1) The concept of patriotism as natural and healthy is never questioned. In "Anna," the question of fighting for a country that does not consider you fully human is raised.

2) Men die for Ryan, but he not only survives, but thrives: we see his children and grandchildren. The single survivor of "Anna" lives alone, with no apparent children: his genetic line dies with him.

3) There has been, by my count, one other major film dealing with black soldiers in wartime. As opposed to THOUSANDS dealing with white soldiers. "Glory." And they all died in that one.

##

What you've got here is the most successful black filmmaker in history, and apparently he is tone-deaf to certain delicacies of the human condition. My best guess is that he is extraordinarily sensitive, hides that under bravado, but deep inside the anger and fear has burned away some of his wiring. Just the way I see it.

Murky, metaphysical, maddening, brilliant and confusing, I wanted terribly to love "St. Anna." And was frustrated that I could not. It's scope and ambition are "A" level. But the overall execution is "B-"

##

Anyone see where the Republican group did a picture of Food Stamps with a picture of Obama with Watermelon and Fried Chicken?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/local-gop-group.html

ﾠ

Of course, there was no racist intent. Of course. Nor at calls for his death at rallies, or jokes about it on Fox. Nope, nothing wrong here (as the Sharp Cereal Professor used to say.)

##

And McCain was great at the comedy event yesterday. His timing and delivery were excellent, better than Obama's, although I liked Obama's material a little better. The Hollywood version of this story is that McCain awakens from his slumber, realizes he's been over-handled and misserved by his advisors. For the next two weeks he gives us the McCain we saw eight years ago, and gives Barack the race of his life.

ﾠ

And then, of course, loses gracefully. by a hair.

ﾠ

Little More Light Today

ﾠ

ﾠ

McCain was FAR better last night than he was in the first debates. Sharper, more aggressive, but also more respectful (it actually seem to take effort, but he DID look Obama in the eye), and I think that he may have won (by a narrow margin). He obviously knew this was his very last chance, and didn't leave anything in the locker room. Looked healthier, too. Good for him...and good for America. I want both candidates to bring their very best, so that people can make informed decisions.

#

Does anyone remember McCain's emotional reactions during the primary more clearly than I? I would love to hear that he treated his other opponents with the same disdain he demonstrated toward Senator Obama. While I think it would be a nightmare to have a president with such poor emotional control (diplomacy, anyone?) I would frankly prefer to think he's generally angry and hostile than...well, bigoted. I mean, he fits the profile (age, gender, voting against MLK day, refusing to meet Obama's eyes, refusing to shake his hand, body language furious, etc.) but I actually used to like McCain. I would hate to put him in that category, although I could still respect him as a human being. So...was he like that in the Primaries, and I just didn't notice?

#

Really, all I see here is that the country moves from one polarity to another--it's natural and healthy. To elect a Republican...ANY Republican, is to reward the R-Party for the last eight years of governance. Those who believe they've done a good job will vote that way, as is their right and responsibility. The rest of us should vote for the Democrats. Maybe Nader. The President has long, long coattails, and will pull a lot of other officials along with him. Even if McCain is the best candidate, he hasn't specifically repudiated Bush, hasn't drawn the clear distinctions that would convince me he wouldn't fall into some of the same mistakes in the future. I mean--those of you who agree with the Iraq War, please understand that SPECIFICALLY what I would want is someone who would NOT have gone in. I want a President who sees the world as I do, and is at least as smart as I am.

#

Fox News. What a bunch of cowards. Now that it seems increasingly certain that the Right will lose big, you can feel Fox edging back toward the center. Rush Limbaugh was LIVID this morning that Fox didn't lie and say McCain knocked it out of the park. He came VERY close to saying that Fox should have lied. Wow.

#

I talk about visualizing the three triangles every morning and night. Body (appearance, energy, function), Mind (Career--earning the amount I've set for myself per day), and Spirit (my relationship with my sister Joyce, Jason, Nicki, and Tananarive. Visualize myself sitting in a semi-circle with them, and addressing each relationship in turn.) A couple of days back, I had a VERY hard time lining up the three triangles so I could "look right down the middle". Now, they're starting to line up. Cool. My take on this is that I'm getting more relaxed with the Hannibal project. We'll be recording the voices next week. That's the "Mind" aspect: exercising skills and opening doors. "Body" is going great. Using Jeff Martone's H2H circuits, the Five Tibetans, yoga, and martial arts...I'm learning how to balance them so that I don't overtrain. I'll know more about how my body is functioning after the BKF workout tomorrow night. And Spirit? Most of my family stuff is going great, and my heart is happy.

