Elephant-man in the living room

I don't know if anyone, or anything, could have saved Micheal Jackson. But the willingness of millions of people to lie to themselves and each other about the glaring, obvious dysfunction is exactly the kind of "elephant in the living room" thinking that affects our health, relationships, racial relations, educational system and more. My plea is to ask yourself where do you have a Micheal in your life--your behaviors, or those of people close to you. What won't you look at, for fear of losing love? Fear of being rejected from your core group? Honesty is hard. Living with the results of lying is even harder.

##

Homicide statistics are driven by both economic and emotional factors. My suspicion: Universal Health care will lead to re-examination of drug laws, leading to decriminalization, removing profit motive from drug smuggling. How many homicides are related to warring drug gangs?

ﾠ

How many related to people who feel that there is no hope, who feel no connection to their surrounding society? Ever talked to someone who watched their mother, father, or siblings die sick and poor in absolute squalor? That's how you build a sociopath--give them no sense that the world cares about them. How much developmental stilting is caused by inadequate prenatal or childhood care? A Universal Health care system would include psychological counseling--anger management, stress reduction. All of these things have positive effects on health, but also the ability to live with one another.

ﾠ

Yes, I absolutely agree that inner-city violence is exacerbated by absent fathers and immature mothers, by the flight of responsible role-models to better environments, but also by a sense that there is no way out, no one who cares, that the society around them hates them and wants them dead. I see the evolution of culture as moving slowly and inexorably from tiny groups (families) to tribes, to villages and cities and nations and finally to a world grid. That our prison statistics are a symptom of a gigantic portion of the population feeling disenfranchised and as if there is no positive outlet of their energies...as well as disproportionate prison sentences for the poor and minority population, and related to an insane drug policy. I'd be willing to let teetotalers set social policy for both alcohol AND drugs before I'd trust people who drink set policy for those who prefer something else. It's just nuts.

#

I would think that Universal Education (although not necessarily college...trade schools can work just fine for many people) and Universal Health care (with commercial riders available for those who want and can afford extraordinary benefits) are investments in the future of our country, our children, our world. And I think that they are cheap in comparison with the alternative...in the case of UHC, we currentlynseem to spend more to get less. Which means that the money is there...the question is how to shift that money from the private to a public system. Seems to me that the best bet is a public option, where people can voluntarily shift their current payments to a growing city, state, or Federal pool. The greater the service per dollar, the more people will enroll. Competition is a good thing, right? So let's see if the profit motive really makes for better health care. Seems to me that that's what Insurance companies are worried about: they've had a gigantic profit machine that is going to shrink, but not disappear. And they're fighting for their lives. I'm fighting for yours, and mine. And our children's.

On Micheal Jackson's Downfall

It was suggested that homicides are responsible for 75% of the difference in life expectancy stats between black and white men. For that reason, the government should concentrate on reducing homicides. Good call. Let's see...do I believe that Universal health care would reduce homicides?

I'd look at the homicide stats between countries with and without Universal health care, for a starter. Don't have 'em in front of me, but I'm betting they're pretty interesting. But let's go deeper. What, in my mind, drives homicide?

Fear. Fear of death, sickness, poverty, loss of ego-shields. Many homicides are driven by theft--the attempt to acquire money or property illegally. Certainly, the more a person feels invested in their culture, the more likely they are to feel that they should play by the rules. When you feel the rules are stacked against you, it can feel idiotic to play by them.

Would Universal health care reduce, say, drug addiction statistics? I'm sure that the answers are available statistically, but I'm betting the answer is "yes"--counseling (especially psychological/emotional) and education. Do people who feel nurtured, included, valued feel less fear than those who feel disenfranchised, excluded? In my experience, yes. Reduce fear, and you reduce violence. Again, this is according to my experience, and my take on human nature. If you believe the basic nature of humans--or black males--is evil, then of course this won't make sense to you. If you watched your mother die while shuttled from one part of the system to another, or insurance companies denied care, are you likely to feel more or less hostility toward the system, more or less fear?

To a great degree, the folks who are hit worst by a for-profit health care system are those who cannot afford expensive insurance, or those who don't have the kinds of jobs which supply it. "Satisfaction with health care" statistics DO include those who have no insurance, don't they? I sure hope so...or else they are flat-out dishonest attempts to misdirect.

I believe that a humane society is a more peaceful society. Encourage dog-eat-dog mentality and you get a lot of angry dogs. I've said before that I believe a core difference between Right and Left is the Nature/Nurture argument. If it's nature, then the way to decrease black homicide is to lock up as many black men as possible. Excuse me: "potential criminals." And if you privatize prisons, for instance, you create a system that will inevitably encourage crime--that darned profit motive gives little motivation to reduce recidivism. If you believe it's nurture, then you do everything possible to invest individuals in the system, get them to feel that the deck is not stacked against them--which it most certainly is in the case of black males. Not as much as it use to be, but again, my interpretation of media images should make it very clear why I think the playing field ain't level.

So, yes...Health care, political enfranchisement , education and employment opportunities reduce the fear factor in the most basic aspects of human existence: sickness and death, ability to support a family, investment in the system, the sense that one is using one's potential to the limit, the possibility of growth and self-expression. That opens the doorway to real growth and evolution. Those who believe human evil is primarily innate think we just need more prisons. Those who think that we are largely Tabula Rosa disagree.

I believe that when we remove fear, what remains is love, and love is a titanically powerful motivating force. Strong enough to remove any obstacle that a human being can master. I'll take my stand there, thank you.

##

I think our actions are shaped partially by our inner innate drives, partially by family conditioning, partially by social engineering. Pointing out that many factors affecting life extension are related to life style choices is the biggest "duh" in the world. Christ sakes--you guys been actually reading what I've been saying here for the last five years? That our minds and emotions determine our actions, and our actions determine our results.

The number of ways medical and psychological counseling as well as accurate information and communal social pressure (the same kinds of pressures that discourage people from stealing, killing, and cheating) rather obviously can have an effect on smoking, overeating, not exercising, drug abuse, etc. OF COURSE. Quoting where the lower mortality stats in other countries are partially related to social factors is just playing into my hands. You think this stuff happens in a vacuum?

And I'm not talking about government programs making it illegal to be fat, or smoke. But shame has been used in human societies since the beginning of civilization to guide us: do THIS you get approval. Do THAT and you get disapproval. When we all have an investment in each other's welfare, children, and education cultural norms automatically shift: human greed and fear are awesome motivating forces when properly focused.

##

Got into an argument over on Facebook (and got so many letters that I turned off the "notification" function. Jeeze! Who has the time!) about Fear and Anger. I prefer anger, considering it less likely to lead to paralysis. Also, I ask myself: if I were a dictator or a slave owner, would I rather those I oppressed be afraid of me, or angry toward me? By a long shot, I'd rather they be afraid. So I choose anger as a superior state, although it is admittedly inferior to other, higher emotions in the path of spiritual discipline. Anger combined with love will turn people into heroes unafraid of death...and such people are mighty hard to control. Tyrants are rightfully afraid of them...and well they should be.

##

Micheal Jackson. From my point of view, his problems were understandable, pitiable, and preventable.

1) Lost childhood. The legend of his abusive father is well known. Without ever having a memory of a time he wasn't a cash machine for those around him, there is no foundation to be a healthy adult. When your child earns more money than you, it's hard to apply proper discipline--everything is skewed. Frankly, I think that the yearning for a childhood contributed to his "Peter Pan Syndrome"--the voice, Neverland, even the accusations of molestation. My gut tells me that if those things happened (and I think they did) they weren't "power games" where an adult manipulates a child with understanding. I think that his self-image WAS a child, and that in his mind what was happening was equivilent to a cub-scout circle-jerk. No offense to cub scouts everywhere.

In fact, Li'l Weasel, if you read these words, call me.

2) Skewed sexuality. "Billy Jean" tells the story of a boy warned by his mother that girls would try to trap him with sex. I think that was exactly the truth. That he was poisoned against his own natural attractions by a family desperate to control their money machine. And if you can't express it toward women...well, it's comin' out somewhere. Why couldn't he just be gay, then? Hell if I know. Would have been much, much better all around.

3) Micheal Jackson wanted to be white. The obviousness of this is so huge, so glaring, that it boggles my mind that anyone doubts it. He says "Vitiligo" and everyone says: "wow! Celebrities always tell the truth. That must be it!" Even if it was, my nasty little mind suspects that he found a doctor who would deliberately trigger this immune deficiency syndrome, looking for the effect he got. And with his money, if anyone could, he could. Why? Some mention him not wanting to look like Joe Jackson. Maybe. But to me there is a much simpler answer: everything about Micheal Jackson says he was programmed internally and externally to be the biggest, greatest star in the world. I am quite certain that he heard variations on the following line a million times: "you are the most talented child I have ever seen. You will be huge. You'd be the biggest star in the world...if you were white. But as soon as you're a man, and a sexual threat, they will trim you back. Be satisfied with being the biggest Black star. That's enough, isn't it?"

No, it wasn't. So Micheal began a long, long process of trying to cross the color line. Just as Jackie Chan changed his eyes, black American women straighten their hair, and Asian women in conquered countries enlarged their bustlines and wore Western clothing, Micheal straightened his hair, thinned his lips and nose, and began lightening his skin. Acquiring white children and claiming they were biologically his. What? You think he bleached his sperm?

Most specifically, he wanted to be Elvis, creating his own Graceland and marrying Lisa Marie, becoming so talented, so eccentric, so dynamic that people stopped seeing him as black, and started just seeing him as Micheal. He transcended race, arguably the first American to do so. Maybe the first black man on the planet to really do so.

And every inch of the way, as he became more grotesque, he was enabled not just by the people who got paychecks from him (or the family who continually had "we'll tour again!" dangled in front of them, probably to keep them quiet about his myriad problems. Except LaToya, whom Tananarive interviewed once, and would say any goddam thing.) but by his millions of fans who were so in love with him that they couldn't let themselves see the pathology that was right in front of them. I can't count the number of times I heard black people protesting that those children might be his, must be his...because he said so. I've seen thousands of children who are the product of interracial relationships. None of them look like Micheal's supposed spawn. Some look kinda Italian, but...Swedes? I think not.

ﾠAnd the willingness to look beyond his child molestation troubles. You know what? I DON'T CARE if he did it or not. If he didn't have that terrible need, it's even worse: in the midst of the accusations, he refused to alter his behavior. Sleep-overs with children? A molester's dream. Christ, he was giving aid and comfort to perverts the world over, "norming" the tactics they would use to seduce the innocent. If I had a need to sleep platonically with children? I would hire a nurse who would look in on us with milk and cookies. I'd have a Webcam set up recording every damned moment, and all parents who lent me their children would be able to sign on at any time of the day or night to see what was going on, and the tapes would be kept in a safe, available to anyone who needed proof that this was, while strange, perfectly innocent.

BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN. Because I would know that to have the most famous man in the world (arguably) behaving in such a way opens the door to massive amounts of pain and damage.

But that's if he's innocent. Like I said, you could simply look at the man and tell that his self-image was totally, tragically, almost uniquely distorted. I'm sorry, but someone could be 1/10 as strange as Jackson, and I wouldn't let Jason near him unless I was standing right there with eyes wide open at all moments. This was twenty years of a slow-motion train-wreck. Damn everyone around him for not speaking the obvious truth, for not throwing away all chances of ever working with him in exchange for a fingernail fragment's chance of saving his life and sanity. Damn them.

And us, his fans, for speaking in low voices, and extending the benefit of the doubt until it cracked under its own weight.

If you really love someone, you don't cheer while they destroy themselves, even if you lose their love in the process.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Making cinematic history with (arguably) the fewest IQ points per dollar spent on production, Micheal Bay's Transformers 2 comes loaded with critical and audience accusations of racism, mysogyny, and raping our childhood memories. Is it true? Well, yes and no. The truth is that in this tale of humans caught between warring tribes of robots, there is nothing remotely resembling a human heart. This is 2 1/2 hours of stereotypes and clanging metal. So when you hear that there are two hip-hop robots, one with gold teeth, and they look like monkeys, act clownish, speak in ghetto accents and have names like "Mudflap", you can rightly cringe. The entire audience, nice decent middle-class white folks, seemed a little amazed at the tastelessness of it all. I suspect some of them glanced at me to see if it was all right to laugh.

ﾠ

ﾠ

And yet...once you accept that everything in this world is a cartoon, and a nine-year-old white boy's wet dream, the rest is easy. In fact, it's really sort of fun if you let yourself go. Hell, I can find my inner nine-year-old white boy, and he had a great time. Truth is that there was a sprinkling of effective black soldiers to compensate for the Nigbots, and I haven't really ever asked for more than that.

ﾠ

Other than that, the effects are ILM perfect, the action scenes resolve visually better than the first film (or I've learned how to interpret them) and the stupidity is so consistent that it achieves a kind of evil genius. I really did have fun, but it really was a "leave your brain at home" type of experience.

