Choke: 30th Anniversary? Say Not So!

ﾠ

I just wrote a foreword to the (almost) 30th anniversary edition of DREAM PARK, which will be published prior to the publication of the 4th novel, THE MOON MAZE GAME, next year. Wow. A lot of water under the bridge. So much fun, and sweat...wouldn't have missed this ride for the world.

##

The whole "birther" thing is impossible for me to take as anything other than mental dysfunction. Then again, my problem is that I don't believe in vast conspiracies. Really, in conspiracies that require more than a few dozen people, at absolute maximum. I suppose that the closest Liberal equivalent might be the 9/11 conspiracy folks. Is there a better one?

##

My postings haven't been as regular as I'd like, and once again, it's because life is so busy right now...in the best possible ways. Television, film, fiction, non-fiction and lecturing are all popping at the same time. I'm dealing with my son's anger issues (BOY, does he hate to lose! Reminds me of someone...) and have finally, finally, after a lifetime of searching, have managed to balance all my different fitness, skill and health components in a single program that takes about a half hour every morning. My communication with my wife isn't just important, it is critical to our personal and professional life, so we have to take that to a whole different level. We are re-writing a film script at the direct request of a studio, preparing a television series pitch, I'm writing a science fiction novel with my mentor Larry Niven, writing the third Tennyson Hardwick detective novel with my wifie, researching a contemporary thriller involving quantum physics, National Security, and the damnedest cult you ever saw. All those balls in the air at the same time means that I, as the juggler, have to find a moment of peace in-between the times that the balls touch my hand. I have to sigh deeply, relax, let it go, and in each individual moment do only what there is to be done IN THAT MOMENT, without concern for tomorrow or yesterday. Yes, there are times to concern oneself with future and past. But when you are actually engaged? Only NOW exists. Only NOW has power. Everything else is a drag or a distraction.

ﾠ

Where, in your life, writing, relationships, fitness...do you avoid the NOW? Where have you lost power in such a fashion? When have you let fear of the future, or guilt of the past drain your strength, throw you out of balance? If you can identify such moments, you can prevent them. The most important thing you can do is to strive to remain conscious of actions, intentions, and results, strive to be optimally appropriate in every moment. Try to catch yourself in lies and false justifications. Catch the areas in which your reality map is warped. How can you know? (We are all so damned good at lying to ourselves!)

ﾠ

Simple, and ruthlessly efficient: look at the three major areas of your life. If your performance and results do not match your values, something is out of whack. If they are IN alignment with your values, but do not bring you far more pleasure than pain, something is out of whack. Don't pay attention to the voices in your head with a million justifications. Every worm moves away from pain and toward pleasure. If you haven't worked that one out, it has NOTHING to do with a lack of capacity, and everything to do with a lack of clarity, with value conflicts, with negative emotional charges anchored to actions and beliefs.

ﾠ

This stuff must be sorted through, daily. Because the natural human tendency is to go back to sleep. To mistake the dream for awakening. And that can be disastrous to your chances for real happiness.

Obesity and Health Care

ﾠ

I can understand doubt about the degree to which an UHC system would impact obesity statistics. No one can make an absolute statement about how much improvement would take place. But, again, the following cases can be made from my perspective:

1) the argument that weight is not a matter of calories in and out is simply specious. I know it doesn't seem that way, but it is simple truth, a fact of physics, and cannot be effectively argued against. The fact that so many people with weight problems insist that this is NOT true demonstrates that one of the largest problems is lack of accurate information. Every time you argue against this, you make my point for me: a medical system that included accurate education would certainly have a positive effect.

2) People with weight issues who don't control BOTH calories in AND out simultaneously are asking for failure. So when you tell me about so-and-so who went on a 1400 calorie diet and failed to lose weight...I have to shake my head. Drop the calorie level, and your body will slow its metabolic rate to try to compensate. Exercise alone, and you'll unconsiously add calories. Living systems crave homeostasis. If you want to deal with the issue, you have to control both sides. Again, the amount of arguing about this reinforces my point: people don't really know what works. Or if they do...

3) Weight issues involve self-image, fear, grief, anger, and power. The actual behaviors are relatively simple (even if difficult. I never said it wasn't hard. I said that there is a vast amount of disinformation). But people would rather believe that their bodies are somehow malfunctioning than believe that their emotions and/or intellect may not be operating at peak efficiency. We can argue about how much use therapy is--that is valid. But note that I believe that our mental and emotional health impacts our physical health, and that therefore that would be a part of an effective national health program.

4) Again, I'm not talking about "a little chubby." But if you are obese enough that it impacts your health, social life, energy, or whatever, I suspect that there are actually reasons you want the armor. Any time people complain about social rejection, hurting joints, lack of sex life, problems at work, and so forth, all connected with an issue that can be affected by behaviors, I have to think that they are concealing information from themselves. When pain exists, and we fail to move away from it, either we are confusing short and long-term pleasure (a primary test of adulthood) or there is a hidden benefit. I simply have too much respect for people to assume that this is all accidental. No...this shit fell on us like a bomb post WW2. Marty asked if I would abandon writing if I discovered ditch-diggers lived longer.

ﾠ

Nope. Quality of life matters as well. But I might ask WHY ditch diggers live longer, note that they get fresh air and exercise, and incorporate that into my plan. The major reason I believe that a huge amount of weight is emotional and/or ignorance is the simple fact that so few people can look directly at the physics of it and cop to the fact that they have made a choice. So few people look at the "my friend went on a 1000 calorie diet and didn't lose weight" and not automatically trip to the flaw in the experiment: maintaining the same caloric output despite the metabolic tendency to slow down under starvation conditions.

ﾠ

The vast amount of just basic confusion and misinformation reminds me of the various Cell Phone and Long Distance plans, or Credit Card plans--so incredibly complicated that there was obviously never any intention of a customer being able to actually figure out what they are paying for. Anyone who grasps the cold equation of calories in/calories out cannot blame their body for its weight. They can say they DECIDED to be fat, but then they lose all rights to complain, don't they? By believing in things that are insanely complex (it's my blood type! My moon sign! My mother's sister had the problem! etc.) but less probable than UFOs (I wouldn't be surprised if an alien contact is verified. I would be shocked to hell if anyone ever produced so much as a hamster whose body broke the laws of conservation of matter and energy.) they get to have their cake and eat it too. So to speak.

ﾠ

I don't believe in lazy people. I believe in people who have no clear goals, or see no path to them, or have no internal permission and belief that would let them move in that direction. Such people then create mythologies to explain why they "can't." And when you listen to excuses from the poor, or black, or whatever about how life is bending them over the long horse, and you think "wow, what's wrong with them? Can't they see the opportunity around them?" remember that it is a totally human tendency to bend reality to try to make the external world responsible for our own fears and flaws.

ﾠ

This flaw, which infects most human beings one way or another, will surface in one of the three major arenas: fitness, career, or relationship. I've met damned few people who didn't have it in one of the three. Those who didn't, in general, had vast compassion for those who do--they know what it actually costs to look directly into our wounds, and suture them up.