#

Saturday, Nicki and I will drive up to Paso Robles to watch her mom Toni in a dramatic reading. Looking forward to both the drive and the chance to hang out with the Youngs--an absolutely fabulous family. Love them to pieces, really. And Toni's brother Pat is one of my favorite guys in the world. He's a terrific family guy, martial artist, and a seriously hard-working, decent, good man. Should be fun.

War, Inc.

ﾠ

Revamped my office for efficiency over the weekend. Still need a really good office light, but things are looking better.

##

I figure McCain will either go after Obama hard--which Barack definitely goaded him into, daring him to bring up William Ayers, or he will back off and be measured and polite. Personally, I hope he does the second--it will be better for him. This smells like a big, juicy ego trap set for McCain, who is known to have a temper (which probably explains why he wouldn't meet Obama's eyes...although the question of why Obama and not any of McCain's primary opponents triggered this response is a multiple-choice test left to the interested reader.)

ﾠ

But he's crushed himself with independents, who view the choice of Sarah Palin to be pretty much naked political maneuvering. I know that if Obama had chosen someone like her as VP, I would have lost faith in his judgement. I feel sorry for the Republicans trying to defend her. I think that a year from now, they'll be able to laugh and admit they were appalled. Now, of course, they have to fight like hell. I put no stock in anything any of them say about Palin until after the election. And I'm sure that, given the same situation, just as many Dems would have held their noses and pretended to be happy. One of the reasons I don't like this game.

#

The first chunk of my work on the Hannibal series is done--turned in three scripts. T and/or I wrote two of 'em, and a good guy named Stan Berkowitz wrote the other. Today I have to get two of those scripts ready to be recorded on Monday. After that I have to take my last whack at SHADOW VALLEY--I've got a manuscript back. And after that...well, at the end of the month I'm taking ten days off, going to Florida for the election (I will have voted by mail) and then off to Antigua for a writing conference and vacation with T. Jason will be with his gramma and grandpa. A little privacy? Priceless.

#

First thing at night, first thing waking in the morning, I visualize a triangle representing my goals in all three arenas. Some days its easy to visualize, some days its murder. It was murder this morning. Ah, well...job stress, maybe.

#

Saw John Cusack's "War, Inc." yesterday. He actually plays the same hit-man he played in "Gross Pointe Blank" set in a near-future scenario of a "Rollerball" corporate world. He's apparently been keeping up his kick-boxing: there is a VERY sweet 1-against-5 fight scene, and clearly, it's actually Cusack doing most of it. Funny, oddly sweet, not entirely successful but a great time. I'd give "War, Inc." a "B".

"Quarantine" (2008)

ﾠ

ﾠ

##

ﾠ

One key to success in life is to align all aspects of your "self" into coherent movement in a single direction. Your mind (goals and skills), your emotions (beliefs, positive/negative emotional anchors, value hierarchies) and your body (your physical energy and actions). When all of these are cooking, you're in good shape.

ﾠ

I was recently reminded of this while working with one of the writers on the new Hannibal series. He was really quite good at finding something to be excited about in our discussions. Turn the story this way, and then that way, and he still found a way to connect with it. For years, I thought that people in Hollywood are phony for the way they get excited about projects. Now I'm convinced that the ability to access your excitement is one of the core skills an artist needs, if that artist is to work in a commercial, collaborative environment.

##

Obama is running about as close to a perfect campaign as I've seen. That opinion comes with a warning that I haven't really been watching closely in the past. But wow. I may regret that he's had to play politician games, but I still think he's more of a political philosopher than a politician, per se. How that will pan out is anyone's guess, but so far, he's pretty much what I thought he was.

##

And America is what I hoped she was. While race is still problematic, it is clear that the public is willing to grant "exceptional" status to those members of the "Other" group who have proven themselves. While one can carp all one wants that it's "unfair" that some have to work harder to prove themselves, that' s just life. Get over it. I know of nowhere in the world that has dealt with its messy history much better than America. No where else I'd really want to live. The Republicans have, thus far, used less coded language and oblique bigotry than I actually expected. It's clear that they, and most Americans, are trying to live up to the American mythology about equality. Even when it's painful.