ﾠ

Basically, Sam, the kid from the first movie (Shia LeBouf) and his preternatually sexy girlfriend Megan Fox (who at all times and in every frame is photographed with the kind of light and make up that makes you think that if you turned the page, you'd find a fold-out) are chased hither and yon by big metal thingies because this alien cube infected his mind with the whereabouts of a doodad that will kill the sun.

ﾠ

Some of the stupidest dialogue, lamest "comedy", and eyeball-peeling editing follows, with plenty of reasons for feminists, the racially sensitive or those who appreciate little things like characterization or originality to take issue with. But what the hell: if you go see a movie called 'Transformers 2: The Revenge of the Fallen" you kinda give up your right to criticize on any aesthetic or political grounds.

ﾠ

It's really a kind of staggering production, Megan Fox really is incredibly hot, Shia LeBouf is better than the film deserves, and I guess it's the best movie based on a Japanese toy in theaters this month. A "B-", unless you're a nine-year-old boy overdosed on sugar and speed, in which case it's an "A." If Jar Jar Binks bothered you, wait till you see Mudflaps and Skids. Your eyeballs will implode.

Thanks, Erich

ﾠ

Tobias Bucknell sent me the following email this morning about the health care debate:

##

By the way, the comment you got about scores of Canadians coming to the US is another anecdotal fantasy:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/21/3/19

Turns out it's a small handful. Usually rich Canadians who don't want to wait.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans actually go to Mexico:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/uoc--n1m052609.php

##

ﾠ

About half of the million Californians who flee to Mexico to seek medical care are Mexican immigrants, so it might be reasonable to halve the numbers. What remains still appears to be multiples of the number of Canadians who come to America. Here's the trick: I've been hearing the "Canadians fleeing to America because their health care system is so bad" argument for years. I've never heard anyone offer numbers, and the whole thing started to stink. No one. All anecdotal, and you can prove anything you want like that. The tobacco lobby used anecdotal and twisted stats for decades to try to convince people that smoking wasn't harmful.

ﾠ

It feels very much like arguing backwards from a premise: X is what I believe, and I'm going to find some way to twist the data to meet my needs. I have no ideological preference here at all--except for the belief that I want to live, and my children to live as long as possible. So far, arguments against using Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality rate revolve around lifestyle factors (which access to medical advice can influence) and differing definitions of "Infant Mortality" without accompanying stats to demonstrate how exactly we are different, and to what degree. To my knowledge, when the WHO began collecting these stats, they had nothing to do with a Universal Healthcare debate, and America ranked very high indeed. And we trumpeted the results as evidence we were superior, and American society rocked.

ﾠ

Now that those exact same stats no longer favor us, we're supposed to ignore them? That's suicide. And it's fascinating that the only people who seem to believe those stats have to be wrong are those ideologically inclined toward the Right. Just as I'd expect, were the stats evidence that America's LE and IM rates were superior, that those who wanted government to pay their bills would reject said stats--not on scientific, but ideological grounds.

ﾠ

The question of what kind of system best drives innovation is still of great interest. I suspect that there is no way to resolve it absolutely, but it seems clear that those on the Right believe that profit is the greatest driving motivation for human beings in this arena. I personally believe that fear, compassion, and scientific curiosity are sufficient--people will stop seeking ways to prolong their and their family's lives when they stop being afraid of dying. No time soon.

ﾠ

But I don't know how this could be answered. And I think that there are some who simply think "I won't pay for someone else's health care" the same way there are some who simply think "I want it for free." And neither of these groups will tell the truth. While I automatically assume that no one posting on THIS blog is in either group, trust me: they're out there. And since we so very rarely see anyone saying that, they must be hiding behind the legitimate Left and Right arguments, as bigots hide behind rational arguments against Affirmative Action, and recreational pot smokers hide behind Medical Marijuana arguments.

ﾠ

The liars make it very difficult to discuss these things rationally. They troll and distort and misquote...and at the base of it, I suspect more all the time, are simply differences in the way people see the world. Does good flow from the top down? Or the bottom up? Do we enter the world fully formed? Does the world shape us as we go? Are different racial or religious groups (always their own) notably superior to others? To me, this is why they say don't argue religion and politics--in essence, they are the same thing, played out in different arenas.

ﾠ

My guess is that the Right is going to lose this one. It isn't like the drug legalization debate, where there are a limited number of places where it has been tried, and stats are hard to come by. No--in this case, most of the rest of the industrialized world has gone this way, stats are pleniful, and countries that are out-competing us, where people report higher life satisfaction indices as well as IM and LE are plentiful, and trying to ignore those statistics creates torturous epicycles.

ﾠ

When the percentage people "satisfied with their health care" is larger than the percentage of people who have it, you know something is wrong. When the wealthiest nation in the world is worried UHC would break the bank, when it is clearly working in countries doing better than us as well as those poorer than us...something is wrong. None of this means UHC is the best option...just that the argument that it IS seems clearer and simpler than the arguments that it is not. Statistical as opposed to anecdotal. Real-world as opposed to hypothetical (research MAY deteriorate). But the debate is an important one. Vital, even. And once again I appreciate it being conducted in a civil fashion. Mostly.

##

And I wanted to thank Erich for pointing out that I wasn't requesting equal civility from both sides. My bad. I try very hard to remain conscious, but obviously, an insult that supports my side of the argument just doesn't sting me as much as one from the other side. But this is true about all arguments: whether about gender, race, class, whatever: we just don't react if the slight is in our favor, any more than we protest as loudly if a referee makes a bad call against the other team.

ﾠ

We just don't. This is why an all-white Senate was so horrible to me, and it was so irritating when whites pretended all was well. Why men who claimed an all-male executive staff could treat women as fairly as one where women were included at the table. Why a roomful of Christians debating whether Islam is inferior is such a joke. Might as well expect fair treatment for Republicans from a roomful of Democrats, or expect the truth of a Liberal argument from a Right-Wing talk show.

ﾠ

We can't help it. It's the way our minds and hearts are wired. And the only answer is to strive to remain conscious, and invite those we trust to slap us upside the head when we doze off.

Micheal Jackson, dead at 50

ﾠ

Micheal Jackon's body died today. He himself died years ago. Every time he was accused of another atrocity, he died a little. Every step he took trying to turn himself white he died a little more. I mourn the incredibly talented boy he was, but the man he became was painful beyond belief. People's unwillingness to see the obvious truth of his sickness disgusted me. I remember seeing him sitting alone in the CBS commissary while his brothers ripped and ran around the building. He looked so lost. I wish I'd sat with him and spoken. What an incredible talent. What an incredible waste. I thought I'd mourned all I could over the last years, but no, there were still a few tears left. Damn.

ﾠ

To all of his fans, and all of the people who loved his music, thank God we have the videos to remind us of what he was, once upon a time. Without them, it might be just too painful. Once upon a time he was just so beautiful, so bright.

ﾠ

His body is gone, but his talent is with us forever. And for a master showman (the best live performer I've ever seen) it's all about the show. By any definition at all, he was a Thriller.

Unfortunately Correct?

When emotions run high, it is obviously difficult to actually hear what someone is saying. This is why it is so vital to speak to the people with whom you are in opposition: playing "telephone" under stress is just silliness: the meaning always changes between lip and ear.

Marty, I questioned the value of medical research in this sentence:

"What difference does advanced medical discovery make?"

And followed it immediately with this one:

ﾠ"Only if it has an effect on the population does it make any difference at all."

Didn't you read that? What possible objection to that statement can you have?

That's a little like hearing someone say "bullets aren't useful if they don't work" and not paying attention to the last four words, isn't it?

##

Erich quotes and says:

ﾠ

"... people are more afraid of dying than they are of not getting rich."

"You're unfortunately correct: they are more afraid of immediate risk than of the long-term likelihood that, if innovation is choked off, they will die of things which might have been curable if innovation had continued."

ﾠ

Huh? You aren't discussing fear of death versus profit motive. You're discussing short as opposed to long-term planning. Very different things. Certainly, you aren't saying that it is unfortunate that people care more about their lives than money...which an uncharitable person might conclude from your first clause.

##

You also suggest that socialized medicine only makes sense if you think we have already reached the zenith of medicine. I know of no one who thinks that, and medical research goes on in countries with universal health care. Now, what you are really evidencing is a belief that medical research is most effective within a commercialized system. This is a good argument, and I would be interested in seeing it debated.

##

I have to say that your comment that Democrats wouldn't want a pill that extends life is just the kind of "we rule, you drool" thinking one hears on both sides of the aisle on talk radio. Not your best argument, dude.

##

Yes, I can see reasons why a sane person might want less top-down control of medicine. But there's been only one comment that even obliquely addresses my main point: that the value of medical research/medical support can be measured in life expectancy and infant mortality, and we're starting to suck there, in comparison to countries with Universal care. That one comment is the belief that under such systems, research will suffer, and down the line people will pay for it. That is, as I said, a good argument if speculative. I'm not sure how to prove it, but note that I am more interested in truth than winning arguments: I published statistics that would seem to reinforce YOUR point of view (I would need to look more deeply into them, and speak to experts on both sides, of course, but you can hardly say that I'm only representing one POV, or hiding statistical data behind anecdotal evidence.)

##

I can understand how you might think I'm being too limited by looking at those pesky life expectancy and infant mortality stats. They don't tell everything, but I think they are less vulnerable to twisting and distortion than anything else I hear. People on both sides with a political axe to grind employ epicyclular logic and quote anecdotal evidence, and end up screaming at each other.

ﾠ

It seems to me fairly simple that if you have better medical care, you're gonna be healthier. If you're healthier, you live longer and fewer of your children die in infancy. I would have been fully prepared to agree our system was better, even if we paid more for it, if we'd been better on these counts. But we're not. I'm sure that if we were, there would be people on the Left who would offer complicated reasons why those stats should be ignored. I wouldn't have believed them, either.

ﾠ

However...I am interested in that question about what motivates medical research. Note that any argument you give, I will assume that that reflects your personal values. Fair enough?

##

BC Monkey:

ﾠ

We die of the same things our parents and grandparents died of. A specific researcher may not know what he or she will die of, but fear of death, and concern for loved ones, still would produce a spectrum of research covering most of the things that kill us--enough to impact statistics. And your comment about blind researchers shows that you mentally deleted part of my comments. Researchers have blind children, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers. Are you saying that only if you, personally, have a disease that you care about it? I doubt that very much. Are you saying that money would be more motivation to you than the health of your own child, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle? I doubt that too. And if it isn't...why aren't you willing to extend that level of humanity and ethics to others?

##

"In a proft medical system, as a patient, I am a profit centre.

In a socialized medical system, as a patient, I am an expense"

ﾠ

BC Monkey. That's one way to look at it, and here's another. To an insurance company, you are a customer. They want to extract the most money from their customers, and give the least back. They also have an interest in keeping you healthy so that you don't get sick in the first place. To a socialized medical system, you aren't just an expense: you are part owner of the system. Your tax dollars support it. So they also have an interest in keeping you healthy, and once you are sick, to helping you heal so that you can work and continue to pay into the system. In many ways, both have the same basic needs and goals. But the socialized system is part of the overall educational and public recreation/health complex that can actually affect your attitudes toward taking care of your body and mind. Both want people to take as little back as possible, but the Universal system has economies of scale and lack of profit motive: I fail to see why stockholder profits, enormous executive salaries, advertising and so forth help me stay healthy.

ﾠ

And again, without addressing the fact that life expectancies and infant mortality are NOT better under our system, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing me. The fact that you, as an individual, have a horror story (for which I am sorry) is simply countered by any one person who gives me a horror story about their HMO, or how a relative died from lack of medical care.

ﾠ

Anecdotal evidence won't convince me. Saying that scores of Canadians come to America for their care won't convince me without both specific, hard numbers (exactly how many? For what kinds of procedures?) and a refutation of the Harvard Medical School study that said that the average Canadian has health care equivalent to the average INSURED American. Add the uninsured in, and obviously, if one is to believe HMS, the Canadians are better off.

##

"If Obama's idea of change is to reduce the pain on one group, the poor by inflicting pain on another group, the elderly then how is he different from anyone who discriminates between groups."

True! But that's a big "if." Again, we could answer this simply by looking at the question of who gets better care and has better survival rates for every age group between America and various countries with Universal health care. My guess? The wealthiest Americans have better care, but the average American does not. I am open to seeing contrary statistics.

ﾠ

Have you any?

Ah may be wrong, but I is consistent

Mike Ralls commented:

"For what it's worth, my guess is that at least 90% of US President probably felt that interracial sex was wrong to some degree at some point in their life. Numerous states passed numerous laws against it throughout US history, reflecting that this was not an uncommon belief. This is sad, but morals change over time."