ﾠ

And why do I say "wounds"? Well, once again, I'm not talking about "a little chubby." But by the time you are suffering emotional or physical pain, or reducing life span, or costing money...either you move away from that pain, or it is reasonable to assume something is blocking you. If you keep confusing short and long term pleasure, it is reasonable to assume that, in that arena, you are still a child. And it is seeing that tendency to confuse the simple if the simple doesn't give you the answers you want that makes me shake my head when it comes to political debates. As you know, I think that people start with a world view, and then look for the information to back it up. And the information is always there, no matter how radical the basic world view.

ﾠ

My own? According to at least three tests, I come out "slightly left of center" politically. If I seem more than that, might I suggest that means that you are simply far enough right to skew your perspective.

ﾠ

Human beings are deletion creatures (thank you, Tony Robbins). When I see people confusing something they are more than intelligent enough to grasp it, then I assume that they have an emotional need to confuse the issue. And if I see this in an arena like body, mind, or relationship, I automatically assume that their reality map is suspect--they will do the same thing elsewhere. Of course, the truth is that it is the safest assumption that we ALL do that. Which is the reason that I look at all three arenas. If someone has no lasting relationships, an alarm goes off. If they are intelligent but unsuccessful with their money, an alarm goes off. If they are healthy enough to walk but carry enough weight to make another human being (say...more than about 50 pounds?) an alarm goes off.

ﾠ

I recently was dumbfounded by all of the outpouring of surprise about Michael Jackson. People acted as if we had no clue there was anything wrong. That it was shocking beyond belief to learn of his drug use, yada yada yada. All I could think was: if this was surprising to you, I'll bet you have had many disappointments in the arena of relationships. That you have been lied to, and cheated, and never saw it coming. That you think men, or women, are somehow alien creatures beyond understanding. Because if you couldn't see the vast dysfunction that was Jackson, I strongly suspect you are editing reality to avoid seeing the truth of your own existence.

ﾠ

We do these things. Relationships require honest communication and time, as well as boundaries. Finances demand control of both income and expenditure. Physical fitness requires both as well. But the reason fitness is such an indicator is that, of the three, it is the only one you can really improve without serious cooperation from others. You can't have a relationship without at least one other person saying "yes." Otherwise, I believe that's called stalking. You can't make money without the cooperation of dozens, sometimes hundreds of people. But our bodies, to a unique degree, are about us--our actions, our values, our behaviors, our emotions, our minds. And that is one of the reasons we would like to complicate the issue. We don't want people looking at us and saying: I know what you do, and I know how you feel. I know your values.

ﾠ

We all do this to each other, but it is embarrassing, and we want our privacy. Look--fewer than half of Americans say they love their jobs. But they work them, because they want the results. So saying "I don't like to exercise" is all well and good, but it requires more than "I don't like" to explain aversion to something which, in less than two hours a week, can provide such benefits. Human beings do far more, for far less. To me, the explanation is that the body stores our pain, is a repository for all the negative stuff we don't want to deal with. That it armors us against grief and loss, makes us seem less vulnerable to an uncaring or dangerous world. Unless I believed there was a pay-off for the pain, I would think Americans were stupid and lazy...and I believe the exact opposite.

ﾠ

I believe that most of us are good, decent, hard-working, honest people with an average problem-solving ability that would take us to our dreams, if only we could unhook the brakes. That the 20th Century brought us massive success but with it some environmental shifts that created some problems...one of them being obesity. And that we will solve them as soon as the map is clarified.

##

None of this "means" that Nationalized health care IS a good idea. This is just one of the reasons I support it. Of course, I could be wrong. But so far, modeling the results others have gotten has worked just fine. I see no reason not to apply this to nations as well as people.

Orphan (2009)

Does does access to health care affect obesity statistics?

ﾠ

My attitude is: how could it not? Since the obese have been mentioned several times (Americans are fatter! That's what drags down the life expectancy stats...)

ﾠ

This almost makes me laugh. It's like saying "Americans are sicker! That's what drags down the health stats" or "Americans die sooner! That's what drags down the mortality stats!"

In other words: Duh. In my opinion, Obesity is a disease. It is a disease that is composed of mental, emotional, and physical factors. Which of these can be affected by good health care?

ﾠ

1) Since we're the fattest country, and also the one without health care for all, AND obesity is a disease of poverty in America...to me, the obvious conclusion is that the poor are less likely to have health care. Meaning that whether their issue is physical (that 3% or so who actually have a physical ailment to explain their obesity), emotional (poverty is depressing as hell. It also breeds predators who need prey, and damaged people often need armor), or intellectual. And by intellectual, I mean just plain ignorant.

ﾠ

I mean variations on the "my body disobeys the laws of physics" thing. I mean "I don't have hours a day to exercise" thing. The "it's genetic, what's the point" thing. And so on. All of these I consider to be lack of actual understanding.

ﾠ

What obesity factor WOULDN'T be influenced positively by health care? What? Remember that health care is educational, medical, emotional...I am almost baffled that such an obvious benefit is invisible to so many people. I believe that in a society where its "all in, everyone pays":

ﾠ

1) The number of mixed messages about health and fitness would decrease. There is a dreadful amount of ghastly misinformation floating around, much of it driven by companies who want to sell you fat and sugar. And the rest by book companies that want to sell you a new diet book every month. We drown in lies, while the data is out there.

ﾠ

2) Ignorance is curable. Physiologically (leaving the psychological issues out for the moment) an overweight individual could strip off ten pounds a month with about an hour of exercise (Tabata-protocol type wind sprints using a kettlebell, for instance) a WEEK, assuming that their weight was stable prior, and they did not increase their caloric input, or decrease their average level of activity outside the gym. Physics says I'm right. Argue at your own risk. A person with access to health care can learn this.

ﾠ

3) Many people literally don't know how to eat for health. Again, ignorance is curable. The number of mythologies running around our culture about weight loss is just horrifying.

ﾠ

4) There is social pressure to eat. What is wrong with social pressure to exercise and eat properly? Each side of the political spectrum tries to use social pressure to achieve its aims and reinforce its mores. We've all done this through all history.

ﾠ

5) Disease? We could reduce the number of people who are obese due to disease to only those with INCURABLE diseases.

ﾠ

6) Psychological/emotional issues. This is where the rubber really meets the road. Again, we're not talking about "a little chubby". Who cares about that? We're talking morbid, life-span affecting obesity. Talking "you're carrying enough weight to make another human being" obesity. And that relates far more often to behavior patterns than some incurable physiological issue. Behavior is driven by beliefs, values, and positive/negative emotional charges. This stuff can be worked through. It is as painful as dealing with any other addiction pattern. Right down to my toes I believe that, while core human identity may not be malleable, the EXPRESSION of that basic self is malleable indeed. In fact, it changes throughout our lives. I've seen people do it, I've helped people do it, I've failed to help people do it and had endless conversations about how they sabotaged themselves.

ﾠ

You guys see "America is fattest! So socialized medicine will drag us down." I see "America is fattest, and one of the factors is lack of access to health care, lack of access to real information about how and why to lose it, and a sense of isolation and "no one cares" that feeds depression."

ﾠ

I look at serious obesity as a disease born of bad habits, fear, poverty and depression. The fact that it is more endemic among the poor and black population feeds right into this.

