Absolutist thinking and peer pressure

"I think I've been comfortable, perhaps too comfortable, with ignoring what other people wanted me to be and being what I wanted (on some level anyway) me to be. But what about you? Do you think removing yourself to a peer vacuum has a dramatic change on most people? Allowing them to better be who they want to be?"
Certainly my opinion. Part of the reason I wanted to move away from Los Angeles 15 years ago was the belief that I would never know who I was unless I separated context from content.
##
The argument about a "strong man" and an artificial nation can ABSOLUTELY be applied to various African colonial states. And if, for instance, in South Africa the vote had been offered to any black African who, say, had a bachelor's degree...and then made the road to getting such a degree smooth and open for anyone with the ability to earn one, I would have believed that that society would evolve into something perfectly fine, over generations. But the maintenance of power in such a colonial situation demands the infantilization and brainwashing of the populace. Just as there were disadvantages to the end of segregation: black neighborhoods which at one time had vertical integration (doctors, lawyers and gardeners lived in the same neighborhoods) were destroyed when the higher-income blacks had the ability to move away. The neighborhoods often collapsed. Did that mean that integration was bad? No, it means that when you perform an operation to remove shrapnel, the patient bleeds.

Having an outside oppressor draw national boundaries through centuries-old tribal lines creates the potential for vast havoc. Combine this with the standard tactic of playing one group against another means that, if the oppressor ever leaves, blood will run in the streets. Thus, the oppressive force gets to take credit for "stopping" a situation that they themselves created! It is my believe that life tends to organize itself at higher and higher levels of complexity. That the EU--in its current form, or some future form, is simply the destiny of Europe, just as some kind of world-wide unity is inevitable for mankind. Maybe not in our generation, but that as soon as people start trading and talkign to each other, marrying each other's children, they discover they have far more in common than they thought. Nations, in my mind, are dinosaurs and I would expect that in four or five generations the difference between America and say Japan won't be much more than the current difference between California and New York.
##
When I say that absolutist positions are the root cause of wars, I meant that a strongly held position, combined with the belief that it not only MUST BE TRUTH but that that truth is self-evident, is the root cause of war. So, no, this is not an absolutist position on my part. I neither think it "must be true" nor than others must know it's true unless they are stupid. It is an opinion I think valid, but I know I could well be wrong.
##
Back to Iraq: IF it was created by the British (and I'm too lazy to check Wikipedia this morning) then there is a very good chance that it was created not because the people living within that territory had common interests, but because it fit the economic or political needs of the Brits. Remove them, and there is nothing organic holding it together, and no real reason for those people to cling to an artificial construct that had nothing to do with their self-interest. Human beings have been struggling to join together for a very long time. People fight, make up, take each other's territory, marry across tribal lines, form societies. They don't need us. Africa didn't need Europe to conquer it--trade relations would have accomplished the same advances, in time. Iraq doesn't need America, and I think there is a kind of bizarre reverse-racist condescension in thinking they do. It's a bit of the "White Man's Burden" thinking. I'm quite sure that every group in history that has ever expanded its borders or economic influence has thought this a "good thing." The cute trick is to say "it's a good thing for the other guy...even if he doesn't want it." Wow. Once you have that attitude, you could justify breaking into a neighbor's house because you don't like the way he slaps his kids. Kill daddy, then demand that the family pay you for the unrequested killing. Once you believe you are right, and have such privilege, any level of greed can be justified. There is ALWAYS a justification for doing what you wanted to do anyway.
Be very, very careful of self-interest masquerading as altruism.
##
Are liberals more likely than conservatives to think that Iraq "can't handle" demcracy? That might be accurate. But I haven't heard them saying that Iraqis are incapable of it, just that the social institutions that permit democracy can't be created at will, under pressure, during an occupation. In drawing a parallel with Japan, they point out that Japan was infinitely more internally integrated and unified. Every Japanese considered themselves related to the Emperor. When the Emperor told the Japanese people to surrender and submit to occupation, the internal, hierarchical structure was shaken, but held. But Japan, created by centuries of INTERNAL war, is different from a nation created by EXTERNAL pressure. Japanese were being dominated by other Japanese. In my experience, people accept domination by those who look like them much more sanguinely than they do domination by "others." And that is something that those "others" seem to have a terrible time understandign. Why? I think it's because EVERYONE thinks that they're they best, and closest to God. So if we dominate someone, hey, shouldn't they be grateful? I mean, we're the wonderful, golden people! They should suck up our culture, buy our products, work for us at our rates, worship our god, and be happy to let us screw their women. Shouldn't they..?

What would you do..?

Watching Christina Aguilara singing with Tony Bennett on the Emmys, one week after Britney’s disastrous go on the VMA, I was reminded that a few years back, when Madonna kissed both of them onstage, all anyone could talk about was the fact that Britney and Madonna kissed. Everyone forgot about Christina. She was literally cropped out of photographs. Wow! Britney…

And I thought: Christina is going to win this one. She’s got the real talent. Britney couldn’t dance, could barely sing. All she had going for her was that she had this “sexiest virgin in the world” act, and a perfect body, which she was delighted to show off at any opportunity.

Welll…she doesn’t have either of those any more. And without Madonna’s chameleon-like ability to reinvent herself, all that remains was her talent. Having the poor taste to appear in a very revealing two-piece, just as she invited people to approve of her former body, she is inviting people to criticize her now. All she had to do was wear a one-piece outfit (without those spray-on ab shadows! Did you notice the disorienting difference between her front and side views?)

Sorry, but whoever is advising this troubled young lady isn’t doing their job. Considering the product she was initially selling, I blame her mother. Didn’t anyone realize this road had a bumpy ending?