ﾠ

Morals have to do with actions. FEELINGS are different, and change much more slowly, as people become convinced that they are not in danger. Unless those "90%" went through a period of matching power and length when they actually APPROVED of interracial relationships (as opposed to merely tolerate them) then the net sum is disapproval, mitigation against. And if you are against interracial relationships, then you will grasp that integration leads inevitably to them. In which case you will look for every opportunity to slow down racial progress. Because you have to operate (to a degree) publicly, you have to hide your true intent, so you will always cloak your obstructionism in other terms.

ﾠ

Because it is hard to hurt others without opening the door to the same things being done to you (I'm against torture at least partially because I'm afraid it will be done to me) human beings have a wonderful capacity to have even fear, greed, and naked self-interest actually lead to decisions those motivated by love and charity might make. So these same human beings who, in a perfect world, would have no black men ever touch a white woman (while, of course, keeping black women sexually available to white men), will pass civil rights legislation because they have run out of legal, publicly-admittable reasons to oppose it. At which point they can say: Huzzah! See! Progress. Smiles all around. Ain't we Progressive?

ﾠ

I believe in humanity, but some of the things that have kept us alive through the centuries lead to real destruction. If men can be bigoted toward women despite every man having been given the gift of life by one, despite almost every man having aunts, sisters, and grammas that they love...that same tendency to want to control would run rampant when faced by an Other that is relatively unknown...who actually competes with you for reproductive space, and who might want to kill you in revenge for past wrongs. And whom you outnumber almost ten to one. And whom you can actually eradicate with minimal impact in your own life.

ﾠ

Frankly, the only President I believe doesn't object to interracial relationships is Obama--because he is the product of one. (And if he'd been "pure" black he'd probably have the exact same problem, in reverse) Every one of the others? The best of them wrestle with their instincts and conditioning, and come down on the side of the angels. But the twitch is still there.

ﾠ

This nearly universal "twitch" is why I don't believe that blacks will ever catch up. Too many disadvantages, no real advantages. Too many decisions about jobs, incarceration, health care that can be "explained away" as reasonable public policy, rule of law, when it is really an expression of a forbidden inner need. Too many decisions in the dark. That's just the way it is. But does that cause me despair?

ﾠ

Nope. Why not? Because I didn't say anything about how far behind they'll be. Could be no more than a fraction of a percent, and in the larger scheme of things, that ain't bad. And that means that anyone willing to put out 105% effort can get 100% of the results. Again, not bad considering the scope and sweep of human history. And let's not even get into the natural world: I would rather have been a black man in Selma in 1950 than a rabbit in the woods. Human beings are downright benevolent compared to the natural world. I don't see dogs and cats mourning road-kill.

ﾠ

Anyone who is angry and fearful for their community can do what I've done: mentor, sponsor, donate to their community. And most importantly, live by example. SHOW people how it's done. And while I won't tolerate whites pretending all is well and the playing field is level, I am also (regrettably, perhaps) inflexible toward black people: if you aren't working honestly, aren't physically healthy and fit, and don't corral your sexuality in the safety of relationship and/or family responsibility, you have no right to complain about poverty, health statistics, or boys and/or girls running wild in the streets. You know NOTHING about what it takes to make a healthy community, because your own dysfunction blinds you to the very causes that create social disaster. The Macro is in the Micro. Clean up your own back yard before you complain about your neighbor's.

ﾠ

It's o.k. not to care, but don't be hypocritical about it. It's all right to point the finger, if you can honestly hold yourself an an example of your own supposed values. Be the change you want to see in the world.

ﾠ

White folks are doing the best they can, just like you. Get real: children are dying out there. I don't ask you to get in the water with drowning swimmers, but get your damned feet on the dock and throw a life preserver, or shut the fuck up.

##

Is there anything ugly we do to each other that doesn't boil down to sex or survival? Power, maybe...but since power gives men access to sex, we come back to the same thing. Family? Genetic or memetic survival. That may be stretching a point, but I'm sincerely interested in the question.

##

Mike asked:

ﾠ

"Quick question on this, say America adopts a socialized health system; in that event, to what degree if any, do you think the following will be reduced;

% of Americans who smoke.
% of Americans who drink to excess
% of Americans who consume an excess of sugary foods or drinks, fried foods, fast foods, or too many processed foods.
% of Americans who eat large amounts of fresh fruits and vegetable
% of Americans who exercise 3 times a week, or more*"

ﾠ

Yes, I do. The reasons include the fact that when we're all in the pot together, there would be less social approval for self-destructive behavior, more programs to help people safely reduce or quit. Much more motivation for everyone to encourage everyone to behave in a healthy fashion--we have an actual stake in the health of our neighbors. A greater number of exercise opportunity in parks and public places, because tax dollars spent in prevention save money on the other end.

ﾠ

Preventive medicine is vastly less expensive than waiting for people to go to the emergency room. The actual amount of time necessary to achieve fitness is under an hour a week, and if people could actually consult experts who can customize programs, a little real information can go a long way.

ﾠ

Under NO circumstances can I see how such a system would make things worse, and since nothing has an absolutely zero effect, there you go.

##

I wondered about medical research, and how we might get some stats on different countries. I took a different tact, and decided to look for Nobel Winners in Medicine by country. Couldn't find a specific list, but Wikipedia has a list of all winners, and I'll list the top 5 or so:

United States: 309

U.K.--113

Germany--102

France--57

Switzerland--28

oh...and...

Canada 17

ﾠ

85 of the United States awards were for medicine. I'll leave it to someone else to sort through this to see how many of the others were. How this graphs in terms of comparable GNP, population, and so forth. I don't know. But it would be dishonest not to publish what I found. What it means? What might the difference be if medicine was socialized? I don't know. I suspect that that will require analysis by better heads than mine...but there are the results to discuss rationally and politely: lives are at stake.

##

Part of the reason I'm not totally worried about the quality of research falling off if the personal profit potential is reduced is that people are more afraid of dying than they are of not getting rich. This is why people who suggest that doctors are deliberately holding back valid, cheap cancer cures make me shake my head. They think those doctors aren't afraid of getting cancer? That their mothers and fathers and children don't die of cancer? Remove pure profit from the equation, and you still have fear, love, and sheer intellectual curiosity remaining. And you'll remember that I consider fear of death to trump everything else (on average). So if power (and money) is chakra 3, survival is #1, compassion #4, and intellectual curiosity is #6--a pretty fair through-line. I'll take it.

ﾠ

Again, ah may be wrong, but I is consistent.

What Use Medical Research?

Mark makes an excellent point. If socialized medicine reduces the amount of medical research and medical breakthroughs, that is indeed a serious concern. A few thoughts:

1) What difference does advanced medical discovery make? Only if it has an effect on the population does it make any difference at all. If we were paying more for health care, and our health stats were the best in the world...I would have nothing to say. But you know where I'm going with this: infant mortality and life expectancy. Unless a system produces superior results in these two basic indicators of a population's health, what the hell good is it?

2) What percentage of the world's medical discoveries are produced in America? I would love these stats. I suspect we have more than our fair share.

3) The only segment of the medical population I would expect to decrease are those practitioners and researchers whose primary motivation is profit. Nothing wrong with this, but there are other human motivations. It would be useful to look at what motivates people in socialized systems as opposed to specifically for-profit systems.

ﾠ4) If the benefits aren't reaching the population in general, are they helping, say, the top 5%? It would be understandable, if a bit callous, to say "I can afford the best. And we won't have the best without the current system." It seems to me that you have to be honest that there is another implication as well: "and I don't care about the rest of you."

5) Again, I use those basic stats lots of different ways. I'm sure they don't always apply, but in conversations with conservatives who oppose socialized medicine, I have actually heard (repeatedly) that if you remove minorities and the poor from the equation, we're doing fine. I hope you can understand why such an argument fails to persuade me. But since I am concerned with long life and health for myself, my children, and my country...I really honestly want to know why I should ignore statistics that seem to indicate that our current system isn't working as well as systems currently in place all over the world. Please. Elucidate.

##

Christian, I have a question for you. You've bragged about the vast number of women you've had sex with. Unless you've had a vasectomy, how could you possibly know whether you've made any of them pregnant? Any children running around out there? Are you sure? And if there are, and you aren't fathering them, aren't you a part of the problem, rather than the solution? I've had many, many, feminist friends suggest that womanizers who can't form relationships are actually misogynists in disguise. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, but I'm interested in how you would respond.

##

I've seen no lack of humorous digs at President Obama, and I think that initial concerns that he was "untouchable" somehow (often voiced from the Right) is just nonsense. Actually, I think the problem is that so many on that side think of him primarily in racial or ethnic terms, so much real fear about the way the world is shifting that it is a conscious fight not to make jokes specifically along that line. I wanted to mention some of the grounds for criticism and jokes that seem valid and appropriate, and those that seem to me off-grounds...and the reasons why.

I've seen great stuff on: smoking, voting record, lack of experience, Messianic tendencies, audience swooning, age, Chicago's crooked politics, Nerd-ness, overly academic tendencies, using a teleprompter (although people make themselves look dumb when they imply he can't speak without one. I was at the debate. No prompter), jock tendencies, informal dress, skinniness, and tendency to say "uh..."

ﾠ

Stuff I don't appreciate:

1)calling him by his middle name: clearly trying to associate him with a boogy-man, an American enemy (Saddam) who is so vilified that guilt by association has nothing to do with the actual man or his character.

2) Implying he is a Muslim. Again, appealing to the crazies who think he is, while maintaining plausible deniability. This isn't the same as mentioning someone's actual religion (which is also kinda odious.) But plenty of people consider him a "secret Muslim." At a time when anti-Muslim sentiments run high, clearly this is an attempt to tarnish him by non-association, appealing to the very worst in our population.

3) Bringing up his race in a derogatory fashion. Clearly, again, appealing to racist crazies.

4) Assassination jokes.

5) "Terrorist Fist-jab" type jokes. Again, playing on fear of "the other" at a time when concern about terrorism is sky-high

##

And speaking of that, what of the recent release of 1973 Nixon tapes, saying that he was generally against abortion, but was in favor in case of an interracial child? For God's sake, will people PLEASE grasp that attitudes like this were, and are, common, and when during that period you had a Senate 100% made of whites, the educational and social policy is set from the top, and MUST be racist. There is no other way to have 100% one race, in a diverse culture, other than by social pressure...unless, of course, one believes that the minority group is simply inferior. There are countless legacies of this era, this man and those who thought like him. While I'm not in favor of affirmative action, there is no other way things could ever be evened out. So...no, I don't expect things to be even, but I'll be damned if I'll let people snipe at those who were, and are, damaged by this poison.

ﾠ

Just vile. The fact that I love my country anyway amazes even me, sometime. How much Civil Rights legislation, pleas for equality and fair play, integration discussion went across his desk? Can anyone wonder why older black men like Reverend Wright might feel that there are whites who would infect blacks with AIDS, if they could? Why the Nation of Islam has no problem recruiting? This man was PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for God's sake, and he let himself be recorded saying that. I refuse to believe that he didn't say much, much worse in private. Every time I hear someone say "oh, it happened hundreds of years ago, get over it..." I wonder how they manage to breathe without a working brain.

ﾠ

This is why I'm against Affirmative Action. Not because it wouldn't increase the net amount of fairness in the culture, but because men like Nixon have been entrusted with the common good, and behind closed doors consult with other members of the dominator group about how the dominated should be treated. How DARE people expect blacks who have lived under such a situation to operate without serious dysfunction. We'd have to be Supermen and Wonder Women. Oh, wait. They're white, too.

ﾠ

Human beings aren't inclined to give up unfair or unearned advantage without a fight. Whether you are talking race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, wealth, or power...Because they actually believe they are better than the groups they dominate, and go unconscious about the depths of their disturbance, and lie about their true intent, hiding behind honest and sincere Conservatives. I'd be much more concerned about my attitudes about women had I not been surrounded by them every day of my life. What if I hardly knew any? Devastating.

##

The new "Transformers" movie is getting bad press about a pair of illiterate jive-talking robots with gold teeth. The excuse of the film-makers? Well, one of the voice actors was black, and that's the way he ran with it. Excuse me...who hired him? Who directed him? That's just lame. Then people will say: "well, look in the inner city, and you'll see black men talking like that..." Sure. And also church people, business people, teachers and so forth. Because I see women selling their asses on the corner is no excuse if the only women I show in a film are prostitutes.

ﾠ

White people die every day, but I've never seen a film in which all white people die while brown people survive. We see what our filters allow us to see, we justify our actions by pointing out members of the Other who seem to "deserve" it. Worse, after we club our victim to the ground, rob him, piss on him and break his legs, we say that limping, stinking, and being broke-ass is his natural state.