ﾠ

I suggested that there are only two groups that can talk about this issue without suspicion of purely selfish motivations: those who can afford health insurance but are in favor of Universal health care, and those who CANNOT but oppose it. So far, we've gotten no comments from this second group. They must exist, however.

ﾠ

My guess is that the "asshole" quotient remains constant across the political spectrum. Shall we say 10%? So About 10% of people are lazy bastards who want someone else to pay their way. And 10% are selfish bastards who don't want to contribute to the public good. That leaves plenty of folks on both sides who either support or oppose UHC on moral, responsible grounds. Let's assume that only these people are on this board, shall we?

ﾠ

I really feel that what will make a difference is the question of what one believes human beings to be, at their core. I believe that we are physical beings evolving toward spirit. And that when the barriers are moved from our way, and we can see a way to live with greater long-term pleasure, we will. When this is expressed in balance, we grow and heal. I often get the sense that many on the other side of the issue think that we are, at core, lazy and sinful creatures. That the way people manifest in this world is, in general, an expression of our inner natures to the degree that the successful...well, God loves them a little more, made them a little better. And those who crawl in the muck...well, God loves them a little less, and made them a little worse.

I've caught a whiff of this regarding issues of race, poverty, sexual orientation, and more.

ﾠ

But my suspicion that that mindset often lurks behind an argument is partially just my own emotional stuff, and must be put aside. What I will say is that I see no factor influencing obesity that cannot be statistically impacted by proper education, counseling, medical treatment, preventive care, effective school exercise programs, and availability of adult gyms that actually produce results for time and energy expended (that excludes most isolation weight training, big time!).

ﾠ

I don't want a free ride. I want to pay in, with my taxes, to the largest possible pool of insured, and then purchase a rider for whatever additional needs I have. Sounds good to me.

ﾠ

And to those who say: "should the government grow all the food? Make the cars? All the movies and books?" I find this almost funny. If every other industrialized country had their transportation, food, or whatever made by the state, and it was cheaper and better than our system, and the citizens found the system safer and were more satisfied with it...yeah, I'd think about that seriously. But so far as I can see, that isn't true, and hasn't ever been true, anywhere.

ﾠ

When I am shown something that works better than what I have, yep, I look at it very carefully. And the only people I think our system works better for are some of those with the money to buy the best insurance, or those who are employed in a system providing same. And everyone else? Not so much.

ﾠ

I think about my mother's death. She collapsed into deep depression after some terrible events in her life, and I have often thought that was integral to her death. But I also know that she had no insurance, and delayed going to the doctor until it was too late to stop the cancer ravaging her body. Might she have lived, if she had had better access to health care? Perhaps. I think so, yes. And she worked harder than anyone I've ever known.

ﾠ

So, yes, you can look at the longevity statistics and take them apart, and find some particular types of diseases the American system is better with--if you can afford it. But you know what? The worst team in the NFL can find some stats that make them sound good. But at the end of the season, it's the Superbowl that counts. And I think that the health of a country can be understood by the snapshot view of infant mortality, life span, percentage of incarcerated population, gap between rich and poor...stuff like that.

ﾠﾠ

ﾠ

Please prove me wrong: is there anyone out there who believed in UHC UNTIL they looked at the life expectancy and infant mortality statistics, and then changed their minds? Or was it that they didn't like the idea from the beginning, and then found stats to back up their positions? Fracture those statistics and I suspect what you get is that everyone who was originally on one side or the other will remain in their original position, concentrating just on the statistics that reinforce their preexisting beliefs.

ﾠ

For me...if America had had the best stats, I'd say that the commercial way was the way to go, I really would.

##

What if you think about the obese: "they're just lazy". God, do I disagree with that. First because I've known too many who worked themselves into numbness. Second: I really don't believe in lazy people. I believe in people who are unfocused, or don't believe that honest effort will bring them something worth having, that will bring more pleasure than pain into their lives.

ﾠ

It's like saying that someone is too lazy to run out of a burning building. Don't believe it. I DO believe in people who cower in the corner, terrified of the flame and confused by the smoke, unable to see an egress. So they die in the closet. But if they had ever seen a clear path to the door? They would have run like hell.

ﾠ

Do you think they're stupid? I don't. Some of the smartest people I've ever known were obese. Isaac friggin' Asimov was pear-shaped. So don't even try to go there. We're obese as a nation because

1) The way we earned our average living requires a fraction of the caloric output of our ancestors, but the "eating meme" hasn't changed.

2) We're genetically programmed to expend as few calories as possible, and eat as much as possible. The American scene has shifted so drastically that this basic programming is now one of our greatest threats. Sugar and fat taste GOOD. We did not evolve in an environment in which they were easy to find. With pain and effort no longer associated with these tastes, we've unleashed a monster.

3) Cheap food is often bad food. It satisfies our superficial hunger without deep nutrition. Bad food often also has the widest profit margins (compare the cost of a cup of coke to a cup of fresh orange juice) making it most promotable. Coca-Cola is a much bigger brand than Sunkist.

4) A more esoteric addendum. From the Hawaiian "Huna" point of view, our bodies are "black bags" where we can stuff all our unprocessed fear, guilt, anger and grief. To begin to process that flesh can bring those emotions back. We all deal with our emotions in different ways, many of them unhealthy. This is just a way that is visually evident.

ﾠ

Other stuff too, but that's what comes to mind first. If someone can think of an aspect of obesity that I'm missing, please tell me. Otherwise, arguing that the reason America has bad stats is obesity is actually making my argument for me.

ﾠ

##

Orphan (2009)

ﾠ

Finally, a horror film for genre fans with a taste for the grindhouse. "Orphan" is the story of a family that adopts a nine year old Russian girl...and then the fun begins. To say more would be just wrong. Strong stuff, exploitative a hell, and a terrific ride. For people who like their horror edgy and violently old-school, this deserves an "A". If you're touchy about the subject of adoption or images of child endangerment, it might be an "F." Tananarive and I had a great time. I felt like I was on Time Square at midnight with sticky popcorn underfoot, and a drunk sleeping in the next row. And I mean that in a good way.

ﾠ

WARNING: SAMBO ALERT

ﾠ

First of all, nothing to fear: no white women or children were killed in the making of this film. I know you'll find that a relief. Men and black women on the other hand, well...not so much.

Giving Hope to Criminals

 

Someone mentioned the increase in gun sales as a possible reason for the reduction of crime (maybe if the reduction waspreceededby a notable, and well-publicized increase inshootingsof criminals). But my position was also misrepresented as "Obamahas brought hope to criminals." 

 

I never said that, but I understand how one on the "nature" side of the "nature/nurture" argument might make that mistake.

What I said was: "if the drop in crime is particularly strong in black communities, I would suggest that it might have something to do with hope...and the fact that many blacks feel fully invested in the American Dream for the first time in 400 years. It's possible."

 

Your comment would seem to imply that criminals are criminals even before they commit a crime...in other words that their criminality is innate rather than contextual.  And of course, because crime statistics are higher among blacks, one might be forgiven for suspecting that the "criminals" remark would be most likely said by someone who believes that there is more innate criminality among blacks than whites.