Trust me: it's been painful on this side for a long time.

##

"Quarantine" is a terrific little horror movie, about a film crew stuck in a quarantined building, whose residents are increasingly infected with...well, let's just say something very very nasty. A cross between "Blair Witch" and "Night of the Living Dead" it was scary enough that I was laughing...and I mean that in a good way. A solid "B" for those who love to scream. And really not bad across the board.

##

About the Palin brother in law situation: the Governor of the state didn't have legal recourse to deal with a threat to her family? I assume there is a bountiful paper trail of what she tried to do, including restraining orders and so forth? Getting a guy fired from his job doesn't actually protect your family, does it? Doesn't that actually make him a little MORE likely to explode? Just asking.

##

I like the idea for dress codes for kids who get under a 3.7. That's kind of fun, and I'd like to see what would happen. Might not work...but then again it might.

Making History?

Will someone with more of a sense of political history than I possess please falsify the following statement, if possible: "the GOP has given us the first-ever Presidential/Vice Presidential slate with one member adjudicated guilty of a severe ethics violation and the other formally accused of a severe ethics/law violation. "

#

With the crowds at McCain's ralley's yelling for blood, when he (thankfully) finally admonished them to be sane, saying that they had nothing to fear from Obama, he was BOOED by his own people. Shows the ugliness that he and Palin had been stoking...but I have to give him credit for backing away from the edge of THAT abyss. There is something uglier here than Clinton's stoking of her followers, and how she seemed to realize in the final days that she may have pushed things to the point that it would be difficult for the Democrats to pull together to beat the Republicans.

ﾠ

In the same way, I think that cooler heads are whispering to McCain that he is raising the possibility of actual violence, and, if he loses, that the Republican base might be so angry and frightened that the country would be difficult to govern. A Pyrrhic victory is bad enough. But a Pyrrhic DEFEAT would be flat insane. And McCain isn't nuts. Brittle and angry, yeah. I think he's experiencing a bit of what the Clinton's felt: "how in the hell is this happening?" If ANYONE here had grasped how smart Obama is, they might have laid better plans. I really, seriously, think they underestimated him, thinking that somehow Affirmative Action had raised this naive, inexperienced but charismatic guy to the national level. They were playing checkers, he's playing chess.

ﾠ

I repeat my original impression: not that this would make him a great President, but Obama is the smartest person I've seen on the national stage running for national office. Watched his latest move? A British paper says that he's offered McCain a job in his new administration.

ﾠ

What? I see this as multi-pronged, and I don't think there is a direct riposte:

1) It is supremely confident, at a time Americans need desperately to believe in their leaders as BOTH capable and confident.

2) It suggests he's ready to reach "across the aisle". Supposedly, the post would be a bi-partisan post on Veterans Affairs.

ﾠ

3) IF McCain DOESN'T reciprocate in some way, independant voters may think that he is ingracious. If he DOES, then it undercuts his argument that Obama can't be trusted.

ﾠ

Note the way he dared McCain to call him a terrorist sympathizer to his face? In all likelihood, McCain hasn't been looking him in the eye as an attempt to keep his temper under control. (Ah...if this is true, is there anyone out there who thinks this is a valid strategy for a chief executive or a diplomat..?) So he is tempting McCain into a trap. First, Obama has far more emotional control. Second, he has an answer up his sleeve that will be HARSH, designed to both rebut and trigger an outburst. Watching McCain wandering around the stage...I regretfully conclude that he is on the borderline of losing some control factors. I would say that his best days are not in front of him, and it is sad to watch.

ﾠ

Palin? I cannot begin to imagine her on "Meet The Press" or any kind of remotely antagonistic forum. McCain, Obama, and Biden would survive such grilling without a sweat. Does anyone out there think she would have been chosen if she weren't pretty? I think McCain thought she'd give America a chubby.

ﾠ

What a fascinating, fascinating election this has been. And it ain't over yet.

Best case? McCain tones down the rhetoric, sharpens his message, and runs a campaign more in alignment with his stated values. He either wins, or loses, with honor.

ﾠ

Worst case? I don't even want to go there. But I have never heard more violent rhetoric in a Presidential campaign. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention?