##

I've been asked: "well, if not Affirmative Action, what then?" I don't claim to have the answer. The closest I can come is the concept of balance. Those who actually struggle to balance their physical fitness, relationships, and careers learn the limitations of their ego rather rapidly. They tend to be less fearful, more open, more understanding of human nature. In other words...they tend not to be self-centered bigots. Simultaneously, they are taking care of their families, their communities, their environments...because once you are balanced and centered, with less fear, your sense of love expands to embrace the world.

ﾠ

In other words, I concentrate on that which is generative, and heals us all. That's my answer. What's yours?

ﾠ

How Can We Repay Our Teachers?

ﾠ

Some might call this paranoid, but it seems that in the health care discussion, the "elephant in the living room" is that the countries that provide health care as a basic service can afford it, and offer their citizens better life spans and infant mortality rate, at least partially because they aren't spending almost half a trillion dollars a year on military spending. Can anyone explain to me why we need to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined? Why in the world we'd need to spend more than, say, twice as much as the next most powerful country?

ﾠ

When we say we're the wealthiest country in the world, but cannot provide what poorer countries offer their citizens, something seems damned odd. And I have a feeling that this is just what Eisenhower was referring to when he said to beware of the military industrial complex. Have a better military than anyone else? Sure. But by this much? This many multiples? Wow.

ﾠ

And I have a sinking feeling that unless the citizens of this country demand we change this, it won't happen. The people with the power at the top can't push this. It would be insane to antagonize people who have this much money at stake, are those most familiar with weapons and tactics, and know people experienced in killing. Talk about motive, means, and opportunity. And out of the many thousands of people heavily invested in things remaining the same, how many would it take to kill a politician who spoke too loudly? If we accept that 10% of people are assholes, what percentage of those are, well, murderous assholes? 1%.

ﾠ

Money, power, weapons, lethal experience...that would seem to be a perfect shit-storm that only an idiot would cross. Those of us who talk to folk from other countries who say, yep, single payer works just fine, and the rhetoric from those who don't like it basically boils down to "I don't want to pay for someone else's operation" (well, fine. I don't want to pay for the war in Iraq, but I understand that that's the consequence of living in a Democratic Republic. We end up paying for things others want).

ﾠ

I suspect that if we want this, we'll have to make it happen from the bottom up. The forces allied against it are gigantic, and potentially lethal. But we have dozens of role models of things working just fine (Harvard Medical School did a survey suggesting that the average Canadian has health care equivalent to the average INSURED American. Add the uninsured to the picture, and the average Canadian is kicking our ass. I don't like that.)

##

"Night At the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian."

ﾠ

On Mother's Day I was out of town, so to compensate Tananarive we declared Father's Day "Parent's Day" and I gave her some much-needed private time by taking Jason to the movies. About the only thing playing that I thought we could both tolerate was Ben Stiller's latest comedy. Now, the first movie was cute, but said about everything there really was to say: a museum's exhibits come to life at night. This time out, however, in typical sequel-itis, they do a few new things:

1) Add an "end of the world" scenario to increase tension (an undead pharaoh gets his hands on a magic tablet that will awaken an ultimate army. Wait...wasn't that "Mummy 3?"

2) The museum is bigger.

3) A sort-of love interest, the spunky Amelia Erhardt is introduced.

ﾠ

There's more, but you get the picture. Here's the problem...I actually liked it. The fact is that the underlying metaphor: "Museums bring history to life" is almost irresistable. Amelia is unbelievably perky and charming, and the Smithsonian really is an amazing complex. I can't help it. Jason and I had a great time, and if this sounds like your cup of tea, so will you. A "B".

##

Saturday, I attended Maha Guru Cliff Stewart's sixth "Camp of the Masters." Let's be clear: Cliff is one of the two most broadly knowledgeable martial artists I've ever met (the other is Danny Inosanto) and has about 15 advanced black belts. And by "advanced" I mean upwards of 6th degree. This is no joke--this man had benched 500, bodyguarded Muhammad Ali, kickboxed with Joe Lewis, and is the only human being to complete Masaad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute LFI-1 and LFI-2 classes back to back. He is grizzly bear in human skin with a Buddha's smile--a gentle man with wrists as thick as my forearms (and by the way, like all real warriors I know, considers the idea of "not talking to your enemies" to be absurd and fearful. Doesn't make him right, but wanted to make it clear that on the wheel of archtypes, this is NOT a warrior attitude.)

ﾠ

Anyway, Cliff can attract absurdly knowledgable people to his seminars, including Graciela Cassilas, arguably the most lethal and beautiful female martial artist in the world, Capoiera master Dennis Newsome (MA choreographer for the original "Lethal Weapon". HIS Capoiera is real, and dangerous as hell. Almost all other Capoiera I've ever seen is clearly watered-down tourist stuff), Sijo Steve Muhammad (he and Cliff are pretty much best buds), Kilindi Iyi--a master of African martial arts, and a host of other notables. What an incredible amount of fun. Many of them are ex-military, all of them have genuine experience in street combat, all have produced (at least) expert-level students, and there was simply no ego in that studio. We were all just there to work our butts off and have a great time, and I did.

ﾠ

But one of the things that I saw there was that each of these masters honored their teachers fully and without reservation. In fact, this seemed to be one of the distinguishing marks of a true expert--the understanding that none of us get where we're going without standing on the shoulders of giants who came before. And even more--because I've known some of their teachers, I know that none of them move the way their teacher's moved. Well, that's not really true. None of them APPARENTLY moved the way their teacher's moved. They can't, and truely honor their teacher.

ﾠ

A martial art demands that you actually examine the word "martial art" itself. "Martial" means that the subject relates to war. Combat. Life and death. "Art" is trickier, but I would say that "art" means "Self" expression. That means that we go beyond technique to the point that conscious awareness of technical aspect disappears. It cannot be otherwise, if you are to function under stress, and a self-defense technique that doesn't work when you are tired, sick, fuzzy-headed, scared or surprised isn't really much use in the real world, now, is it? The disciplines that have taught me the most useful information about living my life were those that dealt with how to die with dignity, clarity, and courage: martial arts, yoga, and Sufism, among others.

ﾠ

So the water of technique has to percolate, go down deeply until it touches what Harlan Ellison calls "the burning core." At which point it explodes up into steam, belching out through the channel of discipline, focused on its target with will and clarity of values and intent.

But because no two bodies, no two lives, no two minds are identical, a true martial artist cannot look "just like" his instructor. Oh, yeah..you can while in the beginner or even intermediate phase. But by the time your training makes contact with your actual "Self", your "Is-ness" it must reflect that utterly unique aspect of universal truth. If you have remained in the illusion that you are like everyone else, then you might think that imitating the motion of your teacher is the ultimate rather than the beginning goal.

ﾠ

But if you go deeper...it's a different story. Of course, if we go deeper through the layers, we emerge at the universal. At this point, you look at a dozen different masters, and see the exact same thing. It is fascinating. They practice arts from different continents and cultures, call their techniques different things, and dress in different ways. Some teach kicking, some punching, some sticks or knives. Some work within a narrow range of motion (Steve Muhammad's Wu Shin Shur Chuan Fa) some use a true 360-degree sphere (Capoeira. And no, Aikido does not. Aikido uses 180 at best--to become a true sphere, they would have to invert the body). So to the beginner, or even intermediate student, it can all look confusingly different.

ﾠ

After 35 years in the arts, I suppose it would be disingenuous of me to pay attention to my pretender voices and act like I ain't advanced. So I'll drop the false ego about that, and say that I look at these things, and all I see is a flow of motion winding its way through an individual human spirit, molded by historical and social context. It's all the same. It's all wonderful.

ﾠ

The reason I bring this up is that I asked myself what their students can possibly do to repay those who offer freedom, offer truth, if we have only the courage to grasp it, to demand nothing less from ourselves. And I mean REAL teachers of any discipline. Those who point the way are of inestimable value, because to know anything to the level of mastery is to open the door to knowing all things. To knowing yourself. And there is nothing more important in life.

ﾠ

How can we reward those who give the greatest gift? What is the best way for us to repay our teachers?

What is the intent of Education?

I was having a conversation with several teachers recently, complaining about the state of education, and I asked them what the intent of education was. Their answers were all over the map, and it once again occurred to me that you have to work backwards from a clear intent. I mean, if you don't know where you're going, how do you know you're not already there?

It seems to me (and I think we may have had this conversation before) that there should be some agreement on this...and that that lack of agreement is part of the problem. I mean, if we say education should produce basic mastery of Readin' , Writin' , and 'Rithmatic, we all know the kind of lessons the students will be required to master. If we say that an education should produce a citizen capable of earning enough money to pay taxes sufficient to pay for that education, THAT also suggests some pretty clear paths. But no two teachers I've talked to so far have said the same thing.

Jeeze. That seems so...counter-intuitive to me that it's frightening. So I want to ask a question I may have asked before: what, in your opinion, should be the purpose of our education system?

And if your answers are all over the map...we've identified a major, major problem. If everyone in the car has their hands on the wheel, and everyone wants to go somewhere different, the car will go over the damned cliff.

"True Blood" and Resident Evil

ﾠ

I'm on the edge of canceling my HBO. Still enjoy Entourage (a lot) and look forward to the next season. But they got on my last nerve with "Oz" which had about a 40% black cast, and sex damned near every episode, and not once did a black guy get any. Then "Six Feet Under", where the sole black cast member was gay (that would be fine, as long as he wasn't the only one) O.K...

ﾠ

But the vampire series "True Blood" is worrying me. The basic conceit, that the creation of artificial blood has enabled vampires to reveal themselves, if quite interesting, and I want to watch it to see if their world-building is up to snuff. But Alan Ball, the producer, also did "Six Feet Under", so I find the little "black" voice in my head hyper-active.

ﾠ

And I'm not comfortable. The series is set in a fictional South, and the opening credits are filled with racial imagery, including Civil Rights marches, beatings, Klan rallies and so forth. So the film-makers are very aware of the social context. Having vampires fighting for their "Civil Rights" is another appropriation of black (as well as gay: they make this aspect clear) history. Fine--that's valid. But I've seen about 45 minutes covering two episodes (it's onscreen right now) and I've already seen two more black men who are horribly problematic. One is a gay prostitute and drug dealer who so far has been chained half-naked in a basement, very very clear slave imagery. Man-handled by white men, and treated like an animal.

ﾠ

Then there is another black man, a beautiful specimen, who was asked if he had ever been sexual with a friend, a white woman. His reply was no, because she was "far above" him. All right. this week it comes out that he was in prison for drug dealing and armed robbery. I find Alan Ball and HBO to be disturbing. The white people are full-spectrum human beings, the blacks confined to a very narrow range of behavior, all outside either social norms or biological breeding patterns. I'd like to like this show...but wow.

##

From what I've seen of "True Blood" so far, though, I don't believe their world. These vampires seem to have only come out for a few years. From what we see, they murder, kidnap, and intimidate pretty freely. We see some rallies of anti-vampire protesters (who seem kinda like Christian Abstinance rallies) but no real sense of the absolute terror, intimidation and rage that human beings would actually feel if super-powerful murdering mythic monsters were revealed to walk among us. If they toed the line COMPLETELY, they'd still be blamed for every death or disappearance in the county. Where the hell is law enforcement? The military? Homeland Security? Where the hell is the real, visceral fear? I want to see people actually thinking this stuff through, not just playing with the sexual text and subtext of vampire lore. It's really kind of strange. Has anyone seen this series? If so, can you address my concerns at all?

#

##

My comments about "Resident Evil 5" have been partially misunderstood. I was never referring to something specially bad about gamers, Japanese, or white people. My attitude is very very much the opposite: people are people, but there are certain basic human tendencies which, when allowed to remain unconscious, cause massive damage. I was asked to comment on the controversy surrounding the game (and BTW--I can always be reached at: LIFEWRITE@AOL.COM).

ﾠ

I said that it disturbed me a bit that all the monsters were dark, and the heros were light-skinned or white. All that they would have to have done to deflect my criticism was have one of the heros as dark as the enemy. Here are the factors I think lead to this game, or disturbed me about it, or explain why I care about a "mere" video game.

1) The natural human tendency is to make whatever "we" are the good guys, while the "other" is the bad (except for self-loathing individuals, of course.) You would be about 100X more likely to see a game where the blacks were villainous and the whites heroic than vice versa. Such a game just wouldn't sell--and of course, it would never be "because" of the racial imagery. Why, it would suddenly be clear to everyone that the game was hackneyed, or unoriginal, or too violent, or something. In the same way that if a movie has a black man having sex, white people just tend not to like it...but never for that reason, of course. Case in point: Will Smith's "Seven Pounds." White people criticized it. And it won the NAACP Image award for best dramatic film--black people had far less problem with it, obviously. Did black people cut it extra slack? Of course. But if you want to understand the "black tax" in terms of human perception, note the gap in approval for that movie between black and white audiences. Cut it in half. That's the tax: whites tear it down, blacks build it up, and the world keeps spinning.