 

I have had countless conversations about the issue of increased crime in black neighborhoods, and one of the core differences in attitudes is that Liberals tend to believe the reason is that their context (history, current treatment and opportunities, cultural messages, etc.) are different. While conservatives more often believe that there is something different about black people themselves. That, in other words, if you took white babies and slipped them into black skins, they would perform better than the average black people. And if you took black babies and slipped them into white skins, they would perform worse than the average white people.

This argument can't really be "answered"--people have been trying to answer the question of "does essence precede existence or existence precede essence?" for thousands of years. While the pendulum seems to be swinging toward a mixture of these factors, with environment making more difference between groups of human beings.

 

What I will say is that it seems self-evident that one of the things that makes people honest is the belief that the system works in their favor. If you feel the deck is stacked, it is almost idiotic not to cheat. Young men want to see a way all the way to the top of the mountain. If that path is blocked, then in the classic words, they would often rather "rule in hell than serve in heaven."Obama'selection represents the first time in American history that the visual symbol of power in the world--the First Family--shifted. It is DIFFERENT, visually. Vastly.Disorientingly. A sign that, wow, one aspect of the battle for civil rights and equality is over.

 

If you believe it's largely innate, of course, this is all just "coddling criminals." I get it.

 

My belief? Almost anyone would commit crimes given sufficient motivation (who wouldn't steal bread to feed a starving child?) and one of the jobs of society is to prevent reasonable people from believing that they have no legal options to reduce the pain.

 

Hope, then, that the system might actually be fair, that effort will be rewarded, is essential to keep people playing within the system. I don't believe in lazy people. I believe in people without goals they believe they can actually achieve. So they give up. All I have ever needed to motivate anyone is:

1) To help them clarify their goal. To admit that there is something they want.

2) To help them clarify the path to their goal. The easiest way to do this is to observe someone else who has accomplished it. To the degree that their actions and experiences match the student, their belief systems, mental syntax and use of physiology can be modeled to terrific effect. But as women have noted: seeing a woman accomplish something makes it "realer" to a little girl than watching a man do it. And watching a black man accomplish something only whites have done changes the entire game for many, many people.

3) To remove the emotional blocks that keep a person from believing that they can, or should, have this goal. I've counseled hundreds of people on issues of fitness, career, and relationship, and it is astounding the amount of damage we have around those issues...and how rapidly people can make progress if they can heal that damage.

##

My comment aboutObama, then, could be interpreted as: "If the crime statistics have plummeted in black communities, it would be interesting to see if it has to do with increased hope, increased belief that honest effort will lead to positive results." The interpretation of my words might conceivably be interpreted as "giving hope to POTENTIAL criminals." To those who have wondered if the system is so corrupt that it makes no sense to "play by the rules." To those who think that whites are so evil that they will crush anyone of color "uppity" enough to aspire to greatness. Every single person I've ever had the opportunity to observe at length, of whatever race, gender, or political orientation, will break laws given the right set of circumstances, always with justification. It might be cheating on taxes or expense accounts. Speeding on the freeway. Running a stop sign.Underageddrinking. Pot smoking. Put people under more pressure, and more laws get broken. Whether one agrees with this or not, the real question is:

1) do you think that more blacks are intrinsically (genetically) criminal than whites?

2) if you think that the increased crime statistics are the result of social programming, do you think that blacks created their own social context? In which case...exactly where in the United States have blacks ever been isolated from whites long enough to create their own society? Ask any anthropologist: that takes generations, at least. And it never happened. The societies created by blacks in the U.S. were always hooked into the surrounding grid, controlled by laws they did not create, and policed and governed by people of the same ethnicity as those who had enslaved them.

3)In my mind, all of this stuff can be explained by universal human tendencies, without suggesting that blacks are inferior mentally or whites inferior morally. But the number of times I've had conversations with conservatives that headed toward "what's wrong with black people" is off the charts. And while about half the human race DOES seem to believe that our status in life is indicative of our basic intrinsic nature, it is interesting how seldom people will come right out and say this.

 

But to the degree that this actually is a more pervasive attitude on the Right, it would be reasonable to suggest that THIS is the actual reason that the Right is having problems attracting minorities. And will continue to do so until this aspect of the debate is aired more honestly and openly.

 

I just rememberOctavia'sDictum: "the most dangerous thing about human beings is that they are hierarchical, and tend to place themselves high on the hierarchy." And also that they tend to blame the victims for bleeding.

##

Here's the question of the day: what law have you broken most often, and what was your justification?

##

Because the health care debate is getting so passionate, I want to be very clear that I understand the arguments of the opposition to Nationalized health care. First, my positions.

Everything I've ever accomplished in my life has been the result of observing people who are better than I am at something I wanted to learn. Modeling their actions and attitudes

, and comparing them to my own. Where those actions do not conflict with my moral core, I change them. If every other industrialized country has some form of national health care, it seems asinine to suggest it "doesn't work". If their results are comparable to ours, that is a huge question mark. If they are paying LESS per capita to get BETTER results, that just screams at me. The choice seems pretty clear.

 

But that choice isn't clear if I don't understand the arguments against it, so I wanted to enumerate them, as I understand them, and ask that those who are on the Right in this matter correct me if I am wrong.

 

1) The life expectancy and infant mortality statistics cannot be trusted. In essence, the American system provides better results.

 

2) The per-capita expenditure isn't being considered correctly. People in other countries are paying less, but getting less.

 

3) Americans are happier with their health care systems than are those in countries with nationalized care.

 

4) That the profit motive is the most important human motivation, such that a reduced profit will stop scientists and researchers from investigating and curing diseases.

 

5) People with free health care won't bother to take care of themselves, becoming an even worse drag on the system.

 

6) Socialized medicine will pull America down the road to a total socialist state.

 

7) It is unfair to ask the wealthy to shoulder the health burden of the poor.

 

8)Socialized medicine would reduce the amount of choice and freedom enjoyed by patients.

 

9) Emergency rooms provide adequate medical care for those without insurance.

 

10) Many if not most of those without insurance don't want it anyway.

 

##

Is that pretty accurate? Have I left anything out?

Birthers?

ﾠ

ﾠ

Tananarive got a prescription for migraines, so Blue Shield wants to put her on the most expensive plan they have. Heaven help us if they saw this as a "pre-existing condition." I consider this price gouging and fixing. If the insurance companies are spending 1.5 million a day in lobbying, that's obviously not money invested in providing services to their clients. This suggests a gigantic amount of profit that can be used to muddy the waters. There are legitimate reasons to oppose socialized health care (especially if you are one of the fortunate ones to either be able to pay for the best, or work for an organization that provides top-level care). I think that the same level of care (for the top 5%) will end up costing a little more. But all of the fear that the system will somehow collapse strikes me as pure hysteria.

##

The public option clearly panics many people--literally, they don't want people to have the CHOICE, which is bizarre to me. Among the questions I have are:

1) People ask how we'll pay for this. But...aren't we paying twice as much for our health care as Canada (per capita) for lesser results? Even if we say that the results are "comparable" that "twice as much per capita" remains. So my question is: if everyone who wanted a public option switched their insurance investment to the public option, how much money would that be? If the people who CURRENTLY say that they want this put their money behind it, how much would that be? Even considering that we want to cover the poor and elderly who might not be able to pay their own way...wouldn't that be a serious chunk of the change.