But Christina sounded GREAT. Lady has serious, serious skills.
##
The subject of three “disadvantaged” groups came up in a letter from Dan: Gays, Women, Blacks. Dan, who put in serious time in a women’s shelter, was of the opinion that women seem to him to have the worst deal. Watching the flood of abused women, I can understand his impression. I suggested to him that my own opinion on the subject (“who has it worse?”) isn’t trustworthy—everyone skews data to fit their own position. But there IS a way to determine the truth, I think. After all, a person can be all three, right?

So…every time you meet someone who is at least two of the three (black female, gay black, gay female, or gay black female), if it is possible, inquire about it. Which aspect of your life has given you the most trouble? Caused you the most pain or disadvantage?

Simply tally the results. If readers of this blog would perform this simple experiment when possible and report back, we could try a straw poll.

I can tell you what results I’ve gotten from a very small sample of respondants: Gay is more problematic than female. Black is more problematic than gay. A response I’ve heard several times is that black women don’t join the women’s movement much because they feel they experience the same racism there that they experience with white men. And I’ve had black gays tell me they chose not to live in highly or exclusively gay neighborhoods for the same reason: that in essence, they would rather be gay in a black neighborhood than black in a gay neighborhood. But this is an admittedly small sample. Those seriously interested in the truth, I suggest you go out and gather data.

But my guess is that a lot of people who THINK they want to know the truth will never ask the question, even of people they know well.
##
Had fun working out with the BKF the last few weeks. The technical stuff is relatively easy, and I’m adapting to the pure fitness aspects. (Again, knocking off a hundred pushups and situps ain’t as easy as it was when I was 20, but the old body is figuring it out…)
##
Here’s a question for you that I ask clients, friends, and students often: what would you dare to do, if you knew you could not fail?

So often, we hold ourselves back, allowing fear or “reasonable thinking” to stop us. I’ve had people literally tell me that my dreams are too large. That I’m just setting myself up for heartbreak. You know what? I can deal with heartbreak. What I can’t deal with is the sense that I haven’t done my best. Haven’t tried my hardest. Haven’t emptied myself out. When I go to bed at night, I like to feel like I’ve got little left, that I need those hours of sleep for recharge. That if God will grant me the strength for another day, I’ll hit it HARD.

Last week, I lectured a group of tyro screenwriters, and they asked me where I got my energy and passion. I said that it comes from the sense that today, this day, is the last day of my life. That I will never write again, love again, work out again. That I go to bed prepared to die. That attitude leaves little room for lollygagging (although I suppose gagging my lolly from time to time has its joys…) or complaining. What you see in this blog is about all the complaining about life I do. The rest of the day is kicking my own ass as much as possible…and then having all the fun I can.

Rigid human thought

11) If you want to know why I think wars are damned near inevitable, here’s an experiment for you. Check the last posting, below. Note how many times I stated that my point was NOT whether a person supported or criticized the Iraq action. It was whether a person was not only convinced that they were “correct” but that their “correctness” was SELF-EVIDENT. That there was no way to disagree with them without being a fool or a knave. Please study the replies below, and notice how rare it was for anyone to address my point, or do anything other than insist that they were right, and that that rightness was…ah…self-evident.

a. To say that you are correct is one thing. But when you take the position that the other party has to be an idiot, blind, or ignorant to disagree with you, you create a separate layer of problem. NOW the two of you will fight over the insult before you can ever examine the logical or factual content of your argument. People die in bar-fights, road-rage incidents, and wars every god-damned day, not because one or the other was “right” or “wrong” but because the opinion was wrapped in the kind of certainty that just doesn’t exist outside artificial systems of logic. Within “arithmetic”, 1+1=2 pretty much absolutely. Within the rules of chess, a pawn can only turn into a queen if it reaches the last row. But when you try to apply that level of certainty to the real world. All you reveal is your own rigidity…and, I think fear.

Fear of being wrong forces people into absolutist positions. For instance, a good person who supported the Iraq invasion “for the good of the Iraqis” now has to deal with the possibility that many of the reasons for invading were wrong, and that the death toll approaches the number of Iraqis Saddam was accused of killing. In other words—by the time we leave, WE may have been responsible for more death and destruction than the monster we removed. No person of morals could look at this possibility without flinching. One hears very little consideration of this from the Right. It’s all “the number can’t be that high” and “even if it is, we were right.” Fine. But combine that with “and the fact that we are right is self-evident” suggests a very troubling psychological wound, akin to someone who, as I’ve suggested before, is sitting at a poker table having lost the mortgage, disbelieving that one more hand won’t even the damage. Just one more hand. Loan me the college fund, will you..?
##
It is the certainty that the position is self-evident that is a gigantic chunk of the problem. It makes it impossible to believe that those who fight against us might not have good reasons for doing so. I mean, its OBVIOUS that America is the good guy! Only an idiot could believe we have anything but righteous reasons for being there! NO ONE could believe that we installed a puppet government, or are there for oil, or that religious zealots are influencing our decisions.

Again, I’m not saying that ANY of the above positions are true. But to think that no one could believe them is, I think, a grotesque misunderstanding of human nature. It seems that I can understand how an intelligent person might believe the world is flat better than some can understand how an Arab might believe that America is on the Jihad for the Middle East.


And note how many times the explanation for a given position is supported by complex data and preassumptions that those who gather, interpret and publish it are all honest brokers. While this may be true, look at the way Americans on the Left and Right mistrust each other now. That mistrust is built into the human mind, once stress becomes strain. The NORMAL thing is to assume the other guys are villains. It is relatively atypical to look beyond this simplistic, two-dimensional us-themism (which is responsible for all racism, sexism, and so forth) and see the world from the other's position. I think that the unspoken fear must be that "If I see the world from his position, and he becomes an empathetic human being, I won't be able to kill him. And if killing is necessary to protect my family, my family will die. So I'll just see him as a villain." There's an element of truth in this. It IS harder to kill if you perceive the inwardness of another. The pale side of this tendency is that you can't turn it on and off, and it operates at the level of unconscious competence--at the same time that it reinforces your deep sense of certainty. And the further you go down that road, the more of your ego you've invested, the harder it gets to admit that you ever could have been wrong.