ﾠ

2) Note the tendency that people have to assume I'm saying there is something specifically "bad" about the Japanese, or white people, or something. No. Just the opposite. I'm saying that there are "emergent behaviors" which in individuals have little impact, but multiplied across millions have huge effects. And when there are huge inequities (say, being outnumbered 10 to 1) have a devastating result. "Resident Evil 5" is completely predictable--the surprise would have been a successful game that had the opposite imagery. And just as predictable is that people would say "it's just a game." Sure. And the fact that there were no black people starring (or for the most part, appearing in) dramatic television during my entire maturation period was just a statistical anomaly. As was black exclusion in the Senate. Or black women having sex in films while black men do not. Now, if this stuff wasn't in the same world as statistics on infant mortality rate, life span, incarceration, education and shattered families, I wouldn't care.

ﾠ

But the human mind has this odd tendency to seek pattern. And the pattern I see is that thi stuff is all connected. And that those who are winning because the judges favor them will go unconscious and pretend its all all right. I have never, ever ever, in thousands of sporting events, seen the beneficiary of bad judging protest that the other team deserved the point. (I'm sure it's happened...I've just never seen it.) Why? Are all those athletes jerks? Not to me--it's that if you are sitting at the poker table winning, you don't ask if the deck is stacked. You just don't.

ﾠ

3) Light skinned women instead of dark skinned? The fact that rappers do this in their videos is EITHER

a) a matter of brain-washing (in America, we're programmed to believe white women are the most beautiful. Rappers would put white women in their videos if they could, but that would cause too much protest, so they get as close as they can.)

b) A matter of a simple truth: mixed-blood people are, on average, considered more attractive than pure ANYTHING.

ﾠ

Now, frankly, I think it's more "a" than "b". Too much other self-destructive stuff in those videos.

ﾠ

3) As I've said many times, Octavia Butler was very afraid for human beings, based upon two tendencies:

a) the tendency to be hierarchical

b) the tendency to place ourselves high on that hierarchy.

ﾠ

She left something out: that those who are hierarchical AND place themselves LOW on that hierarchy are, quite often, brain-washed and broken. I actually use that as one of my measurements of sickness and lack of consciousness (being asleep, dreaming that you are awake)

ﾠ

These include:

1) Being too hierarchical and assuming that this is indicative of some underlying natural order. (In other words, that it is "true" rather than just an interesting way to look at things.) Politics, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation...assuming one or the other side is superior in any of these is, in my mind, a symptom of being asleep and dreaming that you are awake.

2) Being hierarchical and placing yourself low on that hierarchy

3) Grotesque imbalance. This might include someone proud of their intellect and body, but with no ability to form lasting intimate relationships. Or someone intellectual and loving with a body that would greatly inhibit hunting and gathering. Or someone fit and in a long-term relationship who has no intellectual or career skills that provide a satisfying source of income. Any of these things will automatically set my alarm bells off big time.

ﾠ

"Resident Evil 5" is the very picture of a "dream game." Go to sleep and slip into a fantasy of power. You are strong, smart, unkillable. And we'll make the skin color of the lead character your skin color. Yes, sometime the enemies are also the same skin color. But what you will almost never see, ever (can anyone point out a successful game where this is not true?) see a game where the villains are all white and the heroes are all dark. BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT SELL.

ﾠ

There's nothing "wrong" with this. I'm not, nor have I ever, asked anyone to change. But I think that the honest thing would be to say: "I don't give a damn. I want my fantasy. I want to believe that my tribe is at the top because we are better, stronger, sexier, and closer to God. I don't care if this belief, and the things that flow from it, create misery for others."

ﾠ

THAT would be honest, and in truth I have respect for an honest adversary. But make no mistake: those who think that way could never be my respected friends. Never. I would still be at least 1% fairer and more polite to you than you are to me. But the reason I care is that people are never that honest, whether it is about homophobia, sexism, reverse sexism, racism, or whatever.

ﾠ

The truth is that, on average, people don't want to be equal. They want to win. Remember hierarchicalism? If you believe in "this as opposed to that" then you almost HAVE to want your group to win. And people don't criticize the judges as long as the calls are going their way (again, we're talking on average.)

ﾠ

So...if video games, movies, television, politics, economics, death statistics, or anything is to your, or your tribe's advantage...the average person will simply remain asleep and dream that this is the way it's supposed to be. And if you try to even suggest that maybe this isn't natural, that it is a social construct and not truth, they will criticize or even kill you for waking them up from their comfortable nap.

ﾠ

So no, I'm not saying whites or anyone else have more of this tendency. They just have enough power for their tendency to be devastating in its unconscious effect. And I'm not asking people to do anything except be decent human beings.

ﾠ

There are really only two points to bringing these things up (and all these things are from my POV, not some fantasy of "ultimate truth"):

1) I want to indicate the direction of being awake and aware.

2) I want to show people a way of looking "under the mask": watch the media. Television, movies, video, etc. See what people buy. That will show you what they really want, the direction that they will slide if they remain unconscious. Whether the issue that interests you is race, gender, sexual orientation, fat acceptance, or whatever--this is your straw poll. Once you strip the mask off, you can learn anything you want about what people really think, just by watching what the market does. Don't make the mistake of blaming the artists--watch the market.

3) Racially, I hold black people 100% responsible for digging ourselves the rest of the way out of the mess we're in. I have never advocated reparations, affirmative action, or anything of the kind. The door is open, even if people like me are carrying enough scar tissue that I wonder if I can actually get through it. As far as I'm concerned, blacks got that door open by the middle 70's, and it will probably take three generations to maximize the effects of the opportunity that now exists (the last people born under the old system will have to die, otherwise they will pass their attitudes and fears on to their children or grandchildren).

ﾠ

BUT. I will not stand by as those who have benefitted by the system (and if one group got stolen from, do you think that time, energy, social capital, money etc. disappeared into thin air? No! It was invested in the other community.) acting as if those crippled and damaged by the system deserved it, or that that was their natural state.

ﾠ

I don't believe in affirmative action not because it isn't "fair." The situation as it exists isn't "fair" and I wouldn't be increasing the net amount of "fairness" in the entire system to shift some of the pain around. I don't believe in it because I see no way for it to work: too many people are unconscious. Too many people hierarchical. Too many people secret racists who hide behind reasonable conservative rhetoric. We are outnumbered too badly: if 10% of human beings are racist, then there is one white racist for every black person in this country. If every racist decided to be a suicide soldier and take one of the "other" with them, then 10% of whites would be dead...and 100% of blacks. That's not a war I want to get into.

ﾠ

I'm against affirmative action despite the fact that I think it would increase the net amount of fairness in the culture, in the world...because it cannot work (from my perspective) and I won't support a policy that feels doomed.

ﾠ

But I point out the cultural evidence of a ghastly disadvantage blacks have suffered for 400 years, because of this horrible tendency that people have to think: "there is no problem except the problem within THEM." Whites have been saying blacks were "just fine" since before emancipation. I will believe that there are no social pressures that crush the weak and depress the average when 5-10% of the Senate are black, and not before. That indicates power, money, social acceptance and enough other factors that I'll finally start to relax. Before that, bigots want us to go to sleep. Because if we do, they win--that natural, unconscious human tendency, combined with statistical advantage, will finish the job for them.

ﾠ

"Resident Evil 5" is a symptom, not a cause. Go ahead, enjoy it. But be awake as you do. Or if you must remain asleep at the wheel, please don't drive our culture as you do.

Can We Change? And "Resident Evil 5"

Can We Change?

ﾠ

Something I said recently triggered a flurry of comments and emails, centered around the question of whether or not human beings can change.

ﾠ

My answer: yes and no. It's tricky.

No, I don't think our absolute essence changes. But what people really want to know is: can our behaviors, thoughts and feelings change? And as for that, my answer is yes. The problem is that we don't really know ourselves, that we react from false images of ourselves given by family, friends, teachers, society at large. We mistake these, and even our own thoughts, for our "self." In that sense, we're like onions with an infinite number of skins, or layers. We peel away or build upon until we find something that works, something that feels good in comparison to what we have known in the past. And there most of us stop. And in truth, the lessons learned before puberty are likely to stay with us the rest of our lives, if we don't engage in serious introspection.

ﾠ

Even as adults, we often react as if we are still children, helpless and controlled by giants with the powers of gods. This isn't very conducive to maturation. Often, people shift behaviors just by getting "realer" with themselves: a smoker quits because his doctor convinces him he will die if he doesn't, AND his children plead with him to be there to dance at their weddings.

ﾠ

Pain. Pleasure. The illusion that "I won't be the one who dies" or "it doesn't matter anyway" is shattered, and what emerges is a stronger person capable of uprooting a habit based in physical pleasures. This might be similar to a "coward" who runs into a burning building to save a loved one. What we think we are isn't what we are--but we react to the world, perceive the world, as if conscious and unconscious assumptions are correct.

ﾠ

I've known many people who are afraid to dig into themselves too deeply, afraid that if they do, they will find something hideous and ugly. In almost every case, these people were

1) Rejected by their parents.

2) Abused by people who should have protected them (family friends, relatives, priests or teachers)

3) Raped or badly beaten before the age of 20.

4) A member of a group reviled by their own society.

5)Trapped in a loveless, dominating or demeaning marriage.

ﾠ

Those five things come up so often that I think they touch some core circuits, some primary buttons connected directly to our sense of "is-ness."

ﾠ

If you believe that, at your essence you will find corruption, you dare not dive deeply. And since it is inevitable that you will enter damaged areas of your psyche as you move toward the center of your being, it is easy to imagine the negativity you encounter as "proof" that that is your essential nature.

ﾠ

I suppose that this is one of the reasons I believe that our core is loving energy. An urge to join, to merge, to evolve. The fact that I can present evidence from physics or biology or philosophy or religion to support this belief is irrelevant to its truth or falsity: others can present evidence to the contrary.

ﾠ

And if this belief made me more vulnerable, gave me greater pain than pleasure, I almost certainly would have abandoned it. But it has not. I realize my real attitude is: "have an open heart, but be ready to kick ass if necessary." I guess I can live with that. Some of the bitterest people I know started as loving, open-hearted sweeties. And when they got their teeth kicked in in love relationships, jobs, the political process or whatever, they began to believe that the world is a dark and ugly place where you have to keep your hands up at all times. I feel sorry for the extremes of this attitude ("trust everyone!" "trust no one!") because what it really means is that they can't trust themselves.

ﾠ

I love an expression Swift Deer often used: "don't trust people. Instead, rely on them to do what they see as being in their own best interest." I love this, because it puts the responsibility in YOUR hands. In other words, you can't trust other people more than you trust yourself. And

How do you learn to trust yourself? Be honest about the reasons for the results you've gotten in your life. Place yourself at the center of your world, take responsibility...and realize that everyone else is at the center of THEIR circle as well.

ﾠ

We get into trouble when we expect others to orbit us, or when we feel we are less than others. I've heard it said that the beginning of evil is viewing other human beings as means rather than ends. Another is to not love ourselves, and then extend that love fully to others. That doesn't mean I won't defend myself from you--just that physical violence will be the absolute last resort, and that I will do all in my power to avoid it honorably.

##

I really do regret that Marty lost his job and house due to racial quotas. No way to feel good about that. His understandable anger is one of the reasons I'm not in favor of Affirmative Action: while it does reduce the net amount of social pain, the individual, anecdotal pain fuels negative backlash. I hope for other answers. Here's a gift to you, though, Marty--if you can grasp it. If you wonder why black people are so often angry, please grasp that while many (if not most) white people know, or know of, someone that this has happened to, almost every black person I know has actually experienced it. If the same number of racially bigoted people exist in both groups--call it 10 percent--then there is one black bigot for every 100 white people, and one white bigot for every black person in the country. No comparison in terms of potential damage. If people over-react in trying to even things out, it is regrettable. But if you can "get" this you'll have a piece of understanding most are denied, and it will help you understand the world better, and more deeply.

ﾠ

Again, sorry for your pain, my friend. I would not have had it so.

ﾠ

#

A note from a reader:

"Given the amount of thought you've put into depictions of race in media, I'm curious about your response to the game Resident Evil 5.

Are you familiar with the debate it kicked off?"

ﾠ##

It was glaringly obvious that those who made decisions on this game were not black, nor do I think they knew many black people. To have every "monster" in the game black, and the one supposed heroic "African" straight-haired and very pale, is just too obvious for words. Capcom, who made it, is a Japanese company with a branch in San Mateo. You can either attribute this nonsense to universal human traits, or try to isolate it ("it's Hollywood!" "It's the New York publishing industry!" "It's Washington!" "It's...uh...it's San Mateo...") Yeah, right.