##

Let's remove direct self-interest from this debate. I figure there are only two groups of people who can be trusted to speak more from "the good of the country" than naked self interest. These two groups are:

ﾠ

1) People who can afford health care, or currently have health care, but believe in the Public option.

ﾠ

2) People who do NOT have health care, but are AGAINST a public option.

ﾠ

I would love to hear from ONLY members of these two groups, explaining their positions.

ﾠ

ﾠ

Wow. The man is awesome.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?page=-1
##

The arrest of Henry Louis Gates seems to be one of those polarizing events that points out blindness on both sides. I've yet to see a precise chronology of what exactly happened, or if Gates actually offered the police officer his driver's license. I know he offered a university ID card, but am not at all sure that the officer was obliged to accept it. My sense is that Gates was offended, and allowed that offense to interfere with the quality of communication. The officer, on the other hand, probably allowed his own sense of power gradients to interfere in HIS ability to communicate. Anyone who thinks that race had NOTHING to do with this is blind. Anyone who thinks race had EVERYTHING to do with it is blind as well. White people get arrested for not presenting proper identification. Was Gates MORE likely to have a problem because of his skin color? I would think so, yes. But if someone broke into my house, and a neighbor called it in to the police (and saying "two black men" as the neighbor did is simply describing the men. She might have said "two tall men" or "two women" or "two blond men"--in other words, just an attempt to make the officer's job easier, and protect her neighbor's property. On the other hand, she might have been more likely to call cops because the men were black. Historically, that has certainly been true.)

ﾠ

My sense is that wealthy, famous people get a sense of entitlement. Gates, from that point of view, didn't want to be given the privilege of a white person. He wanted the privilege of a WEALTHY, FAMOUS white person. And when he didn't get it, he got...well, the term "uppity" comes to mind. Ultimately, this is all good for the national debate. And will probably move things in the right direction.

##
Anyone know a "Birther"? I knew the crazies would come running from under their flat rocks when Obama was elected, but their frenzied disbelief is still kinda stunning. Knowing lots of black people who never believed they'd see a black man in the White House, and watching the steam come out of their ears as they saw it happen...I wondered what the parallel thought pattern would be among the whites who harbor racial antipathy. And clearly, they just can't believe it. He must be a fake. He must be a Manchurian Candidate (wouldn't McCain actually fit that bill one hell of a lot closer..?) There must be a gigantic conspiracy, involving thousands of people and stretching back almost five decades. Wow. That is some serious mental difficulty, and I feel sorry for them.

ﾠ

It is one of these "Birthers" by the way, who would make a perfect "lone gunman" fall-guy if anything Kennedyesque were to happen to our Prez. Man oh man, can I see that one coming.

A few thoughts on relationships

ﾠ

The best guess I have about how to find a lasting relationship.

1) If sex was removed from the equation, you'd still be friends. If Tananarive had been a guy, we would have hung out and chased chicks together. No doubt.

2) Your basic values should match. Basic attitudes about work, health, love, and the whole life-death thing should match, or at the very least there should be no drastic differences. Politics and religion should probably be close. Even if the partners have a differing political orientation, their beliefs about what this MEANS should be in alignment.

3) They need to have a system in place for "fighting fair." In my house, the first rule is that the relationship itself is NEVER at stake in an argument. If something has happened that DOES place the relationship in jeopardy, this is to be discussed in low voices and cold blood, not in the heat of battle.

4) Communication is king. Or queen. Whatever. There has to be a direct and honest route to fully understanding each other. The "talking stick" technique (each person, in turn, must demonstrate that they understand the other person's points and positions BEFORE they are allowed to go forward with their own argument.

5) Sex drives should be similar. A mis-match here can cause serious problems.

6) Money attitudes should be similar. Statistics show that money problems screw up relationships faster than infidelity. Predictably, women will commence divorce procedings against unemployed husbands far faster than men will press divorce against unemployed wives.

7) Similar senses of humor. Being able to make each other laugh, or at least tolerate each other's jokes, it critical. Humor places life in perspective, and without that, the small tragedies of existence, the wear and tear of it all can grind us into the dust.

8) Honesty. Just critical. This doesn't mean being cruel--it means that you understand the obligation to convey data clearly and with concern that the other party DOES get the message. No dropping critical pieces of information, or nurturing misunderstandings.

9) The partners should be attracted to each other physically, or bear the same attitudes about non-attraction. The ideal? You rock each other's world. Look at each other and can't believe how lucky you are. Aren't making excuses or "settling."

10) Spiritual attitudes that are compatible. You don't have to go to the same church, or any church at all...but relationships that last inevitably deal with issues of mortality. To be able to comfort your partner in language that she understands is critical.

ﾠ

ﾠ

July 20, 2009

ﾠ

http://funtuna.blogspot.com/2009/07/drunk-people-yoga-positions.html

Or as Todd said: so THAT'S where those poses came from!

##

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071902154.html

No one can figure out why, but violent crime around the country is plummeting to levels unseen in four decades. It remains to be seen why or how or if it will continue. Here's a thought, though...if the drop in crime is particularly strong in black communities, I would suggest that it might have something to do with hope...and the fact that many blacks feel fully invested in the American Dream for the first time in 400 years. It's possible.

##

I heard someone complain that if there is a public option for healthcare, it will kill the insurance companies. I was unaware that there were no private health insurance companies in any countries with single-payer. Is that true? If not, what kind of b.s. is that?

ﾠ

More importantly, though...those companies couldn't go broke unless people preferred the Public Option to the private one. And that couldn't happen unless the private companies offered no goods or services that weren't trumped by the public service. And if a majority of Americans decided that, it STILL wouldn't drive all the private companies out of business. In a country of 300 million people, what percentage of people would have to decide that private insurance companies totally sucked? 80%? 90%? If 95% of the population decided that, there would have to be something terribly, terribly wrong, wouldn't there? If there are public and private schools, police, fire departments, mail services, trash collection and more, this is pure panic-mongering with no basis in reality.

What are we, without fear of death?

ﾠ

Here's a video clip of a guy who has a training philosophy called "Walking Mountain" which is designed to connect people with their proper balance and gait.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qf8_CtxEgM

He reminds me of a guy from the 60's named Gypsy Boots, an "ageless athlete" on the hippie scene. Only met him once, but he was a real bearded hoot.

##

Language is always a step back from experience, but in some ways it is all we have. With that in mind, it is really possible that the states of mind and body referred to as "Flow" are the highest non-esoteric states available to human experience. We all experience a bit of it--while driving on the freeway, having sex, in the moments just before sleep, when enmeshed in a project that absorbs mind and emotions, reading a good book, watching an involving film, playing a sport, running, performing yoga or Tai Chi, etc.

ﾠ

Coach Sonnon has created an entire suite of tools for accessing this state, and my favorite among them is the "Flow State Performance Spiral" theory specifically applied to the triad of structure, breath, and movement. Once you've learned to follow the thread of breathing to enter Flow, you can begin to find it everywhere. And once you've found that, you have the doorway to accessing the very best you have to offer as a human being.