I've seen too many cases where someone's ego was willing to destroy their body or relationship rather than admit to wrong-headedness, and suffer ego-death. Not for a second do I assume that a group ego would not destroy the world before admitting similar wrong.

Materials under pressure become rigid. Stress numbs you and conceals its own presence. Be very, very careful.

The American who believes that Arabs KNOW we want only freedom and peace for Iraq can only believe that those who fight against us are blood-crazed maniacs. And if you can’t see the difference between believing America wants freedom for Iraq…and believing that this is self-evident…then in my respectful opinion, you are stuck in the exact same kind of mental stress loop which, if you were on the other end of this, creates suicide bombers.

Watch the replies to this, please. See if anyone can get out of the “I’m right and it’s obvious” loop. God, I really hope they can. It would give me more hope for our future.

Are they stupid?

“Remember what your original question was: you were asking why, if Al-Qaeda and its fellow travellers rationally knew that they were doing us less harm in Iraq than they would do in America, they'd nevertheless choose to pour their resources into fighting in Iraq. In point of fact, that does seem to be what they're doing, so the choices are:

1. Carrying out a terrorist campaign that's actually killing far more Muslims than Americans, for some reason, is actually a bright idea.”

The majority of fighters in Iraq are not, to my knowledge Al Queda. They are Iraqis locked in civil war, and Muslims who believe America is an aggressor in the region, and look to drive us out. Of course, there is Al Queda as well.

2. Waging a guerilla war that is actually a disincentive for George Bush, the neocons, the Republican Party, and the U.S. military to just walk away from Iraq, or even draw down their troop levels, is actually a bright idea.

That assumes that those fighting all think that Americans have good intentions, or that Bush has any intention to leave. Hell, there is no reason for them to trust us more than we trust them. EVERYONE demonizes “the other.” It would be perfectly reasonable for many of them to think we want oil. Americans were TOLD that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion. What possible reason would they have for believing we’re such nice people that we’d just waltz in and out? Is it really reasonable to expect people to extend such benefit of the doubt?


2. Generally, pouring vast amounts of emotional, economic, and political energy into tearing a country apart rather than allowing it to be reconstructed peacefully is a really, really bright idea.

Once again, you’re assuming THEY believe that’s our intent. Whoa. Really? I’m not saying they’re right, but do you really not see how easy it would be for them to believe we’re there to grab oil? And if they did, wouldn’t they want to help their neighbors? If Iraq invaded America, wouldn’t we pray Mexico and Canada would help? It doesn’t matter if you think our intentions were blissful and saintly—do you really expect THEM to believe it? Even if they are?

You know what? I give up. OK, they're all brilliant ideas. But is there any other adjective besides "stupid" that one might use for all this? "Differently intelligenced", maybe?

How about this:
1) they don’t trust us any more than we trust them/
2) As there were no WMDs, I’d bet anything they think that we never believed they were there at all—that it was a naked power grab.
3) Al Queda is there because we’re there. Our men there are low-hanging fruit.
4) My opinion? The attacks of 9/11 required virtually no resources—just a brilliant concept, and people willing to die. That strategy would work exactly one time. Our intelligence, security and police forces are very very good, and staffed by people who are very very serious. Al Queda is pretty much a broke-dick, incapable of mounting any operations against us in our homeland at all. Yes, Iraq siphons off some energy—but even if it hadn’t, I doubt they could have mounted much more than a couple of car bombs. Was stopping that worth four thousand Americans, a Million Iraqis, and a trillion dollars? Really?
5) Our presence in Iraq is giving Al Queda the best recruitment poster Bin Laden could want. The very last thing he wants is for us to pull out. He wants us to stay there, and unite the Arab world thereby. Bush played exactly, precisely, perversely, into the bastard’s hands.
6) Sun Tsu said, a thousand or so years ago: “There are battles it is not worth winning.” In my mind, Iraq is one of them. We have the need to be secure. We should seek out and kill our enemies. But this battle, in this way, is a perfect example of using a hammer to fix a cracked bottle. Right intent, completely wrong tool. Bush let Bin Laden pick the battle, and the battle field. Walking away from this one isn’t losing, it’s refusing to fight the fight your enemy is salivating to trap you in.
7) As for whether Iraq would be worse off if we left—there is intelligent reason for disagreement here. I don’t know, and neither do you.
8) As for how to best withdraw our troops safely, I don’t know, but I don’t trust George Bush as commander in chief to make those decisions. I believe the man to be incompetent.
9) As for whether there are forces within our culture and country that profit by our remaining there, separate from the publicly stated goals: remember what Eisenhower said as he left office. Where there are gigantic profits, don’t you dare believe there aren’t people willing to lie and manipulate and kill to make them. Remember the tobacco industry, for Christ’s sake. And those forces would be perfectly happy to play on the fear and patriotism of good Americans to keep it going.
10) And remember oil. We run on energy. Oil is energy. And I believe that it would be utterly absurd to think that Oil had NOTHING to do with our decision to invade Iraq—just as it would be naïve to think it was the ONLY motivation. And the gap between “nothing” and “only” is a moral abyss I fear we will be generations recovering from.
##
I woke up at 3:30 this morning with my mind buzzing (might have been that Mountain Dew smoothie I had on Cheat Day, rather than any intellectual breakthrough, though...) about the core of what I'm trying to say. I'm going to try to get closer to my position, and hope that this communicates.

The flaw in your logic, from my point of view, is NOT your belief that we are in the right, and on the side of the angels in this matter. It is your apparent belief that our righteousness is SELF-EVIDENT. That, in essence, no one who disagrees that America is in Iraq for righteous reasons could be anything but a knave, a fool, or blind. Want my test for the wisdom of this attitude? Apply the following: what is the opposite of my point of view, and could I have a reasonable conversation with that person?

