You Only Need One

Just finished reading "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" the book upon which the Showtime series is based. There are some fascinating differences, but basically Showtime expanded this book out into an entire series of serial killer angst. The changes were, in my opinion, all to the good. There's a bit at the end of the book that influences Dex's relationship with his sister, and I don't like it as much.

I was just stunned and happy with the last season of the show, and the last episode was something close to perfect. Wonder what they'll do next season.

I also wonder how "24" will be this season. Starts in about two weeks. Will they soften it? I would expect fewer torture sequences, now that chuckleheads have actually quoted the damned show as if Jack Bauer is a real human being. THAT was depressing. And I'm not sure whether it was "mere" political theater or not...

##

Speaking of that, my recent experiences trying to get feedback on the downside of allowing anyone to buy into Medicare at "cost plus ten" has convinced me I've discovered another quasi-hidden rule of politics, one doubtless used by both sides of the spectrum.

1) If someone makes a sound and sane proposal, ignore it.

2) If you cannot ignore it, misquote it, and then attack the misquote.

3) Force the reasonable proposal off the table, and force your opponents to try to accomplish the same things through a series of clumsy, cludgy patchworks.

4) Attack the patchworks as if they were your opponent's original intent, blaming them for the inelegance.

##

It has been fascinating to watch. Who was it that compared the political process to making sausage?

##

Today is a Dream Park day. I have to get in there and work on my characters. There's a ton of work to be done, and I figure my best bet is working on a print copy, rather than on the computer. Odd how much of a difference that makes.

##

A friend of a frequent poster on this board wrote me, disputing my contention that black men don't get laid in movies if the filmmakers want to find an audience. He was wrong, of course, but I guess his intentions were good. I guess. What interests me is that Liberals tend to "get" what I'm saying rather rapidly, while Conservatives dispute it. I'm not sure why--whether it's the chicken or the egg. In other words, did their selective perception lead to BOTH a Conservative world view, AND a resistance to believing tribal preferences influence market forces? Or did a Conservative belief system necessitate believing in, for instance, a level playing field? Or do they just have a higher threshold for evidence of social issues? I would guess that that last might be true. But it does strike me as curious.

My guess: if the average person on either side of the political line is approximately equal in basic humanity, then Conservatives must view the unequal performance or status as indicative of things that were not caused by, and cannot be changed by social engineering, while Liberals tend to see such things as end-products of social forces, and therefore amenable to social programs. A fascinating exception is, of course, when Liberal social programs are said to be to blame (for instance, Welfare) in which case suddenly Conservatives are happy to assume that social programs or situations can be devastating, while Liberals refuse to look at it. Personally, I think it is...hmmm...how shall I say this? Non-optimal thinking to suggest that two generations of Welfare could do more damage to a group than ten generations of slavery and deprivation. That's just political theater, in my mind.

It is interesting to believe that there is equal but different asininity on both sides (with some variations for current social events and pressures). Makes it kind of hard to have certain kinds of conversations with either side. Everyone is just SO convinced that folks on their side are morally and mentally superior.

##

Of course, that takes things back to the personal level. In coaching, I have a couple of clients who have recently had a devastating romantic break-up. And their first tendency is to blame the partner, of course. "How could she...?" But the instant they turn that around to: "why didn't I see what kind of person she was...?" it becomes different. Instead of wishing they could trust their lover, they have to take responsibility for being blind to their flaws. And THAT is purely their own responsibility. Here are some questions to ask oneself about lost love, from the perspective of balance:

1) What didn't I see about my lover? Why didn't I let myself see it?

2) Where in my life have I made analogous mistakes before? How can I stop them?

3) What was the central wound in my beloved? How does it match one of my own wounds? If I had been healed on that level, would I have been so attracted to him/her?

##

The trick in healing emotionally is to take responsibility, and have faith. In other words, YOU made the decision to trust this person. If you were not able to understand them deeply enough to see their values and potential weaknesses, this is YOUR fault, not his or hers. Easiest solution? Ask their past partners. If not available? Be suspicious. Go slow.

And have Faith that there are good people in the world, healthy enough to sustain a relationship. All you have to be is one of them. So you also need Faith that if you look realistically at your own flaws, you will find a way to heal them. I think that people are terrified that if they really looked deeply into their hearts, they'd find an evil, twisted thing. So they paper it over, and look for other papered-over hearts, relating to each other on the superficial level, "surprised" when the old, neglected wounds fester and boil over.

That's a shame. Love is available to any human being willing to actually dump their egos and express their true essence. There are six billion souls on this planet--you only need one.