ﾠ

The trick is that Flow is the natural state. Not something to be acquired, but a state we merely have to "get out of the way" of. That means that disciplines like yoga are designed to show us where the obstructions lay in our body-mind. Once you begin to find them in your body, it can be easier to detect them in your thought stream. In your habit patterns. The connections are there, waiting to be found.

##

I was writing about the Hero's Journey again on my Lifewriting list. The first step of course is recognizing and accepting the challenge. I had fun with that. And there are many forms of this, of course. But I find it useful to ask: what is the largest challenge in life?

ﾠ

I would think that the most important challenge would be the one which, when mastered, would open the doorway to the highest level of balanced excellence. From that point of view, it may be that the greatest challenge for human beings is love. Self love, genuine love of others. Love that is stronger than the lies we tell ourselves to get through the night.

ﾠ

To me, a person with genuine self-love in abundance will find it spilling over to all our relationships. They care for their precious one-of-a-kind body, they express their dreams with energy and enthusiasm, they have the urge and capacity to commit to another human being. There may be exceptions, of course, but I've found that I'm wrong far less often when I assume we all want these things than listening to people's excuses about why they don't have them.

ﾠ

One of the most common symptoms of self-loathing is a negative view of the surrounding world. Constant criticism of others, constant bravado about one's own stellar (but usually unverifiable) accomplishments. Usually there will be a major breech in at least one (often more) of the three areas: no flow-inducing career path, no lasting relationships, or a nightmare body. Makes my antenna tingle whenever I see one of the three. Combine that with seriously negative attitudes about others, and my fur sets on fire.

ﾠ

Just my point of view, of course, but I think that the external world we see is just an externalization of our inner world. An over-simplification, of course, but what this would mean is that someone who puts women down has a problem with their own feminine side. One who puts men down has a problem with their male aspect (not saying what the problem is, just that I'd start looking there). And so forth. If my basic belief is that we come from love and spend our entire lives trying to re-capture that sense of peace and plenty we unconsciously enjoyed in Mommy's womb, then my entire emphasis is on the idea that anything less than peace, joy, and love is nothing more than succumbing to the obstacles we find in our lives. That philosophy suggests that we're all trying to get to a state of Self-knowledge, but most of us get caught in ego, pain, and fear along the way.

ﾠ

If fear of death is the single greatest motivation in life, then if one conquers that fear, what remains? Some would say nothingness. And others would say sheer bliss and adventure, the joy of learning about the world because everything we learn about the external world can connect with the mind that perceived it, deepening self-knowledge. To not fear death would seem to free one to fully embrace life, to love without fear of loss, to push ourselves to the limit just for the sheer wonderment of discovering what our minds and hearts and bodies can achieve in this short time between the beginning and the end. But that's just my opinion.

ﾠ

The question of the day is: what do you think we are, as a species, absent the fear of death?

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

 

The revelation of the meaning of the title is somewhat anti-climactic. The film is darker than its predecessors, and somewhat more dependant upon them, would probably be more confusing for the three people left in the Western World who are unaware of the saga of the Chosen One and He Who Shall Not Be Named.

 

However, that stuff aside, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is something of a marvel, not in its singularity, but for the position it holds in one of the most remarkable film series of all time. How wonderful it has been to actually watch these kids mature along with their roles! "Prince" is positively awash in teen hormones and angst, and scenes dealing with these issues are among the most charming of the entire series. Really, if you're a Potter fan, there's no way you'll miss this, the penultimate story of one of the great children's literary sagas...and fantasy sagas...and popular fiction sagas.Rowlingsdeserves her success, and so does everyone associated with the film project. An easy "A" for Potter fans. For general audiences, a "B+".

##

WARNING: SAMBO ALERT

 

I mean that in the sense that I'm going to discuss racial issues, and many have no interest in such things. Fair enough. What I wanted to say is that as with the original "Star Wars" the firstPottterfilm, supposedly set in a universe embracing wizards from (what? Around the world? Around the British Empire? I'm not clear on that) actually is about the union of white wizards from around the world. Or the Empire. Or whatever. Like I said--I'm not clear on that. I'm sure that if you were to ask the filmmakers, they would say "the most powerful wizards in the world." And "the most promising magic students from around the world." Or something like that. But look at the films, and it is clear that every major character as well as everyone who determines a plot point or shows any power at all is white. Now, that's just fine...as long as you can be honest about it.

 

But my sense watching this latest film is that the filmmakers got their hands slapped a little. Someone asked them if that was the intent, and they blinked. They didn't realize that that was the universe they were creating: anexternalizationofRowlings' inner world. And the inner world of almost anyone will reflect their own ethnicity. THIS is why it is important for people to complain, to let studios know that our dollars are valuable too, and that unless they want us to assume the all-white casting is deliberate, they need to be a bit more inclusive. And so the series has over the years. Although they have no major roles (other than a Chinese girl and a black girl mooning over Harry. Countered by a black kid making out with Ron's sister! Way to go!) the inclusion of non-white background characters inQuiddichgames, in the dining hall, in classrooms and hallways...it makes a difference. It allows non-white kids to fantasize that they, too, attendHogwarts, and imagine the adventures they are having when the camera goes the other way. IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. And I appreciate their efforts in this direction: it makes Jason's world a better one than mine was. Thank God.

##

"SomeSplainingto do." Apparently SenatorCoburnsaid this to SoniaSotomayor, and theblogosphereand talk radio were humming over this reference to Ricky Ricardo. Was this deliberately offensive? I doubt it. Was it offensive at all? I'd need to hear from some Hispanics on that. But until then, let me look at it from my perspective, and from my perspective? A bit wince-inducing, but not much more. It might even be funny. After all, Ricky Ricardo was one of the most beloved characters in Television history. He was created by, and was the alter-ego of,DesiArnaz, anabsolutlybrilliant performer and producer who basically created syndication and got filthy rich in the process. The character of Ricky was physically fit and attractive, successful in his career (very), and quite sexual. "I Love Lucy" was the first television show to have a pregnant housewife, something that was quite scandalous at the time. In other words, he had everything that I want for black images in film. Lucy, the woman he was married to, was the alter ego of Lucille Ball, who, with CarolBurnette, was arguably the finest comedienne in the history of television. Their routines are still beloved forty years later. In fact, Ricky's relationship with Lucy is Exhibit A in my argument that barriers for Latinos are far lower than those for blacks--unless they are Latinos with African features or dark skin, of course. All of this is to say that the "Lucy! You've got someSplaining' to do" catch phrase was not at the expense of Ricardo...it was aimed at Lucy. And Lucille Ball owned her own production company and was the most powerful woman on television for a decade. She knew EXACTLY what she was doing, sufficient to stay on top of the game for almost thirty years. No victims here. The line is part of Americana.

##

That said, wouldCoburnhave been as likely to say it to a non-Hispanic? I doubt it. But that's human nature. If there is one black person at a party, the chances are that someone is going to say something that reflects race. One woman, and someone is likely to say something reflective of gender. We notice these differences, and it is in our minds. No matter how careful we are, we let these things slip out. I think it is clear that for many, the most important thing aboutSotomayoris that she is Hispanic and a woman. As the most important thing aboutObama(for many people) is that he is black with a Muslim name. It is hard for them to avoid making jokes that relate to these specific things, because humor is a release of tension. This ain't going away any time soon, and it is NOT a terrible or bigoted thing. I understand people flinching over it, but frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry.