In other words, the opposite of your point of view is that America is in Iraq for EVIL, VENAL reasons, and that this is equally self-evident. And that no one who disagrees with this could be anything other than a knave, a fool, or blind. And you know what? You and such a person could do nothing other than kill each other. My point of view? I believe that the average American who supports the war has positive, valid reasons for so doing...but that there is room for honest disagreement about those goals and intents. And I promise you I could sit down at the bargaining table with someone with the opposite of my attitude, and we could find peace.
##
This attitude is separate from the specific contexts and applications. Let's look at some other arenas where such a "I believe X, it is self-evident, and if you disagree you must be a knave, a fool, or blind" attitude can be found.
##
GLOBAL WARMING. "It is obvious Global warming exists. Anyone who disagrees is a greedy planet-raper, or stupid" of "It is obvious Global warming doesn't exist. Anyone who disagrees is an environmental wacko, or on the government research money-train."

GENDER RELATIONS. "Men are evil and violent and the cause of the wars. Anyone who disagrees is a sexist pig, or brain-washed." "Women are less intelligent and capable, and need men to make their decisions for them."

RACE RELATIONS. "Whites are intrinsically evil and corrupt." "Blacks are intrinsically more criminal, and less intelligent."

And on and on. In any of these cases, when you grasp that the opposite of your position would make it impossible to have reasoned discourse, I would suggest that you take a very careful look. In my experience, it is nothing but fear that we might be wrong that makes us so inflexible in our belief that we are right--and that that "right-ness" is self evident. I believe I have more reason to believe whites are evil than you have to believe that Muslims are somehow less logical or further from the divine. And all of my life (and I mean literally ALL), I've had whites trying to convince me to side with whites against blacks ("you're not like the rest of them, Steve.") and blacks against whites ("you write about it, Steve! How can you not see it? They fantasize about raping our women and killing our men. They warp the very language we speak to make us feel ugly and inferior. They steal everything good in history and claim it for their own. How can you not believe they are Satanic?") I kid you not.

And I have never been seduced by it, no matter how comforting such a system of belief might have been. It is too damned easy. Everybody plays that game. I refuse to use the same tools my enemy uses. I won't play his game.

Remember: I'm not saying you're wrong that America is right. That is another discussion. I'm saying you're wrong that it is SELF-EVIDENT, or "obvious" that we are right. Hell, there is disagreement among AMERICANS whether we should be there or not, whether we are there for positive motivations or not, whether our influence there is a good thing or not. Do you not see how much easier it would be for Arabs to see the dark side of our intent? Do you really believe that 100% of the people motivating the war, or profiting by it, are on the side of the angels? Really? If not, what percentage could be venal, hateful assholes? Isn't it at least the same 5-15% we've pretty much believed are assholes in general? At best? Can't you see that if you had been born an Arab Muslim, with the same tendency to believe that you were not only right, but that it was OBVIOUS TO ALL that you were right, that you might be sympathetic to the view that America is the Great Satan? That the leaders of America, who publicly profess (and often seem to privately mock) a belief that their religion and Prophet are wrong might...just MIGHT not have the best of intent? Can they point to casualty figures as high as those we suffered? If they were just as certain that they were right, and we were wrong, can you not see that an intelligent Arab Muslim might well come to the conclusion that America is the most dangerous foe Islam has?
##
If you can't see that, you will never understand racists, sexists, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, or anyone else who not only believes in their cause but believes that the other side MUST know they're right, and that therefore the other side are knaves or fools or blind...and you and the one on the other side can do nothing save kill each other.

And it will be up to me, and people who remember that they might be wrong, and that the mountain looks different from the other side--even though it's the same mountain--to try to make peace.
##
I sincerely hope that nothing I've said here offends you. I believe you to be a good and intelligent and well-intended man, a patriot and a sincere human being. I speak of the universal human tendency to believe that we are right, and that our position is self-evident, and that if you disagree with me, you must be a fool or a knave, or blind. No. If you disagree with me, you are human.
##
Is it heads? Is it tails? To a microbe on the surface of the coin, it must be self-evident which it is. Only to someone who can stand back, unattached to the results, can you see the truth: it is a quarter. And only with an accurate map can you ever get where you are going. The alternative is war to the knife, and all our children die.

Don't think your enemies are stupid

I made the comment that it was unlikely that Islamic fanatics don’t know we want to lure them to a useless location to engage with us, and that we wouldn’t be likely to accomplish anything useful thereby. A reply was offered that such people are driven by emotion (true) and not operating with clarity. A blanket reply: anytime your strategy depends on your opponent being stupid, you’re in trouble. The natural human tendency is to think that “we” are smarter than “them.” Everybody does it. It’s my observation that that approach is almost always wrong.
##
I’ve reluctantly decided on an approach with my “Old Friend” who just got out of jail. After speaking with him, to my horror, I realized that he is still rationalizing what he did. Poor, poor bastard. It is clear that he cannot wrap his mind around how far from the rest of humanity he has slid. How deeply and profoundly he is lying—to himself. Even naked self-interest would show him that he can’t maintain such a delusion without warping the rest of his reality. And even if he’s right, and the rest of society is wrong, he is setting himself up for disaster. He’s not strong enough to stand against that avalanche of contrary opinion.

Yes, I think it’s heart-breakingly sad. For instance, he wants me to believe that 1) this 13-year old girl loved him. And 2) that she was and is some kind of super-genius.

Really? Super-genius? Did she know that what they were doing was hellacioiusly illegal, and would destroy his life? Then she couldn’t have loved him much, now could she? What we have here (in James Cameron’s words from Terminator II) is a delusional architecture so fragile that it will not survive contact with the real world. My friend isn’t going to make it. He believes so desperately that if I just understood how lonely he was after his divorce, I would see his position. If only I knew, I’d behave the same way.

