If your pet is more intelligent, sensitive, and understanding than your spouse, you'd better think about something: you chose him/her. That was the best you could do? Whoa.
www.diamon
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Yesterday I had a coaching call where in twenty minutes I broke through a client's denial and went straight to the heart. I asked her what she wanted in a perfect partner, and she described him. Mind alone mattered, she said. This, I pointed out, simply wasn't true. She didn't care if he died of lung cancer? If he was two hundred pounds overweight? She had to back up and correct that. Then I asked her to describe her perfect partner emotionally. For three minutes she described his "deep self knowledge" and emotional equilibrium, etc. etc. How he would back her up, and support her, and so forth and so on.
I stopped her, and pointed out that no where in her list was the simple word "love" to be found. She broke down...love just wasn't a part of her family dynamic. On a deep level, she didn't know if she was deserving of love. Rather obviously, this is the weak link in her chain. Without healing this, she will enter into a series of loveless unions with damaged people. The simple, awful truth that people will literally kill themselves to avoid facing--we attract people who are at our energy level, and below. If we are not attracted to the people who are attracted to us, we have work to do.
The good news and the bad news are the same: we attract what we are. If you yearn for the type of man or woman who is currently not attracted to us, WE CAN GROW. We can heal, change, learn, wake up. Our partners in life say more about us than almost anything else. The reason this is painful is that it can't easily be faked.
All I do in my coaching is look at those three major arenas, and see where there is a "break" in the energy chain. Survival? Check. Sexuality? Check. Physical health/fitness? Check. Self-love and love for others? Check.
Those are the root. Any problem that doesn't show up in one of these areas probably isn't much of a problem, in comparison. Heal the "weak link" and the entire organism can grow into self-expression, intellectual clarity, and spiritual harmony. Because I know what a fully functioning human being is, it is easy to see where cylinders aren't firing. Most relationships are based on "you don't call me on my bullshit and I won't call you on yours." It is critical not to fall into that trap.
##
I won't post the link. Can't bring myself to do it. But if you Google "Human Centipede trailer" I can promise you will see something you never dreamed of. I promise you. I hope I'm healthy enough to resist the morbid curiosity that might motivate me to seek this insanity out, just to be a cinematic completist. Dear God, I can't imagine the mind that thought this up.
##
Office2 allows me to download/upload stuff from Google Docs to my Ipad...pretty efficiently. So far so good, and the potential is there for a "Google Gears" style app that allows you to work online/offline with automatic cloud backup to a document that can be accessed through any computer. And that will be just too cool.
XX
The Facebook page praying for Obama's death has topped a million people. This is so fascinating. People can carry automatic weapons at his speeches, Fox News can joke about cross hairs, Sarah Palin can talk "Lock and Load," and at every turn, people keep insisting that there is nothing unusual going on here. Fine. To me, this is another version of fat people insisting their bodies break the laws of physics, or people claiming that their relationship history has nothing to do with them.
Here's a postulate for you: the more advantage a given person would have if a situation continues, or the more advantage they would have if it changes, the more likely they are to delete information that is inconvenient to notice. In other words, if you oppose Obama's policies, or have racial animus (which I believe to be about 10% present across the board) you will simply be tone-deaf to threats, because on a deep level, well...it just wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if something ugly happened.
You are, of course, perfectly free to disagree with this, but I have to be honest and say that that is exactly the way I regard defense of the indefensible.
Each side of the political divide tries to say that they have the superior moral position. All right--if you think that, here is a chance. Show us. Stand up and condemn this language without equivocation. If this is not the not-so-hidden heart of the Right, stop letting these troglodytes hijack your party.
Unless, of course, deep down, they are saying what you are thinking.
109 million dollars. Earned by "Couple's Retreat." And...it actually kinda has a love scene with a black man. Now...he's not the lead, and every movie I counted in the over-100 million category WAS sex with the lead. However, it would be less than honest not to note that Frankie Faison actually got laid.
What to make of this? The rules would seem to be slightly more flexible. The following rules might be useful:
1) Make the black man fat. He cannot be reproductive competition for the white males.