ﾠ

The first images of blacks I saw in Japanese movies or animation were savage, brutal, ignorant, raping animals. The first black "heros" I saw in Japanese games were brainless hulks, mere physical specimens. If whites hadn't kicked their asses in WW2 they would probably represent Gaigin as sub-standard as well...but apparently, nothing earns respect like a good thumping. Japanese women had their breasts enlarged, men had surgery to their eyes to resemble Europeans (Chinese as well...look at Jackie Chan).

ﾠ

So would I expect the guys at Capcom in San Mateo to have a visceral reaction to the negative imagery, and grasp how painful it would be? Nope. And if there are black people at the company, they've probably learned to keep their heads down, or be accused of being "too sensitive." I did a quick Google for "Resident Evil 5 controversy" and encountered a fairly reasonable, pain-filled but intelligent overview of racial politics in gaming by a guy named Ororunda. And the immediate reactions of (presumably) white gamers? I quote:

"People like him are why people are racists against blacks in the first place."

"Yeah, when I hear people complaining about racism my first response is to whip out the KKK hood and slap on the swastika armband."

ﾠ

Grasp this: if you even complain, you are justifying racism. This is like a woman who complains about rape justifying the act. And sales were great (surpassing 5 million units in the first month, I believe). So my guess is that not only did white gamers not want people making them feel guilty for enjoying a game, but if they have any negative racial feelings, don't you think that they actually ENJOYED killing black people, even fictionally? Sort of like how I enjoy watching white people die in movies where black people are demeaned?

ﾠ

How could they have fixed this? Well, if the female lead had been as dark skinned as the "bad guys" that would have been a great start. But as with the upcoming Disney "The Princess and the Frog" they have to make her as light-skinned as possible while still maintaining plausible deniability ("she's black! What are you talking about! See, there's no satisfying these people...") and making her "Prince" so pale he is not even plausibly of sub-Saharan African genetics, but sort of "exotic," allowing that old devil sexual/racial politics to rear it's head.

ﾠ

My wife and I played some "Resident Evil 5", and the very natural speculation is that the massively muscled hero and the curvy side-kick would bundle up at some point. That's part of the fun of male-female dynamics. And to suggest that you wouldn't be about ten times more likely to see a white male with a dark female than vice-versa is, in my mind, just refusing to notice human nature and the way it emerges in media.

ﾠ

Asians who would (and have) protested over depictions of themselves as subhuman---except for their cool, submissive women who fall into the beds of white soldiers--are perfectly happy to perpetrate such stereotypes of other groups, and then play innocent when you call them on it. And again...either I see this as a natural expression of our human tendency to be hierarchical, and then place ourselves high on that hierarchy...and then say "who, me?" and blame the victim...or I would do what Steve Muhammad did, and join the Nation of Islam.

ﾠ

Judging by what I've seen, most white people who don't (or claim not to ) understand why Resident Evil 5 would be offensive, would, if they were black, have a NOI membership card in their wallet.

ﾠ

Is it O.K. to fire White guys?

ﾠ

Marty said:

"Steve: When a company decides that it doesn't need a function and transfers to other groups the four female employees and one male Latino employee while giving two weeks severance pay to the three white male employees this is okay because white males are the majority."

ﾠ

No, I never said that. Firing anyone because of their race is bad. Never "o.k." Do I think it is as damaging to the white community for .001 percent of their population to be fired as it would be for the Latino community for .1% of their population to be fired? (These numbers are imaginary). No, I don't. Do I think that that should be factored in? Maybe. Do I think that historical grievances should be factored in? Maybe. It depends upon one's intent, one's social and political goals and attitudes. I think it is inevitable that people make some decisions based on who does and doesn't look, speak, or worship like them. Is this a good idea? Maybe so, maybe no, but it's certainly a nearly universal one. And it kept human beings safe for a long time. Should we carry these patterns into the future? I'd rather not.

ﾠ

But, of course, this is the discussion about set-asides, affirmative action, and so forth. And I'm not an advocate of affirmative action, not because it's unfair, but because people are unfair, and bigots can hide among responsible conservatives and rail against the poor put-upon white man. Sob sob. Anecdotally you can prove anything you want. Statistically, white men have a hard time eliciting my pity: I doubt I'm taking up a collection any time soon.

ﾠ

So my thinking on these things is not just "is it fair" but "can it work?" But it's never "It's O.K."

##

I was curious to see how I sort out the question of "Death of a President." I read the review in Variety, it sounded interesting, and I went out of my way (drove 20 miles) to see it. I would have been horrified by a comparable film about Obama, yep, I would. Now, I don't find this hypocritical for the following reasons:

ﾠ

1) First, I see a LOT of movies that are controversial and that some find objectionable. "Last Temptation of Christ" or the "Da Vinci Code" offended lotsa people who considered them demonic. Yawn. "Confederate States of America," a movie in which blacks were still enslaved, drew my attention immediately, and I actually drove that same 20 miles to see it. All kindsa torture porn, horror movies by the bushel..."Faces of Death" films--I have a taste for the unusual.

ﾠ

2) It wasn't politics, really. If the president involved had been Clinton or Carter, I would have been just as interested.

ﾠ

3) Race? Sure. But mostly because, being the first, it would be incredibly devastating to an entire community who has had no real leader since the death of MLK. I'd also be worried about the first woman. Obama represents the door to a completely different future. But note: I wouldn't be as worried if the film came out in his second term. Nor would I be as concerned if it wasn't Obama, but the 2nd or 3rd black President. That "first" thing makes a difference to me, I have to admit.

ﾠ

4) Threat level. All reports say that Obama has triggered a level of threat readiness within the Secret Service that is unprecedented. The whacko chatter is absolutely venomous, and at a serious volume. Almost all the black people I know expect some white man to try to kill him. If Bush Sr. had been killed, if Reagan had been killed...I would have found the film similarly objectionable. And "almosts" or "attempts" do not, and have never, generated as much alarm in human beings as "it happened." Who has ever cared as much if that team "almost" beat you, that opponent "almost" knocked you out, you "almost" had a traffic accident. Or "almost" got laid? Please. Kids "almost" get hit by cars or fall out of windows or swallow fishhooks every day. What family, anywhere, has ever reacted to "almosts" as much as they did the actual incident? Please.

##

Now, given all that--if there were two Presidents who represented the same thing to their communities, whose life or death would symbolize the same things to America and the world...and one was a Conservative Republican and the other a Liberal Democrat...I don't think I'd have a preference about whose assassination I'd rather see a movie about. After all, if a Republican dies, it's reasonable to assume that a Democrat did it. Oop! I'm not happy about that. And if a Democrat dies, it's reasonasble to expect that it was a Republican behind the trigger. No matter which way it is, there's not much of a giggle there.

ﾠ

Racially? Well, give me two black Presidents, and I probably won't twitch much about the third. That is a completely different world.

##

But this does relate to my movie-watching. As you know, I look at racial images in movies with some distress, especially since I consider Hollywood to be more liberal and open racially than America as a whole. Why doesn't this depress me? Welll...

ﾠ

I get a kick out of watching white people die in horror movies. Yep, I said it. If black people are excluded, neutered, black women treated like sexual chattle, killed protecting white people...

ﾠ

My tension goes right out the window watching Jason or Freddy slice and dice. Watching vast battle scenes in World War II movies (especially those that exclude black soldiers. You want to discount me? Screw you. Nice popcorn--look at those guts fly!). Does this rather sick tendency of mine extend to documentaries? No. Nor to real, live human beings. One exception: when I hear about certain types of crimes, I pray that the perpetrator wasn't black. PLEASE, God, please...in sort of a "two steps forward, one step back" kinda way. I've never prayed that the victim was white, however. Never.

ﾠ

Just one of the ways I vent my pain and fear so that it doesn't affect my life, my interactions with neighbors and friends and strangers. I am very aware that I extend more humanity to others than, on the average, they extend to me. I can deal with that. And fantasy is one of the ways I do it.

What's off limits?

Is there anyone out there who bridges the following divide?

There are those (generally on the right) who believe that the fall of Saddam Huessein was a stabilizing influence in the world: removing a Bad Guy, bringing democracy to the region, and so forth.

ﾠ

Then there are others (myself included) who thinks it was horrible, that North Korea and/or Iran's urge to acquire nukes was accelerated by us invading a sovereign country (for non-existent WMD's), dragging Saddam out of a hole and hanging him. Anyone out there believe we would have been as eager to do that if he'd had nukes? Seems to me that the only response a "strong man" dictator can take is to arm himself with the very weapons we claimed Saddam had. I certainly know I would--the only other option would be to grab my ankles and let America or the U.N. or whatever search my entire country, informing every opponent I had that I'm too weak to stop it.

ﾠ

Is there anyone who kinda holds both positions at the same time? Just interested.

##

I would certainly prefer that all political discourse be civilized. To my knowledge, it has never been so, not really. The only remaining question is: what is fighting fair? What is below the belt? I doubt any two people would agree on all the rules. But:

1) Are families out of play? Spouses? I'd prefer so, but considering that politicians parade their families out in public, I suppose I understand why some think them fair play.

2) Religion? If the subject of morality comes into it, or a person's religious beliefs will affect public policy, why not?

3) Sexual orientation. I'd say no, but we're in a culture war over the subject. Not likely to be off the table.

4) Race. Dicey. I'd say race is less protected if the person is a member of the majority group. This is obviously affected by my own emotional filters, so I can' t claim to impartiality. However, I don't think it's as bad for a 1st grader to hit a 6th grader than the other way around. Racial stereotypes are always in bad taste. It's probably impossible to completely remove from discourse, because there will always be people willing to believe that so-and-so didn't know watermelons are associated with negative racial images. And others willing to lie about it. So comments about tar babies and so forth will always be question marks: was the person racist, exploiting racism, or just ignorant?

5) Gender. Probably belongs on the table, to the degree that questions of social roles, biological determinism and so forth are important social topics. But gender stereotypes don't. But try to take that card off the table, and you'll probably get your fingers bitten off.

##

I am perfectly aware that I'm going to be more defensive about a racist comment than a sexist one. Probably because it affects me more personally, although I can present "reasons" why it's all right for me to have that reaction, it's probably most honestly construed as self-serving bullshit.

##

Would I react more strongly to an assassination joke about Obama than I did to Bush? Yes. The reason I enjoyed "The Death of a President," the Canadian film about the assassination of Bush, while I would be horrified by an identical film about Obama is that I never, not for a moment, believed there was any exceptional threat toward Bush. That in my lifetime, I watched several leaders on the left actually murdered, while those on the Right got wounded (Reagan, Wallace) but survived. Either the Left can't shoot, or the Right is just more violent. I don't know, really I don't. But that, combined with the obvious risk (the secret service has NEVER seen the volume of threat against a president as they do against Obama. As they did against Colin Powell) means that like millions of other people, I completely expect some kind of attempt. In addition, I've never seen television networks joking about a president's death, or calling him a terrorist, or any of the other things that I've seen.

ﾠ

If I had ever believed there was such a threat against Bush, I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the film. But I still would have been MORE horrified about a film about Obama because of the personal significance. What if I lived in the "Lion's Blood" universe, had my current rough political/social beliefs, and Bush had been the first WHITE president? Then I'd probably be almost as horrified by a movie about his death, and I would pray for his success.

ﾠ

Of course, I wouldn't have exactly the same beliefs, in all likelihood. I can only hope that, were I the one imbued with privilege, I wouldn't delude myself into thinking I deserved it because of my skin color. But I can't say for sure, can I?

Kudos to Nicki

ﾠ

Look. I don't have any real idea of the complexity of Iranian politics. But if we look back five years from now and consider the current upheavals to be the beginning of true democracy taking hold...or the fall of the religious regime, it would be absurd not to think that successful elections in Iraq did not contribute to it. I would love to think that something of lasting value came out of what I see as a ghastly misadventure. And if there is such a flowering, it would be only fair to give some credit there. We'll see--meanwhile, it would be interesting to know what the people on the street consider the motivating trigger (or triggers) for their actions, and if anything connected to America has anything to do with it. Bush? Obama? Or is that giving ourselves entirely too much credit...

#

Yeah, I think that Letterman made a mistake in not specifying which daughter he was referring to in his A-Rod comment. This opens the door to legitimate speculation about what exactly he meant. And it's predictable, and legitimate, for Palin to complain. I mean, why in the world should she give Dave the benefit of the doubt? Of course, she retaliated with a comment that could be interpreted as accusing him of being a child molester. Tit for Tat...all's fair and so forth. One has to watch one's public pronouncements--once it's out there, its out there. But do I believe he meant her 14-year old? Unless someone can show me a pattern of sexually in appropriate comments directed at young girls, I give him the benefit of the doubt. That's a pretty sharp line that few people cross. But...it's understandable if someone, especially a mother, disagrees.