Dear God. Lonnie Athens, quoted in the fantastic “Why They Kill” talks about stages of criminality, and how the final stage is an internalization of a core reference group’s attitudes. My friend is right there. He has to believe that, why, ANYONE would do what he did, given the same pressures. Right? Right? Wrong.

And yet, I’m not psychologically set up to “abandon” someone who has ever touched my heart. This is my own damage. But I tore myself apart 12 years ago in an eerily similar situation, and I won’t do it again. So what I will do, as soon as I can get my shit together, is write him a letter, explaining my position. I will tell him that I fear for his soul, and am not in a position to help him unless and until he does two things:
1) Gets a steady job.
2) Lets go of his obsession with being “right” about what he did. He must make full confession, and show genuine contrition.

Given those two things, he would, for the first time in his life, be a genuine adult, and a responsible human being. I can’t help him get there. But if he can find the strength to get there himself, I can help him move on from that platform.

I’ll give him my email address, and web site. People can always reach me.
And then…I will delete him from my address book, and delete the emails that gave me his. I never want to hear from him again, unless he has had an epiphany. I will pray for my friend. But I have miles to go before I sleep. Too much to do, too many people to help. I can’t waste even another erg of effort of moment of time on someone who is, frankly, doomed. Unless he finds grace.

I will pray for my friend. God damn, this is hard.

"3:10 to Yuma," and "All That Jazz"

Love to look like this at 72. Hell, I’d like to look like that NOW.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/242/popup/index.php?cl=4074031
##
Saw “3:10 To Yuma” yesterday. Russell Crowe and Christian Bale star in the best Western since “The Outlaw Josie Wales.” (Yes, I can well understand someone feeling that “Unforgiven” is better, and more recent. But there’s a rather unfortunate bit of Sacrificial Negro business that keeps me from really embracing that one…) The plot is simplicity itself. A small-time rancher, desperate for money and redemption, helps escort a bad, bad outlaw to the titular train for incarceration. The bad man’s gang (led by a spectacularly evil Ben Foster) wants to spring him. Crowe is the Devil himself, folks: sexy, intelligent, vicious, insinuating, corruptive, sly…and horrifically empathetic. Christian Bale (if you haven’t seen his turn in “The Machinist” you have missed one of the great, queasy acting performances of all time. Jeeze!) is perfect as the rancher up against astounding odds. This is simply a terrific Western. An “A.”
##
Personally, I think the Western went into a slump because of Sergio Leone. Leone, in films like “A FistFull of Dollars” de-mystified the west, made it dirty and grimy and amoral in a way American films never had. No clear-cut good or bad guys. America was (and to a degree is) going through a re-assessment of itself, a struggle for its own soul. The friendly rot at the core of Leone’s work made a mockery of the cowboys and Indians mentality, and it probably wasn’t until “Silverado” that anyone even began to put that kind of “fun” western back together again. And that film was about 1/3 comedy, 1/3 comforting cliché. But fun.
##
Last night, I watched the last half of “Perfect Stranger”, the Halle Berry/Bruce Willis suspenser. At the movie theater, I saw a poster for a film with Berry and Benicio Del Toro. I said something nasty about Berry that I really didn’t mean. In a very real way, I am happy for her that she has made it all the way to being white. The contrast between what SHE had to do to get her Oscar, and what Denzel had to do, in the same year, couldn’t make my point much clearer. She had to screw the white guy executing her Evil Black Man husband. Denzel had to get shot down like a dog in the street. I think that it was Hattie McDanial who was criticized for playing maids. “Hell, honey,” she is said to have answered. “If I hadn’t played one, I would have been one.” So Halle has found that by making herself sexually available exclusively to white males in her movies, she can get a “halo effect” that allows her to function at a higher level financially than her more talented (if no more beautiful. Human females just don’t get more attractive than Halle) sisters. All right.

But what disturbs and disappoints me is that I’d hoped that women were more sensitive and honest than men. Of course, I was a teenager when I hoped that, but it still hurt to have my youthful naiveté thrown in my face. I remember clearly that when Denzel or Wesley had sex with white women, black women threw a fit. There were letters in magazines and newspapers, and it was the talk of talk TV about whether this was a race betrayal. But I have never, not once, heard Halle criticized for doing far worse—whereas Denzel or Wesley might have boffed a white woman once in a while, Halle has had NOTHING but white men for years now, and black women give her a pass. Not a whisper. Can anyone send me a link to an article written by a black woman on the subject?
##
Actually, that’s not quite true. In “Perfect Stranger” she has sex with a boyfriend (Gary Dourdan from “CSI”) who is black. I was hoping to report that this was in some way ameliorative of the problem I’ve spoken of so repetitively. But there are some REAL oddnesses in the scene.
1) you can barely see his face. The scene begins with them coming in through the front door, in shadow. We’ve never met this guy, and I could barely make him out at all. Tananarive said: “hey, isn’t that the guy from CSI”?
2) Their clothes are on. I’m not saying that there should have been nudity, but there was no tittilation at all, and the entire scene was shadowed.
3) They were standing up, and screwing against furniture. As has often been noted, when you see this, it is a sign that the relationship is painful, and that the filmmaker disapproves.
4) The entire scene is viewed from the perspective of a white man who is in love with her. Wow. The metaphor is pretty blatant, don’t you think.
5) He has no last name, but is called only “Cameron”

This is bad enough. But worse still, there is a later scene where we finally do see his face in clear light. And in this scene, it is revealed that he has totally betrayed their relationship. She kicks him out. The trope? Once again, sex with black man is animalistic, impersonal, meaningful only viewed through white eyes, and doomed, and equals pain.

And don’t any of you dare believe that “that’s Hollywood.” Filmmakers in Hollywood come from all over the country. And they survive only if they can appeal to the tastes of filmgoers all over the country. This is America. It is the world. And if I seem to eager to extend humanity to odd and violent groups, remember that I also refuse to label this behavior as some aberration exclusive to white males—which wouldn’t be irrational, however much I may disagree with it. This is what it is to be human, and have the power to shape the images fed to others.