2) He cannot be the lead. The lead must get laid as well.
3) The sex has to be played for laughs. It cannot be sensual and affectionate.
But despite those reservations, a bit of a threshold has been crossed. Note that, strictly speaking, "Traffic" features a scene where Michael Douglas' drug addict daughter is being (raped?) by a black drug dealer. I refuse to even acknowledge that one...it would be too disturbing. But that means there are two films above 100 million with non-white male sex. In neither case is it the lead (that ain't Chow Yun Fat bustin' moves in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"). So while by one definition the line has been crossed, I think it's reasonable to say "The star" or "the lead" since that's the way I'm counting it in every other case. But I did want to have at least a minor celebration...hell, I'll take what I can get.
What's With All the Hate..?
I've picked up an unusual amount of negative fan chatter about the new "Karate Kid" movie. And don't quite understand it. I mean, I loved the original as much as anyone, but Macchio, while probably a little better actor than Jaden Smith, was like 29 by the time he did the third one (hardly a "Kid") and blew chunks in terms of technique and athleticism. Pat Morita was wonderful, but does anyone really think he's better than Jackie Chan, even as an actor? And we won't even go into the difference in physical ability.
I can only see a few things:
1) Confusion about the title. Clearly, although the film takes place in China, it is a bald remake of the original. The title is marketing. But complaints seem to assume that the title as the exact same MEANING as the title of the original. This strikes me as displaying a lack of flexible thought. Whereas the original title referred to "a kid who learns karate over the course of the film," in this case the title refers to a kid who practiced karate in the U.S. and is mocked for it in his new home. It is a disparaging term like "oooh! A karate kid!"
2) Perception that Jaden cannot act. He did a terrific job in "Pursuit of Happyness." Not so good in "Day the Earth Stood Still." But then...NOBODY did a good job in that movie. I blame the director.
3) Anger about nepotism. Seems invalid--in every profession, parents help their children into the business. No difference here.
4) Anger about the race of the character changing. Well...I've actually seen a lot of that, white guys pissed that movies are being remade with formerly white characters portrayed by black actors. While I think this is invalid, and doubt they complain when Joel Gray, Boris Karloff, Christopher Lee, or whoever play Asians (for instance), I can understand the panic a little, and have a touch of sympathy. Did they complain as much when Hillary Swank played a "Karate Kid"? Or do they perceive race as being the most important characteristic of an actor? They often say "well, what if a white actor played Shaft?" Hardly the same, when he is very clearly defined as a "black private dick." Replacing Sidney Poitier with a white actor in a remake of "In the Heat of the Night" would be absurd. Replacing Poitier in a remake of "Shoot To Kill"--not so much. Where in "Karate Kid" was his race important to the film? Replace Tom Cruise with
Chiwetel Ejiofor in "Mission Impossible" and why not? Replace Cruise with Jamie Foxx in "Valkyrie" and Houston, we have a problem. If it doesn't change the cultural dynamics, I see no problem.
And one thing's for sure: the martial arts will be WAY better. Are there reasons I'm missing?
##
"I've been on a pony ride. I'm no longer excited by the smell of ponies."
I said this to Tananarive last night when she inquired why I'm not more excited by the possibility of Blair Underwood filming promotional scenes for "From Capetown With Love." Well, until this week I wasn't convinced it would happen. Not that everyone has the best intent, it's just that when it comes to Hollywood stuff, there are 99 "maybes" for every 1 "yes." I refuse to let my emotions go back on that roller-coaster ride.
But yesterday we met with Blair in his office, and actually talked through the scenes. It looks like they've scored a location, and found the actors. It looks as if he wants a fight scene, and I have some ideas that will allow him to look good with minimal rehearsal time. We meet on Friday to block this stuff out more clearly. Looks like he's going to Kempo me (easier to make look good than Silat) and kick me into a swimming pool. Hope it's warm, but as long as I only have to do one take, who cares? So...I'm petting the pony, and might even try to mount. But I refuse to get excited, just yet.
Oh, what the hell, I'm excited, damn it. Once more into the breach, dear friends...