#

Now, South Carolina GOP activist Rusty DePass said that an escaped gorilla is an "ancestor" of Michelle Obama. I personally think this was intended as a racist comment, yes--based upon a pattern of watermelon, assassination, terrorist and monkey "jokes" that I've been hearing since Obama won the White House. Viewed as an individual event, who knows. But I'm gonna be hypersensitive: humor is a release of tension, and it's pretty obvious that there is an element in America that is uncomfortable with Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with his politics. And while I know nothing about other comments made by DePass, the "South Carolina" automatically pricks a nerve. That may be unfair to DePass, but it not hypocritical on my part (I think) because while I can't detect a pattern there, I know that Letterman has thousands of hours of comments that can be pored over to determine the kinds of things he says. If DePass was making a comment that he would have made had the Obamas been white, it is reasonable for him to think I'm being unfair. Whatever.

##

Personally, the only group of people I have trouble maintaining a balanced attitude toward are tobacco executives, which I consider scum, lower than heroin dealers. So anything that help reduce the power of Big Tobacco...great. Is it a big wet kiss to Phillip Morris. Oh, Jeeze, I don't know.

##

Nicki graduated UCI on Saturday, and we had her party on Sunday. I guess now she takes a week off, and then begins the next phase in her life: work and preparing to enter the adult world. Wow...I really wonder how this is going to work for her, and I've got my fingers crossed. But for right now...way to go, girl. You did it.

"If you're not at the table, you're on the menu"

I just heard that line, relating to the importance of diversity in our legislative and judicial branches. Lovely.

##

In answer to yesterday's comments:

1) I think the presence of women in the police and fire departments is a damned fine idea for multiple reasons, including but not limited to women's capacity to de-escalate violence. I had a friend who stopped a fight between two huge men by sticking her finger down her throat and vomiting in front of them. Frickin' brilliant.
2)Dan asked me if the following described my position: "Women live longer than men; this is a result of choices they made, and therefore the deal whereby they are deprived of other choices is just part of the same deal. And long life isn't the only benefit to this deal, just the biggest one. Men don't have it better than women, and women don't have it worse than men. Right?"

ﾠ

Mostly right. You were the one who mentioned choices, and I agreed that choices were involved. But as Perry said, there are very real genetic reasons as well: after all, every woman is wired for about eight hours of labor. That's an endurance event, and would certainly be related to other forms of long-term endurance...like survival itself. Our GENES made these choices, not us.

ﾠ

My point is that FROM INSIDE THE SYSTEM it just isn't possible to quantify whether men or women have it better. How in the hell are you going to apply "points" to life and death as opposed to 70% of income? I also refused to take a position on whether blacks or women have it worse in America (remember?), because anything I say would be warped by my own perspective, and probably self-serving. I did, however, suggest that we ask black women, who know both sides. Regarding the male-female thing: What are we gonna do here, ask transsexuals? Somehow, I don't think that's gonna work.

ﾠ

But the "voluntary" things men do aren't entirely voluntary. They are influenced by some of the same hormonal things that give women long life. Testosterone is an incredibly powerful drug--and the aggression to fight wolves or Huns also makes us poor bastards compete with each other in dangerous ways. And the dangerous jobs go more naturally to men, as the non-baby-carriers of the species. Find me a culture anywhere in the world that works that in reverse, and I'll show you a very marginal culture, probably living up in the mountains or on a tiny island somewhere--one that has never had to compete with other cultures with "better" ideas.

##

Considering that the WHO uses life expectancy, death by violence, incarceration rates and infant mortality rate as a measure of the relative health and wealth of a people is, to me, an incredibly useful tool. I know I'm not pushing a political agenda, because the first time I applied it was during an argument about the status of blacks in South Africa. While they measured worse than whites on most of these standards, they measured HIGHER than neighboring blacks. I had to inhale, sit down, and look at that...and admit that they weren't as bad off as I thought.

ﾠ

If I apply that same measure to blacks in America, do you know what racists (and some others) say? Well, it's behavioral. It's what they eat. They kill each other. Yes, but WHY? On one side, you get the implication that this is innate, inborn, just evidence of inferiority. "They like to live that way." And guess what the exact same reasoning applied to men sounds like to me?

ﾠ

Grasp something: for this boondoggle to work, men have to think it's normal and natural. We get complaints about violence toward women in film (which is appropriate) with no acknowledgement that we see a hundred times more violence toward men. Watching "Kingdom of Heaven" recently, it hit me that we saw...let's see...ONE woman die (Saladin's sister) and literally thousands of men. No one cares. Why? A culture that cared couldn't brutalize their little boys to make them inured to violence, conditioned to compete even at the cost of their own lives, closed to their own emotions.

ﾠ

And then what happens? Does that enlightened culture live happily ever after? No. It gets wiped out by the first culture that WILL brutalize their boy-children. Being peaceful isn't superior if you can't protect your kids.

ﾠ

And if women begged their men not to make money or expand their land holdings, I'd say you had a point. If the most cosmetically attractive women (remember--men are visual. We can't help it, we're just wired up that way) dated the captains of the chess club instead of the football team, I'd agree that men just "liked being violent." Men and women program and condition each other.

ﾠ

If I hadn't heard and seen so many white females screaming that women have it worse than blacks, or for that matter raving racist bullshit or enjoying a good Sunday afternoon lynching, or encouraging their boyfriends and husbands into fights or emasculating them for not making money...I'd buy that women are somehow superior.

ﾠ

But having been raised by my mom, as a boy I listened to women laughing about how their husbands were children, easily manipulated, and how they (if they were middle class or above) got tons of leisure time while their husbands worked nine-hour days. Tananarive and I have laughed over the same thing: the number of times when she is alone with women, they will make the exact same kinds of controlling, demeaning comments about men that men are notorious for making about women.

ﾠ

If two different racial or ethic groups have a differential in income or power, the disadvantaged group has the worst of it in life expectancy, incarceration rates, infant mortality, and death by violence. This just isn't true for women. By the time a culture has a high infant mortality rate and low life expectancies for women--that culture is dying.

ﾠ

Yep, women earn about 70 cents on the dollar. On the other hand, they control more inherited wealth. To this day, I don't know a man who "just" stays home and takes care of the kids while the wife goes to work. I knew a few cases where it was tried, and the woman got sick of it pretty quick. (I know that such cases exist. They would have to. But I just don't know any of em personally. Guys temporarily out of work? Sure. Guys running businesses out of the house? Sure. Teachers off for summer vacation? Sure. But "just" staying home while the wives work? I just don't know of one. I'm sure we'll see more of them in the future, however, and I wish them well)

ﾠ

Some of the most frantic feminist rhetoric I've heard has actually been from women whose husbands support them. I mean women who have no real interests outside their homes, a totally spotty job history even BEFORE they were married. I think about the number of men who would love someone else to go out there and earn for them, compete for them. And they can't do it, can't rest, or else they will be considered as undesirable (at least) as women who are considered "too competitive."

ﾠ

And that's what it comes down to for me: the system is set up to reward men and women who play "the game" --the game being whatever produces the maximum number of children who themselves reproduce. We are finally at a period in our development as human beings--post-industrial--where we can actually examine and change the rules.

All my life I've heard whites explain why whites are superior. Blacks explain why blacks are superior. Men explain why they are superior. And women explain why they are superior. Great. Just natural. But you have to grasp that each of these groups finds it advantageous to keep the other side off balance. "White guilt" is a very real phenomenon. I'm quite sure it got me laid at least once or twice. And "male guilt" is real as well.

ﾠ

How could we determine whether women have been, historically, in a worse position than men? Well...we'd need to have an objective measurement of what is "good" and "bad" in life, and to what degree. A year of life is equal to how much money at your job? The average person would trade six years of life for how much power?

ﾠ

I personally look at the statements made at the end of life as reflective of real wisdom, understanding, and genuine human values. What is more important: power or family? Money or friendship? Intimacy or control? I do NOT hear stories of people on their death-beds, men or women, saying that the most important things in life are the things that men have more of.

ﾠ

They wish they'd taken time to watch more sunsets. They wish they had had more close friends. They wish they'd spent more time with their families. They wish they had found more spiritual peace.

ﾠ

Money? Power? Casual sex? Don't hear it. So for me, this stuff all factors in. The truth of what we are, what we want, as opposed to the lies told by our societies to control us (I'm not talking about what our "leaders" say--they're caught in the system, too). If I believe in the basic (but not universal) truth of Maslow's Heirarchy or the Chakras, or Core Transformation, what seems to be true is that what we want, all of us, is peace and love. That violence is a reaction to fear. The need for control relates to fear of loss. That when you remove fear, what remains is love--the thing we all genuinely crave.

ﾠ

I think that the cars, power, fame, money and most privilege dangled in front of us like carrots in front of a mule, or metal rabbits in front of a racing dog, are simply fool's gold. Unless they directly influence life span, the health of our children, the amount of love in our lives or our basic sense of peace at the end of our lives, it's bullshit.

ﾠ

Bullshit.

ﾠ

The fight between men and women is like a boxing match in which one boxer has more power, while the other one has more endurance. You make the mistake of thinking power is everything, and you get MURDERED in the late rounds. The referee is God, or biology, or whatever you want to call it.

ﾠ

The WHO standard applied to health care gets a really clear result: Americans pay more for less. According to the Harvard Medical School's study of the Canadian health care system, the AVERAGE Canadian has health care on a level with the average INSURED American. That means that once you factor in the poor, there is no comparison. So people who disagree with universal health care always discount those statistics. Other things are more important.

ﾠ

And I've actually heard "America is great if you just don't measure the negative statistical effects of minority community misery." They blame the victims, they really do. Or I'd put it this way: they don't really care. They think they do, but they don't.

ﾠ

And I've watched enough horror movies with audiences all over the country, to know a truth: men and women don't care as much about the death of a man. Butcher a man onscreen, and the audience is as likely to laugh as anything else. Men and women both. Put a woman of child-bearing age at risk, and they scream "help her." Risk a child? Oh my god, you can't even GO there without traumatizing the audience. And you will almost never see a pregnant woman put at risk. Hell, even Predators don't kill pregnant women!

ﾠ

So my points:

1) We can't know who, overall, has it worse between men and women throughout history because there is no universally accepted measure of how important the differing factors are.

2) Whenever I have this discussion of relative suckage, WHENEVER, the factor of men's deaths is ignored or discounted. Men are blamed because "they start the wars." Unless there is a queen, of course...and even then, it's still the men who die. I see this as precisely equivalent to men not caring about women's dreams and hopes.

3) The system wasn't created by anyone. It was originally biological/reproductive, and societies that tried to go against this...died out.

4) Each side uses every tool it can to dominate the conversation: guilt, threats, pain, whatever.

5) For the first time in our history on this planet, I think we can actually move beyond this system. We have to forgive ourselves, and each other, and get past this "he said, she said" before you can see the puppet strings.

6) If you talk about this stuff, the first thing you will be accused of is being a crypto-sexist. Some people will be sincere about this, just afraid of your hidden intent. Nobody can guilt trip me about this stuff because I've put my ass on the line too many times for my sisters, daughters, and mothers. Anyone is welcome to talk to any woman I've ever known about how I've treated them. I may be an asshole--but I'm probably more of an asshole to men than I've ever been to women.

ﾠ

#

I say that saying men are worse than women is exactly the same as saying women are worse than men--just more politically correct at THIS point in our history. I care little for political correctness, and quite a lot for the future well-being of my children. For that, we need honest discourse, and not fear and blame and guilt.

Chakras and stuff

ﾠ

Scott said: "agriculture's a blip. Consider the hunter/gatherer split."

I agree with that one. In doing research for SHADOW VALLEY and GREAT SKY WOMAN, there was great (although not absolute) consistency in the types of work males and females did in "primative" groups around the world. Women gathered, trapped and sometimes fished. Males ranged further from home base and stalked the larger, more dangerous prey. Hunting dangerous prey and fighting other human beings have much in common. The skill sets overlap considerably.

ﾠ

It seems to me that any group of human beings learns pretty quickly how to distribute the risks through their population so as to produce the maximum number of children who can survive to have their own. And putting women on the front line just isn't efficient there. I've read too many studies of the defense of cities under seige. It is only in the most extreme and desperate circumstances that women go on the line. "Women and children first" may not be universal, but I know of no society that demands women protect men with their bodies. That shit would collapse the breeding pool in a single generation. Truth is, I've never even read of a FICTIONAL society in which the human females protected the males. I'm sure they're out there, but if anyone can point me toward a believable one, I'd like to see it.

##

Dan asked me for an opinion about the reality of chakras. As I suspect he expected, I consider them to be both "real" and "metaphorical." To the degree that they are "real" I suspect they relate to the same human functioning affected by acupuncture. Something is going on in the body that is more than Western allopathic medicine. What that "something" is gets debated greatly, but it is completely inarguable that acupuncture functions, at the very very least, to decrease pain. I believe that there is more going on, perhaps something to do with the change in electrical potential in different tissues in the body during the day. I really don't know.