##

The question of the day is: is it appropriate for special interest groups to pressure Hollywood to be more inclusive of race, gender, body type, sexual orientation etcetera in films and television? Why or why not?

My attitude: it is perfectly fair to tell Hollywood that if they want my dollars, they have to listen to my requests. They then have the right to say "no--we don't care."  And I then have the right to either avoid certain films, or peacefully communicate my displeasure through blogging, protest, NPR articles or anything else.  And people who just say: "go make your own movies" generally have no idea how the industry works: from top to bottom, from script to financing to production to post-production to distribution and exhibition, the structures have been in place for almost a century, and no one can avoid dealing with it, not Oprah or Tyler Perry or anyone.  Ultimately, you are dealing with the system.  So the sensible thing is to appeal to those within the system who are either fair-minded and unbigoted, or interested in my money.  

What do you think?

 

The Secret of Your Success

I love the way the "wiseLatina" comment has become such a lightning rod. People actually believe that judges of any kind don't bring their life experience to the bench? Or is it that only white males can be trusted not to filter reality with their personal perceptions? What an incredible joke. Human beings can be conscious of their prejudices, but to the degree that they claim that personal experience doesn't affect judgements, they are in denial big time. I guess those filters are all right...as long as they all push in one straight, white, male, Christian, European direction.

##

Watched the firstEntrourageof the season. And yes, it is fun to watch Vince and the boys go through their growing pains--Vince, (for instance) can't be alone in that huge house of his. I'm not sure I'd like the show as much if I weren't in the business. All the insider jokes are just hysterical, and I'm sure I miss two-thirds of them. Dig the show, but yes, I notice that Lloyd,AriGold's personal assistant, is the only non-white on the show, the only Asian on HBO--and he is very very gay. And so it goes.

##

Michael Jackson's dermatologist has been all over the place talking about the skin color problem beingVitilago, not bleaching, and that Michael didn't want to be white.

Well, it's certainly possible, but I don't buy it.Bunchareasons.

1) Assume the doctor is telling the truth. Michael still made a decision to lighten the rest of his skin, rather than darken the patches. Saying that makeup to darken the skin would have made it impossible to performonstageis just a lie. Anyone who has seen a few Vegas shows knows that human skin can be colored in any way you want, and not stop a dancer from dancing.

2) So...he didn't want to be white. He only wanted to LOOK white? Is that the logic? I mean...the straight hair, the thinned nose, the thinned lips...actually, I could see a scenario where he decided to "get ahead of the curve" so to speak. If he was eventually going to go all white, then he figured that having white features would make him look less bizarre. Now...THAT'ssome foresight for you. But...having those white children and then claiming that they were biologically his. And lying about how much plastic surgery he'd had...if he didn't realize how transparent those lies were, he was living in a total fantasy world. And someone who lies and is deluded simply can't be trusted to be an honest witness to his own life.

3) The most interesting possibility to me is that he actually deliberately triggered the vitiligo some how. Does anyone out there know if this is even theoretically possible? It actually sounds like the plot of a fairly literary novel: black celebrity wants to be biggest in the world, doesn't believe he can get there with dark skin. Consults experts. Plot "A": a medical miracle, the deliberate triggering of an immune system disorder, with horrific consequences. Plot "B": this celebrity is one of the most evolved physical specimens on the planet, with body control most athletes could only dream of, in addition to phenomenal access to the deepest levels of his subconscious creative state. (If you disagree with my implications about Jackson's physical control, take a close look at the extended video for "Smooth Criminal." I swear to God, there are moments when his motion is as close to physically perfect as I have ever seen a human being achieve. FredAstairesaid he was the greatest dancer of his generation. To me, that implies yogic levels of control.) Anyway, can't you just see a scenario in which his sheer WILL to transform himself could create a breakdown in the specific mechanisms that controlMelanine? Hell, I could write that story in a weekend.

3) Women don't generally start out wanting to be anorexic. Or looking freakishly man-like after overdosing on growthhormons, testosterone, and weight lifting. It happens a day at a time, slowly losing touch with social norms, surrounding yourself with people who reinforce the distorted self-image. Jackson had enough money to isolate himself from anyone who tried to tell him he was taking the plastic surgery too far. He kept pushing and pushing...until he stopped looking human. Something was very, very wrong, and apparently not even his family could talk to him. My guess is that he dangled the possibility of a tour in front of them to shut them up. Again, looking at how far he ended up from reality, it's impossible for me to believe the things he said, or those who enabled him said. We know one thing about his dermatologist: he didn't make himself enough of an irritant for Jackson to ban him from the ranch. I would say that that makes him an untrustworthy witness, but that's just me.

##

One thing's for sure...the survivingJacksonsare undoubtedly practicing their asses off right now. Brother Michael's death has cleared the way for them to tour again, some sort of memorial event, maybe with Janet singing some of Micheal's parts. Would be a gigantic event, and Michael can't stand in the way any more. Watch for an announcement soon.

##

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and the talk show host was discussing marriage, and the difficulties of remaining together. He invited listeners to call in and share their stories. I think that's great, but I'd like a bit more specificity. To me, there are a thousand ways to get lost, and a dozen or so to reach your destination. If the point of a marriage is for both people, every day, to feel that they would renew their vows, and for that marriage to last (at a minimum) long enough to raise any children produced by that union...then I would want to speak only to those people who have been married at least 20 years, and are still happy. I would love for readers to

1) define what THEY think the definition of a successful marriage is.

2) Those who have one, please share the "secrets" of their success.

 

In other words: what is a good marriage? And how do you create and nurture one?

What has lifted you from depression?

 

Just heard that Charlie Brown, publisher of Locus SF magazine, died a few days ago. Wow. Talk about an era passing. He was about as true a fan as has ever existed, and seemed to live his life on his own terms. Died coming back from a convention. That's just about perfect. RIP, Charlie.

##

So...who's excited about the new Potter movie?Nickiis just about vibrating, and I guess I'll take a couple hours off tomorrow to visitRowling'suniverse again. It's been fabulous watching those kids grow up. Not one of them has done anything other than mature as a performer. Whoever did the original casting deserves their own Oscar.

##

Studying the Hero's Journey, one of the things that must be carefully considered is the "Dark Night of the Soul", which is the seventh step (in the way I reckon things.) This is the moment in any life path when it feels that all of your innate capacity is insufficient to life you to the next level. The interesting thing is that this state of despair, depression, doubt (and probably a few other "d" words) is totally predictable. We've all been through it countless times, and yet every time it happens it seems people act as if this is the first time in the history of the world that someone has felt down. My attitude is: you got out of the depression before, you can do it again. The trick is to see how quickly you can get out and "back on the horse" for another try. One effective approach is to specifically remember what got you out of your previous "dark nights." Was it something you did? Something a friend did? If it isreplicable, can you set it up yourself? The valuable thing here is that if you understand the path to growth, you know that every single time you head toward a goal that will shift your life to the next level, you will exhaust your current capacity (the only thing that triggers the inner "growth button") and feel that you have reached the end of your resources. The ego always wants you to believe that there is nothing beyond its reach. And it is always lying.