#

For those of you who heard Fox News referring to "Obama's Baby Mama" and speculating about assassination, and heard the crowds spouting venom while Palin and McCain stoked the fires...if you weren't repelled, if you didn't automatically demand more from your candidate or network of choice...what would you say to yourself if an actual violent incident occurred. "Oh well?" "I didn't realize..?" "Thank goodness!"

ﾠ

I would bet that the proportion of the population that considers this acceptable political discourse overlaps remarkably with that percentage that has negative views of black people to begin with.

#

I have a theory that I'm calling the "Obama Effect" that suggests that there is a threshold beyond which his race could actually work in his favor. It goes like this: IF it is pretty clear he's going to win anyway, I suspect that there are many, many Americans who are waffling on the borderline, and that in the voting booth, if they think Obama's going to win anyway...they may decide to vote FOR him simply for the sake of being on the right side of history. They will want to be able to say they voted for him. This might actually give him a boost over polling at the last minute, a sort of "reverse Bradley effect" created by 300 years of pressure. I can see how it might happen...once.

ﾠ

But it's like that guy with the refrigerator on his back in the roller skating contest: IF you can get to the top of the hill, the trip down is a little faster. But making it up the hill is a bitch, and it's quite amusing to see those unemcumbered ones complaining that "refrigerator guy has an unfair advantage..."

ﾠ

It's a particular and, to me, palely amusing form of blindness.

##

Notice how quickly the Republicans screamed that scrutiny of Palin was sexism? That tactic, screaming sexism, racism, ageism, whatever, is one of the first things any group does to oppress criticism. Blacks have done it plenty. Hell, Republicans claim "Liberal Bias" in the media even when their candidates are stomping butt. So the game is played across the board, but it doesn't remove the fact that there is very real sexism, racism, etc. out there. How we negotiate this ground in the 21st century will be one of our greatest tasks. How do we sort out the real complaints from the purely political posturing?

#

A few days ago I mentioned racism in public discourse. An anonymous poster asked if it was racism to point out that blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. I said no, that would just be pointing out a statistical fact. Racism would be maintaining that this difference is due to innate qualities within blacks, or that whites, given the same historical, social and economic conditions, would behave better. I just wanted to repeat my answer so that the poster could, if he wished, expand his comments.

Why Talk to the Tree?

ﾠ

A reasonable person might ask what the use of exercises like "talking to the trees." Especially if you have deep-seated deservement or "Impostor Syndrome" issues, talk about finding your true self can be confusing, depressing, even frightening. If you believe that at the core of what you are you are an evil or twisted thing, better to stay with the ego-shields, right?

ﾠ

Well, from the Lifewriting perspective, dead wrong. Under sufficient pressure, your true self will be revealed. And if you have built a life, a career, a relationship based on a false image, the truth can shatter your existence.

ﾠ

Now, from my perspective, there is virtually no down-side. But then, I feel that our deepest and truest essence is that thing we call Love. Everything other than love that we feel or experience is part of the illusion. There are many routes to wholeness, to being an awakened adult. The route we talk about here is to take goals in all three major arenas, proceed toward them, and then deal with the stress that arises as you do. IF you are balanced enough to prevent the stress from becoming strain, the only way your mind, heart, and spirit can respond is by growing. In the process of solving the problems you encounter, you must become awake and adult, taking responsibility for your physical existence, your career, your relationships. Remember: it is EASY to succeed in one or two of life's arenas. It is a pure bitch-kitty getting all three of them going at the same time. After a while, sustaining that balance is tough, but a natural way of being. And then, at some point, you barely remember ever living any other way.

ﾠ

1) Do what you love, or love what you do. Your career/job should be a place of contribution and joy. Heck, you spend about half your waking hours associated with it--might as well enjoy yourself! And by the way...aim at making enough money to support yourself and one other human being. Frankly, if you don't have this much focus, you shouldn't be having sex.

ﾠ

2) Physical fitness, energy, aliveness, and a body in alignment with your own values. If you don't find you attractive, why should anyone else?

ﾠ

3) A loving, committed relationship with a significant other. Children, neighbors, pets, parents or siblings don't count here. The rules are different. With a husband, wife, long-term lover, you have to DEAL WITH YOUR SHIT. You can't just tell them what to do, or walk away without leaving a tell-tale string of wreckage.

ﾠ

The "Talk to the Trees" exercise strips away much of the b.s. What remains is much closer to the real you. Use that as your bedrock for future changes. In meditations, seek this same core truth. Then, go beyond.