Everyone tries to bend reality to make themselves look like the most important, moral, and beautiful and beloved of God.
##
Oh. The “Hate Crime” controversy—the poor woman who was kidnapped and raped and abused. Should her kidnappers be charged with a hate crime? Not in my opinion. They have those bastards on enough counts to put them away for life. In my mind, the “Hate Crime” designation exists to ensure that local reluctance to prosecute (truly egregious in the 60’s) would allow Federal prosecution. I note that everyone I’ve ever heard complain about it is a member of the majority: white, heterosexual, Christian. Usually male. In other words, someone with no intuitive grasp of what it is like to be surrounded by a majority with 5-15% of that majority being hostile. No grasp at all. And maybe Right-Wingers and Libertarians are right in some abstract sense that the Federal government needs to stay out of State business. But my perception is that this is an hypocrisy: that when it serves their purpose, anyone will accept and encourage help from wherever they can get it to increase their own wealth and safety. And then act pious along the “them black folks should have just moved to another state!” level I find so loathsome.

But in this particular case, I don’t think the Feds are necessary. These scum are caught.
##
Last week, I watched “All That Jazz,” the Bob Fosse movie that changed my life when I saw it back in the day. If you haven’t seen this insanely brilliant film, do. It tells the semi-autobiographical story of Joe Gideon, genius director and dance choreographer and serial philanderer. Like Prince and Clive Barker, his genius arises from a tortured tug-of-war between sexuality and spirit, and the hole in his psyche simply gushes gold. And he is on the road to self-destruction I kid you not.

I watched this musical horror film with my mouth hanging open, and left the theater in a daze. I’d seen a stark reality: the upper levels of human performance are most often reached by monomaniacal focus that, unchecked, can rip apart the rest of your life. I was committed to being the very best I could be, but I also didn’t want to destroy myself. What to do?

Out of this, I came to one of the smartest decisions of my life, and its colored everything I do: I decided to be obsessive about being balanced. I literally can’t go a single day without telling my loved ones I love them. Working on my writing. And exercising. I CAN’T. There is nothing healthy about this obsession…except that it’s healthy as hell. If I had the same level of focus on almost anything else, it would have killed me, or they would have locked me up, and I’m not kidding even a little bit.

“All That Jazz” saved my life. See it.

Remaking "Kung Fu." Oh, my

Apparently, Warner Brothers is re-making “Kung Fu” (before you scream about remakes, note that a film version of a television show isn’t a “remake” any more than is an adaptation of a comic strip or a book. In the top ten films currently playing, two actually are remakes, one is a book adaptation, and one is an adaptation of a television character. To contrast, 30 years ago, the top boxoffice of the year included one film adapted from a magazine article, “Saturday Night Fever”, one from a stage play “The Goodbye Girl”, and three from books—“The Deep”, “The Rescuers”, and “The Spy Who Loved Me.” Hollywood has ALWAYS looked for material from other media, or its own history.)

I’m nervous. The original series just lit me up. I loved it. Learning the tragic circumstances behind its origin (co-created by Bruce Lee, he was denied a lead because of his race.) or even more savage irony connected with it (after Lee’s death, his pet project, co-written with James Coburn and Sterling Sillophant, was finally made…with David Carridine, star of the television series. Jeeze.) I was watching a “50 Great Horror Movies” collection yesterday, and the one frozen on my screen is “Deadly Hour” starring Boris Karloff as Chinese detective “Mr. Wong.” Remember when there were Asian detectives like Mr. Wong, Charlie Chan, and Mr. Moto? Notice that as soon as it became politically incorrect to allow whites to play Asians, you never saw these characters any more? So bizarre, and so sad. At any rate, please note the following description of the actor sought to play “Caine”:
“For now, they’re searching for “Caine, Male, 20-35. A handsome mix of East (Chinese/Asian) meets West (American). A man with the emotional capacity of a young Clint Eastwood. Charismatic and charming, Caine was raised by Shaolin monks after his mother’s murder and became a highly skilled fighter. In addition to being a strong actor with the right look, the actor for this role should be athletic and although not required, some martial arts training, gymnastics or ballet are a plus.”

Anyone catch it? Anyone? Alright, here it is: we know that Caine had an Asian mother and a White father. Did anyone out there catch that they equate “American” and “White”? This is not a mistake—it is the automatic, unconscious pre-assumption of the majority: we are the norm. Anything else is “other.”

The ability to “norm” yourself, place yourself at the center of the universe and think that everyone else is “other” “less” and “different” is one of the hidden, invisible and almost insurmountable advantages white Americans give their children. It’s like the ability to look at “flesh” colored band-aids or crayons, and never, ever consider that there might be something odd in that label.

BTW—I’d figure there’s about a 40 percent chance that Keanu Reeves will get the role of Caine. He does actually have some Asian blood, at least. What would be astounding is an Asian actor “made up” to look more Caucasian. Never, ever seen THAT.
##
Today I start my second round of “4x7” aiming at FlowFit 2 and the Bruiser Gama Cast Century. I made it to 12 sets of 9 reps. After the last cycle, I felt sore, so I think I moved a little too quickly, and kept my volume too high. I’ll start at 8 rep sets this time, and move up the ladder more slowly. The problem is one of recovery, and allowing my body to tell me if it’s too much. I think that 1-2 Bruiser workouts per week is plenty: it’s whole body like crazy.
##
Today I start the rewrite on “The Good House” for Fox Searchlight. One executive wanted me to cast a “good” magic and a “bad” magic on the basis that that’s what audiences want. I will if I have to, but have an aversion to this. Seen it too many times—and the “bad” magic is always something practiced by some dusky people, while the “good” magic is usually Christianity, or something practiced by Europeans. First of all, that’s just Cultural bigotry. Second, according to my own studies and experience, it’s over-simplification and simply inaccurate. Magic is a lot like looking at a pile of rocks, finding the one that holds the others in place, and slipping it out, triggering an avalanche—in other words, a release of potential energy that already exists in the natural world. It is a neutral force, like fire or water. Fire can cook your eggs, or burn your house to the ground: it is neither “good” nor “bad.” Those labels are added by human beings.
##
My best guess is that the obstruction experienced by those assigned to the 9/11 commission was real, but not the result of people trying to cover-up a plot. More likely, people trying to cover their asses in the face of a horrible cluster-fuck.