ﾠ

But if you take a look at the "maps" of the chakras, they tend to be near centers with massive nerve clusters. I suspect that what happened is that generations of meditation and observation of the effects of postures, breathing, concentration, etc. generated theories about different "centers" in the body that related to different aspects of health and emotion.

ﾠ

Others tried looking at the body that way, and also got positive results. And in time, these theoretical structures gained a great degree of cultural significance: they have different colors, and shapes, and sounds, and move at different speeds. They signify different basic aspects of human development, rising from the bottom these aspects map over fascinatingly with Maslow's hierarchy. Does "kundalini" exist? I think that the answer is yes...depending on the definitions involved. There are higher levels of human functioning, and some say that the very highest includes "psychic phenomena."

ﾠ

This is where the science fiction writer side of my personality breaks with the mystic side. I've experienced things that an entire side of my personality disbelieves. But the simple answer is: if you cut someone open, you don't find Chakras.

ﾠ

But if you act as if Chakras are real, and focus your meditations and yoga poses on them as recommended, you get very powerful effects. I consider them to be "complex equivalences ", simplified symbols representing something that is so complex our conscious minds can't quite grasp it. More real than a fantasy, less real than a kidney. Slippery little devils.

##

My belief that our biology exploits our fears and needs to manipulate both men and women into their roles does not in any way excuse violence toward, or oppression of women. I just think that men are actually happiest and healthiest when women have equal power. And that the mythologies that convince them it's just great fun to have his head shot off is tied into the poisonous, wonderful elixer called testosterone--which no man ever asked to have pumped into his balls at birth. Cultures without aggressive males get wiped out (unless they are protected by natural barriers, or have nothing anyone wants). But that aggressive force is also chaotic, and must be controlled--preferably by older males, who are on the far side of the testosterone flush, guiding young ones.

ﾠ

Unless men are superior, unless we actually live better with women dominated and controlled, then all such beliefs are fantasies, mythologies that keep us in our roles. We know that people do all kinds of self-destructive stuff, have all kinds of self-destructive beliefs: they won't die from smoking, obesity isn't damaging to health, unprotected sex won't hurt you, lotteries are a good investment...whatever. I think the only reason it's hard to believe that men have been as brainwashed as women is if you are still kinda harboring a wish that "gee, I really would like to have the domination over women grand-dad had. That was a better world. But it's wrong."

ﾠ

I don't think it's just wrong. I think it is a way of organizing pre-industrial males and females to produce maximum offspring, and that we are at the end of that cycle. Who the hell had the perspective to understand how mythology becomes intertwined with action to create perception? WE DO. Now. Thinking men are inferior to women puts you in the exact same room with people who think women are inferior to men. Imagine conducting your conversation with them. How would that go, hmmm? I don't have the opposite position: I have the contrary position, and that is a tricky balancing act.

ﾠ

Now, that said, I do think that I've encountered more "real adult" women than "real adult" men. Possibly because child-rearing is one of the "real" activities, and women are more connected to that. An industrial society demands that those who work factories do work that is disconnected from their own reality in exchange for symbols (money) that will provide for their families. That requires an interesting level of abstraction to make personal and meaningful.

ﾠ

I think fewer factory-workers can find meaning from their lives than can child-rearers. And to the degree that discovering the meaning of our actions is a maturing factor...that may have something to do with it.

ﾠ

I do know that societies don't encourage us to become really adult human beings. They seem to encourage us to remain child-like and obedient. This has nothing to do with Right or Left...it is more like a society tries to get us to be more like cells in a kidney than freelancing amoebas. My guess? Traditional societies have equal amounts of adults on either side. And there may have been burps that sent that proportion one way or another throughout human history.

ﾠ

My "sense" that I've met more adult females than males isn't like a 1/3-2/3 situation. I don't think it's that lop-sided. And I didn't have that sense in Africa--it felt more even. I just think that office buildings and factory lines are artificial, while bringing a child through your body is as old as time, and is still much the same maturing experience it was a hundred thousand years ago.

ﾠ

But to me, this is all just conditioning, "software" opposed to "hardware." To be honest, I do see this effect, disturbingly so, in the inner city. And you know I attribute this to the break-down of families, what I interpret as a giant mistake: the belief that fathers aren't needed to raise families. This is a horrid result of 400 years of violent oppression that included black women being allowed to live lives closer to their natural state than black men were allowed to do.

ﾠ

Note the difference in sexuality between minority females and males in movies, and you'll see an expression of this. I see this stuff coming out in college statistics and crime/incarceration statistics as well. This is not natural, it wasn't there in the wiring, it was cultural programming.

##

If I'd been darker-skinned, and not so much of a nerd, I might have found more protection and shelter within the black community, and accepted their mythologies about the world. Had I been white, I probably would have accepted many of THOSE mythologies about the world, and never looked deeper.

ﾠ

While Sotomeyar almost certainly spoke poorly, I interpret her comment as this: privilege protects. A minority who has risen above the inherant problems of being a minority or in a disadvantageous power position ("a wise Hispanic woman") will understand the actual reality map better than someone who has benefited by the power gradient (a white male) and never awakened to reality.

ﾠ

My guess is that the most important question is: would a wise white male have an equal capacity for judgement? I'd think that the answer would be: yes. But who believes the average male understands women's issues as well as the average woman? The average Christian understand Jewish issues as well as the average Jew?

ﾠ

To the degree that we believe our experience creates the lens through which we view reality, it is impossible to actually be impartial, regardless of what judges and reporters are supposed to be. That just isn't real. We can TRY to. We can COMMIT to.

ﾠ

But unless we believe that white or males are superior, there is simply no way that a Senate composed entirely of whites, or males, can represent a diverse population as well as a Senate whose composition is more diverse. Privilege protects. Look how quickly the crazies emerge if we have a black President: the belief that whites are under attack is already hissing and coiling and crawling from the shadows. And what would happen if the next two Presidents were also black? And what if the Senate was, say, half black?

ﾠ

Yes, our founding fathers were all white. And white guys, especially, love pointing this out. Fine. Of course, there were a few little problems involving slavery and women's rights those guys left out. Gee...does anyone think that those same problems wouldn't have been addressed if half the Founding Fathers had been Mothers? If ten percent of them had been black? I think not.

ﾠ

ﾠWe do the best we can with our poor little human perceptions, and one of the things we struggle with is what scared Octavia Butler about the human species:

1) We arrange the human race into hierarchies.

2) We place ourselves and our group high on those hierarchies.

ﾠ

I fail to see any argument against diversity on the courts or Senate that don't boil down, ultimately, to believing the "other" isn't as good. Just a couple of days ago, we talked about "presenting arguments." That people will hold prejudices and not want to put their cards directly on the table. So they will find other ways to criticize, without letting themselves be labeled as bigots.

ﾠ

Honestly, I've had many conversations with friends and business associates on such issues. And what I love doing is waiting until the conversation has been forgotten, and then see how hard it is to get them to admit that group "X" is inferior or evil. And to my memory, it just hasn't been hard at all. Every one of these people would say, if they thought you were sympathetic, that homosexuality was sinful, or blacks intellectually inferior, or women needed to be controlled by men, or Hispanics were untrustworthy. It was a game I played, until I got sick of it. I just couldn't find anyone who really got steamed up about this stuff who didn't have some serious attitudes.

ﾠ

And what of it? Those attitudes seem to be close to universal among human beings. Whites, blacks (Jeeze, it's easy to get black people to talk about how they're superior!), gays, straights, men, women--I see the exact same thing.

ﾠ

Try it yourself. Scratch the surface of someone who takes a position that would seem to be to the disadvantage of one group, or decrease the power and privilege of another, and you find icky stuff. Dig into yourself deeply enough, and you'll probably find the same. Hell, I know I do.

Maslow, Chakras, and what drives us

ﾠ

ﾠ

A 2005 Gallup Poll said that American teenagers fear the following things most.

1. Terrorist attacks
2. Spiders
3. Death
4. Failure
5. War
6. Heights
7. Crime/Violence
8. Being alone
9. The future
10. Nuclear war

ﾠ

ﾠ

I'd like to find such polls for all ages and cultures. I openly admit that "American teenagers" is hardly indicative of world attitudes, but I only spent five minutes Googling. Please--someone look more deeply and find us more references. But note how many fears on the list are different forms of fear of loss of life (Terrorist attacks, spiders, death, war, crime/violence, nuclear war). I doubt there is any single thing worldwide, that is as agreed upon as a "I don't want that to happen for as long as possible." Biologically, we are set up to do almost anything to avoid it.

ﾠ

In no way am I saying we should value life above everything else. I certainly don't. But unless someone produces surveys where most people value power or money above life, I have to think that any evaluation of the relative health, happiness, or success of different groups HAS to factor in life expectancy, or it is missing a factor which, world-wide, has driven much of human history.

ﾠ

I'd love it if people would go out on the web and find "top ten things valued" type lists or "top things to be avoided" type lists, and help me see if I'm right. Life itself will be at or near the top of the list of things people want. Death itself will be at or near the top of things people want to avoid. And money and power, the things that men have in greater abundance (in most of the world, without much doubt) aren't the things that people really want the most. And lack of them isn't at the top of the list of things to be avoided (being dead broke and utterly helpless is nobody's idea of a good time, of course.)

##

Dan, you actually did a fine job of presenting your position. But you said I thought death was "the" compensating factor between men and women. No, I think its "a" compensating factor, and a very important one.

Certianly, you did not mean to gloss over the service of every man who ever died believing he was protecting his family and country. You say that men die largely because of risky behaviors. Yep, lots of truth in that. So...if the Huns come over the hill, and the men of the village mount up to protect their families, this doesn't count, huh? What, in your world, are they supposed to do? Send the women? Not fight at all?

ﾠ

I've had this conversation with at least a dozen feminists who share your position--that men have the advantage in life. And they discount the deaths of men in wars because "men start the wars." That's simplistic, and even when women reign, if there is a war they STILL send men out to die. Because that's kinda what we're built for.

##

I find this worthy of commentary because I respect Maslow's Heirarchy greatly, especially when I map it over the Yogic Chakras. THAT was what I meant by "Yoga"--not the asana exercises, but the entire system "Yoga" that tries to organize the techniques of human mental and physical development.

ﾠ

I fear you've misunderstood Maslow. If I understand him properly, he was saying that, in general, human beings move from more basic needs to more evolved and complex ones. That IF the lower needs (survival, shelter, food) are not met, it is difficult to evolve to the more elevated ones (self expression, intellectual growth, spirit.) That makes perfect sense to me, but of course doesn't apply to every human being--it's just the way to bet. People who have managed to become saints, or massively self-sacrifice for spiritual ideals, (like Masada) set standards we admire for a thousand years--BECAUSE IT IS RARE.

ﾠ

The Chakras say much the same thing, and have been used to understand human behavior for some six thousand years. That doesn't make it correct, but it does happen that I've used it to understand the world for at least forty years, so a challenge to it catches my attention instantly. I don't want to THINK I'm right about this stuff. I want to BE right, and a good challenge is necessary to see whether the model holds up.

ﾠ

Let's see if I have any trouble understanding the aspects of human behavior you've brought up, IF Maslow/Chakras are an accurate tool.

ﾠ

1) No one would fight in a war? Nonsense. Cultures that fight survive. Those that won't, or can't, had better be protected by water, mountains, or have nothing anyone wants. So you have that tricky thing that willingness to risk your life decreases chance of death. A warrior who enters a battle WILLING to die, and READY to die, is less likely to die. The one afraid of death will not have the confidence to use his training, and be cut down by someone with less skill, who has mastered his fear. Every military knows these things, and devotes massive amounts of their training to helping recruits deal with their fear of death. Cultures understand that if the individual members will not risk their lives, it will die, and so will they. One might suspect that religion is one of the tools evolved to deal with this. What if I die? You go to the afterlife. And if you have fought bravely, you will sit on the right hand of God, or Allah, or whatever.

ﾠ

Do you think I, a young man dying on a battlefield, care whether it was a man or woman who sent me to die? Whether it was a man or woman who pulled the trigger on me? Saying that it matters less if I die because of the gender of the person who killed me is heartless--so I can't believe that's what Dan is saying because he is a very compassionate man.

ﾠ

As a teacher once told me: "any culture that does not produce some minimum number of crazy, dangerous young men...will die."

ﾠ

2) Men die in risky jobs: hunting, building, mining, whatever. Men have traditionally taken the most dangerous jobs in a given culture. Someone has to do them, and if men and women do them in equal numbers, that culture will be out-bred by the culture that primarily sends men. How do you do this? By convincing men that it is "manly" to risk their lives, and by breeding men with enough testosterone to drive them slightly crazy. I've lost count of the old men, beyond their testost