"That One" is doing fine, thank you

ﾠ

"That One." Hmmm. About 47% of Republicans have negative opinions of black people (33% od Democrats and 40% of the general population...do the math), but it's good to know that McCain isn't one of them. I mean, considering he'll barely meet Obama's eyes, wouldn't shake his hand after the debate, represented the last state to ratify MLK day, and presided over a convention whiter than a Wonderbread museum, never addressed the NAACP until he was running for President...if he'd actually had a negative opinion about black people he might have REALLY been unpleasant. I mean, if Wolf Blitzer thinks McCain has "disdain" for Obama NOW, it would have been...uh...

ﾠ

How exactly would it have been different from what we saw?

ﾠ

"That One." The first thing racism does is objectify the "Other." They're not a person, they're a "that," a cog in the social machinery.

ﾠ

So...as he and Palin stoke the very worst in their party, not correcting their audiences as members shriek "terrorist" and "kill him", it is wrong for us to think that any of this, in any way, reveals McCain's personal feelings.

"Kill Him!"

ﾠ

"He's a terrorist." "Kill him." The last comment was PROBABLY aimed at Ayers, but no one asked a follow-up question at that Palin ralley. In my mind, that's approval. The McCain campaign is not just thrashing, it's thrashing in some very dangerous directions. I'm sure that those who found no harm in the various Fox News verbal grotesqueries don't see them here, either.

ﾠ

My frank opinion: there are about 20% of people on either side of the political spectrum who are tone-deaf and color-blind to anything contrary to their party or position. If you don't find this loathsome, and the fact that Palin and McCain said nothing in return infuriating and insulting, you're one of them.

ﾠ

Consider it a test.

#

The Kettlebell circuits program is just wonderful. Using a 16K bell keeps one from generating maximum strength, but by moving crisply, you are definitely generating rotational power, as well as shock absorption up the wazoo. And the patterns of motion are complex enough that you are working a SKILL rather than "just" exercising. Gives a different meaning to the exhaustion. I'm doing three 30-second sets of three different exercises, followed by thirty seconds of rest, then repeat for three overall supersets. compressing the rest periods makes it VERY difficult to hurt yourself as stress increases, because your coordination breaks down with fatigue long before you are using enough weight to damage joints or tendons. But muscular and CV endurance? Wow. And some of the combos demand serious hand-speed. Which is actually more a function of RELAXATION than tension.

ﾠ

Great fun. In combination with Tibetans, djurus, and a bit of yoga afterwards, the entire workout requires less than 30 minutes, and kicks butt.

##

Have to get the last draft of "Father Steel," my Hannibal script, out the door by four tonight. This is the point where I print a copy, go over it on paper, input the corrections, read on computer, print, and start over again. It seems to allow me to write with minimum stress. I notice different things on paper than I do on the screen, and vice versa.

ﾠ

It's said that professionals find patterns that work for them: habits of work, syntax of progression. You work and work, and over the years find that if you do things in THIS or THAT order, you consistently get better results. Others, of course, have fun doing it a different way every time.

ﾠ

How about you guys? Do you have specific patterns that you engage to produce results time after time? A daily ritual? What is it, or what is your approach to creative work design?

##

ﾠ

Oh, yes. Talking to the trees. I promised the story of what happened to me. Well, the workshop was held in the mountains north (I think) of Atlanta. There was a wooded area nearby, so I walked out until I found a tree that looked kind of friendly, leaned my head against it, and sobbed my eyes out. "How can you do it?" I asked. "Whether people love you or hate you...whether it's cold or hot or raining, or snowy...you're still the same tree. I don't know how to do that."

ﾠ

And in some way that it's difficult to describe, the tree answered me. "I'm just a tree, man," it said. "My roots go down, my branches go up. This is all I am."

ﾠ

And I got it. Everything more than that was b.s. And about a minute later, someone came walking by, and I WATCHED as my armor slid back into place. Had to care what they thought. Had to "look good." Had to put on my "Steve" mask. It was fascinating to watch. THAT is the price I pay to carry my ego around. My fears. My past.

ﾠ

In life, you can either have a shell, or a spine. You're safer with a shell, but you don't feel life as much. You are more vulnerable if you only have a spine...but you can feel the rain on your face. I spent the first half of my life developing a shell that would protect my ego. And now I'm working to peel it away. Don't need it. Don't want it. Have to hold off on the real work for another fourteen years (Jason needs his Daddy) but I'm still peeling, just more slowly than some.