Worst case scenario I consider likely? That Bin Laden’s boys were helped along by folks looking the other way. Motivation? A bunch of ‘em, some venal, some nationalistic and patriotic, ranging from fear of radical Islam to the need to obtain oil for our national welfare to the desire to make a TON of money exploiting Iraqui oil. But that’s the outside range of what I could believe happened.

The thing I don’t believe at all is that “controlled demolition” brought down the Twin Towers. Why? I would guess it would take weeks, and hundreds of men, to wire those towers for demolition. And the evidence would be massive, and witnessed by thousands of survivors. And anyway, why in the hell would you demolish those towers if you were planning to slam airplanes into them, anyway? Make no sense. The airplanes ALONE would be enough to trigger a war. Doing something that would have to have, at the least, hundreds of witnesses who could send you to the gas chamber with a single whisper makes no sense. Conspiracies just don’t work like this.

But that doesn’t mean there isn’t something rotten in Denmark. Remember: just like Conspiracy theorists would like you to believe damned near EVERYTHING is a conspiracy, anti-conspiracy theorists would like you to believe NOTHING is. Oh, really? I can’t believe either extreme. There’s never been an effective conspiracy that unraveled down the road? Never? A statistical impossibility, I’d think. And at every step of the unraveling, the best defense is to promote the worst, most wild-eyed “straw man” theories and mock them.

Of course, that doesn’t mean 9/11 was anything other than a series of massive screw-ups, triggered by a brilliant coup on the part of Bin Laden (and I really think it was brilliant), who correctly predicted that people would think that the best way to deal with hijackers is sit quietly and obey. It has, and will, NEVER happen again. That was a one-shot deal.

One thing that disturbs me is how frightened everyone got about the whole thing. Wait: something like one ten-thousandth of a percent of our population was killed, and people were willing to change our entire way of life over this? Like, if I’m the patriarch of a clan of a million people, and ONE is killed, I’m going to disrupt and frighten the rest of my family to get the perp? This really doesn’t make sense to me. Other nations have dealt with terrorists without spending a trillion dollars, or (contributing to the killing of) a million citizens of a country that never attacked us.

And how powerful was Bin Laden, anyway? He got in one sneak punch on us. One. And we freaked out. And what has he done since? A single suicide bombing? No? Nothing? Hell, if he'd pulled off so much as a car bomb during the Xmas shopping season, he could have really hurt us. Nothing. For SIX YEARS. Does anyone believe he wouldn't have hurt us, if he could? And if you really believe that we’re “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” do you really believe that terrorists don’t KNOW they aren’t hurting us as much in Iraq as they would be blowing shit up in New York? Don’t you think they’ve heard that slogan, and know that we’re “deliberately” drawing them away. Do you think they’re that stupid, that if they could reach us, they wouldn’t?

Maybe you do. But boy oh boy, if so, you see a very different world than I see. Frankly, I hope you’re right, because if you’re not, we’ve done one of the stupidest, most cowardly and evil things I’ve ever seen. And with the recent information about George Tenet, the head of the CIA warning Bush DIRECTLY that best information said Saddam had no WMDs...and that Bush discounted him. Now, let's assume that Bush had the best intentions, and was misled by his "superior" data. I have never seen any evidence or suggestion that Tenet's info was passed on to Congress. And unless it was, you CANNOT say that blame for the decision to go to war must be equally shared by the Senators and Congressmen who voted to give Bush that power. Even if you think he had the best of intentions, if you can't admit, by now, that the White House did not provide the American public and their representatives the information necessary to make an intelligent decision...then with all due respect, I suggest that that article about rigid neurology and Conservatism was hideously dead on target.

9/11

Look:

I really, honestly, sincerely don't know what to make of the following. But the number of people who would SEEM to be in a position to have an intelligent opinion, who are disturbed by unanswered questions, is sufficient to pass on this email I received today. If it's 100% bullshit, I apologize. But if there is any validity in ANY of these opinions, it is so incredibly important that it be publicly discussed that I am perfectly willing to look silly. The questions about "Building 7", especially, trouble me--I've just never heard what felt like a good explanation for that collapse. Studying history...and my conversations with my old MI friend, convince me that terrible things happen, and then are lied about, and this has gone on for all of human history. Is it possible that something monstrous happened in 2001? You bet. Probable? I really, seriously don't know. I only pass this on, with caveats, because it would be irresponsible not to.
####

Here are 40 experts, including the Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey and Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council ~ sounding off in short quotes about their misgivings with the 9/11 commission and the too many questions that are still UNANSWERED .


Allen L Roland
http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2007/09/11.html


9/11 REVISITED AND QUESTIONED

Summarized from www.patriotsquestion911.com.


Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, resigned in December 2003 "I, as a member of the [9/11] Commission, cannot look any American in the eye... It is a national scandal... this White House wants to cover [9/11] up."