 

So...if you know this, then it's possible to collect your resources and have them in place BEFORE you begin the journey. For instance: you could write a letter to yourself, reminding yourself that you've been through thiscrapbefore, and made it just fine. Then at the depths of your next pale mood, you just take the letter out and read it. Or you could alert friends that the next time you're "down" to take you to the zoo, or dancing, or whatever. You'll need techniques that you can implement without outside help, as well as those that include family and friends.

 

The question of the day is: what has worked in the past to lift you out of depression?

"Public Enemies" (2009)

Well, sorry for not writing much for the last couple of weeks, but they've been killer. Two weeks ago I drove up to San Francisco to teach a VONA three-day advanced writing workshop at San Francisco University. Great students, tremendous staff, seriously positive growth environment. First time T and I have team-taught a workshop, and enjoyed the hell out of it. But while I was there, I heard that my aunt had died. Sigh.



So, almost as soon as I got back, I had to drive out to Phoenix with my sister for the funeral. And as soon as I arrived (last Tuesday night) I had an email asking me if I could take a meeting to pitch on a television show on Friday. Which meant I had to turn around and drive back Wednesday night after the funeral so that I'd have a full day to look at the material, study the show, and devise at least five pitches. I generated thirty ideas, (easy if you give yourself permission for some of them to be stupid), read them to Tananarive, then an hour later asked her which ones she remembered. She remembered four, so those became the core of my work. Selected another four, tidied them up, and then drove out to Burbank to pitch, which was a 3 1/2 hour meeting that went quite well. More on that later. But Saturday and Sunday the cumulative fatigue hit me, and I was just toast. Recovering now.

##

Reading about the new president of the Young Republicans and the racist comments on her blog, her excuse that she was giving a "LOL" to a previous comment while banning the people who protested...all I can do is sigh. I'm sure that there will be those who defend this, say it's all a misunderstanding. What is disturbing is the number of these "accidents", and the fact that they all seem to be coming from one end of the spectrum politically. Perhaps they are accidents. But I can't help but think there is a component of unconscious (and not so unconscious) discomfort with the race of our new President. I've been saying that if Republicans don't stand up and scream at this stuff, banish it from their party, they will be rightly labeled as a party that harbors racists under their "Big Tent." And they will marginalize themselves. This is so sad.

##

I also heard about the black kids being banned from the white swimming pool with "complexion" comments as well as racial slurs. I knew that Obama's election would turn over a lot of flat rocks, and it's fascinating to see what's crawling out. And the good news is that this country is probably, almost certainly, less racist than it has ever, ever been. We have just reached the point where a lot of this stuff can even be honestly discussed. Fasten your seat belts--it's gonna get worse.

##

Public Enemies (2009)



Michael Mann's new gangster film is just terrific. The sound design alone is stupendously good, the cinematography is stunning, and Johnny Depp's portrayal of John Dillinger is worth the price of admission.. On the other hand, Christian Bale is starting to feel a little one-note: pure intensity without much shading. And I hadn't really noticed that until last night. Don't get me wrong--he is fine as FBI agent Melvin Purvis (who remains something of a cipher) but the performance isn't much different from his Bruce Wayne, really. Or his John Conner. Oh, well. The movie pulls off the hat trick of really humanizing a killer (you never actually see him kill anyone, but over the course of his career he was responsible for the deaths of several police officers, at the least). It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance, really. The film is the first major Oscar contender I've seen so far this year (unless my memory is failing me, which is possible.) Loved it.



WARNING! SAMBO ALERT!



Well, not really. There are virtually no black people in the film (a couple of shoeshine boys and porters, a couple of small criminal parts). What was remarkable is the degree to which this is a WWPRTE movie. (Oh...that's When White People Ruled The Earth). I mean, shot after shot of roomsful of FBI, senators, police, movie audiences--all white. Street scenes, banks, newsreels, whatever...nothing but white people. It is hard to remember that that world was so recent, and was changed at such cost, with resistance every step along the way. Wow. Sobering. And made me very very happy to have been born when I was. There are people who think that these were The Good Old Days, that "we" were a freer country back then. What a joke. But at who's expense?

An "A"

##

The Proposal (2009)

The latest Sandra Bullock comedy is her first real hit in years, and I really wanted to see it. Yeah, it's kinda a chick flick, but I have a weakness for these predictable romantic piffles. So she plays a fire-breathing editor at a New York publishing house who is about to be deported back to Canada. She fakes an engagement to her assistant Ryan Reynolds, and of course, hilarity ensues. Think they fall in love? Anyone..?



SLIGHT SPOILER



Well, I found it very interesting that when she follows Reynolds to a family event in Alaska, she discovers that his family is rich. This, of course, makes it "all right" for her to fall for her social/economic subordinate. Considering that it was directed by a woman and produced by Bullock herself (although written by a man--and anyone who has flirted with the Hollywood screenplay development hell process knows that that could mean anything) we have to assume that this idea appealed to all concerned. And is right in alignment with everything we've been talking about in terms of male-female power dynamics. Want to marry a beautiful woman who makes more money than you? Good luck! I actually thought it was charming and fun, and Bullock is very good playing the buttoned-down character who is a creampuff underneath.

I'd give it a "B"

Frogs and death

I met a guy working inDisneyanimation over the weekend, and we talked about the upcoming "Princess and the Frog" film, the "first American Princess" movie. And of course, the firstDisneyanimation centering around a black character. I was warned that there were two things some people would be unhappy about:

1) The Prince is very, very light skinned. Really not black but "exotic," the reason being that he is part of a love triangle, and the other woman is white.

2) The princess spends 2/3 of the movie as a frog.

 

I assume that both of these are true. We'll see. I want to say this if they are:

The reasoning is obvious, and right in line withDisney'strack record in this department, as well as my basic ideas about 'color shock" and white audiences being turned off by very dark black folks. (Can we reference Michael Jackson's quest to turn himself white as a reaction to this, and a pathological urge to be loved by America?) Well, sure. But you know what? They're trying. By God, the studio that avoided animating black folks in their entire 20th Century theatrical catalog is actually doing something about it. They're acknowledging that we're here, a part of this nation, and "Princess and the Frog" probably wouldn't have been possible until every last one of the original old guard was dead.

 

I wish it well. I hope it's wonderful, and that it will be successful enough to prove another stepping stone along a slippery and twisted path. I hope I sit there in the audience with a big silly grin on my face, happy for all the little black girls who can finally see themselves as a Disneyprincess. And hoping that one day a little boy like I was might look at the screen and see himself as a Prince.

##

I'm getting slammed in my life just a bit. Frankly, too many people I care about have died in the last few weeks. Not just the public folks. A very dear friend and one of the most centered and spiritual men I've ever met, AlSiebert, died a week and a half ago, and I just found out about it last Sunday. That same day, my aunt Margaret in Phoenix died. Heard about that last Wednesday while I was at the University of San Francisco teaching a writing workshop. I'll probably drive out to Phoenix tomorrow for the funeral, but I'm feeling a bit of existential weariness. Have to re-center. This definitely sucks.