ﾠ

One day at a time.

#

I don't pretend not to be partisan. I do try to be fair. The blogosphere is buzzing about the 12-minute Obama ad about the Keating Five. Yes, McCain was exonerated. But the point is that McCain and Palin were attacking Obama by association. That opens the door to counter-attacks along the same line, in my book. And Obama has been criticized for striking back, as if sitting on his hands and politely losing would be somehow the morally superior position. What a joke. In a martial parallel, the art of Aikido emphasizes evasions and re-directions over strikes. But contrary to what a LOT of lower-level Aikidoka think, Ueshiba incorporated strikes into his art, but began to minimalize them as time went on, because his senior black belts would flinch away from him when he struck at them, giving him the momentum he needed to perform the technique. The truth is that "pure" Aikido, with no striking at all, would be ALMOST impossible to work, unless you were completely superior to your opponent in every physical and mental quality. You have zero room for error. Leading your opponent's "Ki" is much easier if you stick your fingers in his eyes first.

So far as I can see, the Obama campaign spent last week warning the McCain campaign to back off, and were ignored. What some people suggest is that he should:

1) ignore the attacks, so that they will, supposedly, rebound onto McCain. And can someone give me a specific instance of this approach working in an analogous situation?

2) Defend himself without attacking. Anyone who advises this approach has never been in a fight. You CANNOT merely play defense. Eventually, your opponent will find a hole, and clock you.

##

No. What Obama is doing, and what I figured he would do, is a version of the Rope-A-Dope--allow your opponent to expend his energy, as you test his mettle. Then when he wants to withdraw to allow localized muscular fatigue to ebb, you attack. So far as I can see, McCain has said: "if you knew someone. If you were in the same room with them. If you had any dealings with them at all, you are the same as them." Fine. It is totally legitimate, then, to attack along this line. Remember: it is impossible to attack without opening a line of vulnerability. I believe that both Clinton and McCain BADLY underestimated Obama, and are paying for it now.

Talking To the Tree

Years ago, I attended a workshop in Georgia that was QUITE confrontive for most of the participants. Lots of emotional sturm und drang. I did fine...until about a week in. Then I freaked out. I was going through an ego death, and the fear response was so huge I couldn't see it: I was inside the fear. I asked the leader of the workshop what was going on, and he called me on my bullshit FAST. I asked him what I should do, and he suggested the Talk To The Tree exercise.

ﾠ

This is how it works: you go to a park, or forested area where there are trees, but you also have a bit of privacy. You find one that looks, well, "friendly," and you talk to it. Yeah, I know EXACTLY how that sounds. You wait for another human being to appear, walking down the road or whatever...and you note the way you changed as soon as another human being was in the picture. The gap between the way you were with the tree and the way you were when someone else appears is the cost and weight of your ego. The secret to being powerful in the world is to be as natural with other people as you were with the tree.

ﾠ

YOU MUST TRY THIS TO UNDERSTAND IT. Your intellectual concept of what will happen, or how it might feel, or what it might mean, is NOTHING until you try it.

ﾠ

I invite you to do so, and share the result...I'll tell you what happened to me tomorrow.

O.J. Hits the Showers...

O.J. Guilty?

ﾠ

Say it not so! Well, well, it seems justice delayed is not justice denied. Let's hope someone is sharpening his shiv at this very moment. The Juice might spend the rest of his life in prison. Christmas just came a little early this year...

##

My position? He was guilty as hell. He murdered his wife. And didn't do it alone, either. And if you think back over it, you'll know just who helped him. My knowledge is heresay, so I can't do anything about it, but I'd bet anything the cops knew, but figured that if they couldn't convince a jury O.J. was guilty, trying to nail his confederate would be pointless. Whom might it have been? Gee, I can't say...

##

And by the way, on a completely unrelated matter, have I mentioned that 'In the Night of the Heat" is about a disgraced sports celebrity and movie star accused of murdering his wife? No connection, of course, but if I DID have inside information, a mystery novel would certainly be the place I'd plant it.

Ahem.

##

"Ah be done seen about everything, when I seen an elephant fly..."

Bought Dumbo for Jason (above Tananarive's very mild protests) and he loves it. I remember doing my "Disney didn't have a single black person in an animated film in the 20th Century" riff, and someone suggested that the Crows should count. Sigh. Now, I don't blame Disney for what they did, I just like to point out that, if it is true that "every President until about 1960 was a racist the way we measure racism today" that that was the context of the entire country. And if I believe that America is a WONDERFUL country (which I do) then I'm really talking about human nature here, not pointing fingers. But there are a few brown-skinned people in the "Happy Roustabout" sequence...but we only see them from the back, so it's impossible to say what we're looking at. Considering that there are PLENTY of human faces shown in Dumbo (at least 100) it would be odd indeed if someone at Disney decided to show black skin, but not black faces. I'm afraid I'd find that even more offensive, and will stand on my "we ain't there" position. That said, Dumbo is great stuff, a classic that earns its reputation. Disney was on FIRE in those days.

#

Took Nicki to see "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist" yesterday, a romantic flick detailing 24 hours in the lives of (High School? Twenty-Something? I wasn't sure) kids in New York. Very cute...but I couldn't help but think that the male lead wasn't quite good-looking enough for the story. The way people reacted to him just felt more like he should have been perhaps shy but drop-dead gorgeous. Just my thought. A "B". Overall, I enjoyed it, but there was a...

ﾠ

WARNING: MILD CHINK ALERT

ﾠ

For a single non-white male character. Asian. And very gay. Thanks, America, glad for the reminder.

Post-Debate

Sarah Palin acquitted herself well last night, as I figured she would. Yes, she funneled every question toward the same five boiler-plate answers (energy, Maverick, Mayoral experience, etc.) but that's one of the things politicians do. I remember watching Tom Bradley give a speech to the press corps, and wondering if I was the only one in the room who noticed that he said NOTHING. It was impressive and frightening. Now, watching the test group reactions, it was clear that the audience reacted to the debate much as I did: Biden won it by about 20%. Palin's performance should slow the hemmorhaging, but Biden's tear sealed the deal. Women LOVED him. Undecideds gave it to Biden about 42%-22%. Barring some drastic turn-around, Obama is right on track. # Nicki is home from her first week of her last year at UCI. Great to have my baby home again. Think I'll take her to see something silly today, maybe "Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist." Then there's a kid's science museum in Pasadena that we might go to Saturday. Tananarive is outa town, so I have to find stuff to do. ﾠ Blair was on "Regis and Kathi Lee" today promoting "Dirty Sexy Money" and, of course, "In the Night of the Heat." Man, in this economy, you have to play every damned card you've got. I can't even believe the spread of different things I'm doing to keep the doors open. I guess I should just be grateful that I have services in demand. ## And the question of the day is: what is the SECOND greatest marketable skill you have? Not the thing at which you make your primary living, but the thing you might fall back on if that bellied-up? ﾠ ﾠ

Tonight's Her Night!

ﾠ

I think Palin will do fairly well tonight. Maybe very well, according to her supporters, but my guess is that the "undecideds" will kind of feel: "o.k. She's pretty good." My take on her is that she has an E.Q. like Bush's--that is, she's REALLY good at getting people to like her. But she's not as smart as Bush (whose I.Q. seems to be about 125). There will be those who don't think that's important. I'm not one of them. My very most basic reason for voting for Obama--I want someone in the White House who is smarter than I am. McCain isn't (although I am perfectly happy to assume he's not less intelligent, either) Biden? No idea. Certainly has foot-in-mouth disease. Palin seems kind of incurious about anything out of a very narrow range. I salute her for considering C.S. Lewis "very, very deep"--I thought that in High School, too. Kind of scary for someone running for V.P., though.

#

Bought Jason a copy of "Darby O'Gill and the Little People," an incredibly charming Disney Irish fantasy, with some astounding special effects created without opticals or digital manipulation. A series of perspective shots, mirrors and enough high-powered lighting to blow out a Burbank sub-station (really!) created quite a show. An early Sean Connery film, and was he ever young and gorgeous! But I wondered whatever happened to Janet Monroe, the spunky, "cuter than any human being should be" love interest. So I looked her up, and sadly, she died at 38 of alcoholism-related heart problems, emotionally shattered when marriages and her career collapsed. So sad.

ﾠ

"Oh...she is my dear, my darling one

My charming and beguiling one.

I love the ground she walks upon...

My darling Irish girl..."

ﾠ

RIP, Janet. You were a charmer.

##

I turned in my first script for Vin Diesel's BET animated series "Hannibal", for which yours truly is now the story editor. "Father Steel"--Hannibal's encounter with a murderous, incestuous cannibal (children's TV has really changed! No, really, this is Pg-13 stuff) I had real, real fun with it (what I call "good, evil fun") which I consider the secret to tapping into your purest creative self. Everything else is just technique. Now, Tananarive and I are working on the second episode now, "Last Stand" that will deal with the bad-ass she-vixon that he married, Iberian princess Imilce (hey--I touch history, but I don't have to swallow it whole). This is great. We sat and watched "300" yesterday, and was again impressed by it. People who quibbled at its history (Rhinos at Thermopalae? Absurd!) missed the point entirely. This wasn't history--it was a campfire story, told to stir the soul.

ﾠ

By the end of the film, T and I were both crying a little. The power of myth to inspire is astounding. It places life and death in context, and gives meaning to events that cannot be achieved through linear logic. Any people who don't have stories of themselves as beautiful, sexual, powerful, lethal, brave, compassionate and wise are a dying people, vulnerable to being defined by whoever it is who broke their most central flows of myth.

ﾠ

A healthy people will have stories of their ancestors and contemporaries who are masters of their basic environment, who are sexual and reproductive, who are powerful fighters and successful merchants, who love deeply, love poetic expression, are intellectually brilliant, and who have deep faith in God--or a philosophical acceptance of the Void. Look at the Old Testament, and you'll see a perfect example of this. Deny a people ANY ONE OF THESE, and they literally cannot mature. The more basic the wound, the more juvenile they remain. In a very important way, slavery was the domestication of human beings, the process of turning wolves into dogs. You keep them from becoming fully adult. Keep them dependant. You kill their warriors, and destroy their women's chastity.

#

What would be a child's approach to the Chakras as opposed to an adult's? O.K, I'll take a shot at that, but only with the caveat that in many ways I'm talking about my own history. And that these are just my opinions.

ﾠ

1)Muladhara--Survival. The creation of basic creation of income without producing goods and services that are of actual value to the community. That do not decrease chaos and entropy. Stealing, drug dealing, etc.

2) Svahasthana--sex separate from relationship or love. In other words--you wouldn't even know if one of your partners got pregnant. Considering sex "conquest." The "Madonna/Whore" split on the other hand, is not childish--it is dysfunction, generally imposed by religious programming IN childhood. Sick, sad stuff. Not taking full responsibility for any children you bring into the world--and that means being there for them every day, not just when it is convenient.

ﾠ

3)Manapura: Power. Wealth separate from production, money for its own sake without concern for the effects of your commerce in the world--and then denying what you have done. Physical power and violence separated from the protective function--a wolf with no cubs to protect. Man-children brag about the streetfights and bar-brawls they've had, just for the sake of displaying dominance and bad-assery. The female equivilent of this can be bragging about the men who get into fights OVER them. Dysfunctional aspects of this CAN be things like Bouncer and Stripper work--both of which can be a means to an adult end--or a dead-end usage of basic physical traits, exploiting both self and others.

ﾠ

4) Anahata: Love. The inability to divorce love from sex, or the inability to create adult relationships, preferring to replicate childhood attachments indefinitely. The inability to see the beloved as an independent and autonomous creature.

ﾠ

5) Communication: lying to self and others as a way of surviving life. Words not matching actions.

ﾠ

6) Intellect: opinions and theories that do not match reality maps. Believing that a political perspective is correct to the exclusion of the opposite view ("liberalism is a disease", "Conservatives are sociopathic monsters" etc.)

ﾠ

7) Spirit: clinging to religious or spiritual beliefs given in childhood, without re-examination in the light of later education and experience. Demanding literal truths in works intended as metaphor. Insisting that others adhere to your beliefs, or that you can "prove" theories that exist outside the realm of intellect.

##

To me, these things are the hallmark of children in adult bodies, playing adult games. They are dangerous as hell, and I am committing my life from this point forward to promoting means of becoming awake, aware adults. We can afford nothing less.

Bailout Question

Is anyone out there familiar enough with the bail-out business that they can explain why we're not just buying up these companies? I want something for my money. Just why shouldn't a company that wants government money accept the public as a partner? If I'm being stunningly ignorant, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand. Can someone help here?