Senator Mark Dayton – Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services and Homeland Security "[NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission...the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence"

Congressman Ron Paul - Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee "the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation"

Congressman Curt Weldon - "[9/11 Commission] there's something very sinister going on here... something desperately wrong... This involved what is right now the covering up of information that led to the deaths of 3,000 people"

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney - Member of the House Armed Services Committee "the [9/11] Commission ran up against obstruction by the administration and non-cooperation from government agencies... the errors and omissions immediately jumped out at us"

Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh – "[9/11 Commission] findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself"

Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, PhD - "Distinguished national and international scientists and scholars present massive evidence that the 9/11 Commission Report is a hoax and that the 9/11 "terrorist attack" has been manipulated to serve a hegemonic agenda in the Middle East... We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false"

Assistant Secretary of Housing, Catherine Austin Fitts - "Regarding 9/11 "The official story could not possibly have happened... It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible... The Commission was a whitewash. "

U.S. Army Intelligence officer, Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice, John Loftus ~ "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence"

Foreign Service Officer, George Kenney - " I cannot believe, much as I might like to, the standard account of 9/11"

Foreign Service Officer, J. Michael Springman - "Fifteen of the nineteen people who allegedly flew airplanes into buildings in the United States got their visas from the same CIA Consulate at Jeddah"

Deputy Attorney General, State of Pennsylvania, Philip J. Berg, Esquire - "The official story of what actually took place on 9/11 is a lie. "

Major General U.S. Army, Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Albert Stubblebine ~ "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon?"

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center - "I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate"

Col. Robert Bowman, U.S. Air Force, Director of Advanced Space Programs, PhD Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering - " the official 9/11 story is impossible .. There is a cover up .. high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened .. highly placed individuals in the administration .. Dick Cheney .. the very kindest thing we can say about George W Bush .. is high treason and cospiracy to commit murder "
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, aircraft accident investigator ~ "I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident... The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from view .. with all the evidence readilty available at the pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged .. the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history "


Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army ~ "Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force, fighter pilot, commercial pilot flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC ~"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple...[Regarding Flight 77]"The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles... The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77"
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force, Office of the Secretary of Defense, staff of the Director of the National Security Agency ~ "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics...There was a derth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked Pentagon, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage one would expect from the impact of a large airliner... this visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slamed into the Pentagon as a ' missile ' ... I saw nothing of significance at the point of contact ~ no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon .. all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected was not evident .. the same is true with regard to the damage we expected .. but I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 0r 40 minutes, with the roof remaining relatively straight .. The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would have expected if a missile had struck the Pentagon "

1. Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, Barbara Honegger, MS ~ "The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and in WTC 7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11...A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high−speed 270−degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building...Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system"

Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer ~ "I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2...and WTC7...not hit by an airplane...the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon"

* Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army, Intelligence officer ~ "I view the 911 event ...as a matter that implies either...A) passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down or B) active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East"

Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President’ Daily Brief, U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, Raymond L. McGovern ~ " I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke...just as Hitler in 1933 cynically exploited the burning of the parliament building, the Reichstag, this is exactly what our President did in exploiting 9/11...making a war of aggression on a country that he knew had nothing to do with 9/11...that’s certainly an impeachable offense...But compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited."
National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, William Christison ~ "there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. … The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them...this all was totally an inside job… I have since decided that....at least some elements in this US government had contributed in some way or other to causing 9/11 to happen or at least allowing it to happen... The reason that the two towers in New York actually collapsed and fell all the way to the ground was controlled explosions rather than just being hit by two airplanes. … All of the characteristics of these demolitions show that they almost had to have been controlled explosions... I think you almost have to look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a joke and not a serious piece of analysis at all... It's a monstrous crime"


U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, case officer CIA. Robert David Steele ~ "I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others...This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism...I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated. There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition"
CIA Case Officer, Specialist in the Middle East, Directorate of Operations, Awarded Career Intelligence Medal, Robert Baer ~ " Regarding the opinion there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."

Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the federal Aviation Administration. Team leader of the FAA's Red ( Terrorism ) Team in the Federal Air Marshall program, Coast Guard officer, Bogdan Dzakovic ~ "At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."
Minister of Justice, West Germany, Horst Ehmke, PhD - "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service."

1. State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defense, West Germany, Andreas von Buelow, PhD - "The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one...This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."

President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga ~ "[9/11] could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."

General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff, Russian armed forces, Ministry of Defense ~ "Only secret services and their current chiefs – or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations – have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation [9/11] of such magnitude...Osama bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders."
Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal ~ "Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation [9/11] of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaida as if it was Nazi Germany or the communist party of the Soviet Union, I laugh because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaida has been penetrated by American intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organisation and sophistication."


Chief of Staff, Pakistani Army, General Mirza Aslam Beg ~ "The information which is now coming up, goes to prove that involvement by the ‘rogue elements’ of the U.S. military and intelligence organization is getting more obvious. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda definitely do not have the knowhow and the capability to launch such operations involving such high precision coordination, based on information and expertise."

European Parliament, Committee on Security and Defense, Giulietto Chiesa ~ regarding 9-11 "Billions of people were given only one explanation....which is entirely false....everyone who dares to question it is treated as if he was a fool."

French Army Intelligence and artillery officer, Col. Pierre-Henri Bunel, Expert in the effects of artillery weapons and explosives ~ Regarding Department of Defense photos of the Pentagon on 9/11 "Image of the impact on the Pentagon is very instructive as to the nature of the explosion. ... It corresponds to a detonation of an explosive with high energetic power. The explosion does not correspond to a deflagration of kerosene...suggests a single engine flying vehicle much smaller in size than an airliner...resembles the effects of anti-concrete hollow charges that I have been able to observe on a number of battlefields...lead me therefore to think that the detonation that struck the building was that of a high-powered hollow charge used to destroy hardened buildings and carried by an aerial vehicle, a missile."

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety
Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD ~ "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."

Counter-Terrorism Officer, MI5 (Britain), David Shayler – regarding 9-11 "The available evidence indicates that people in key positions in the FBI, the State Department, the CIA and so on were not loyal to the Constitution; that they saw an opportunity in plans laid down by genuine Islamic terrorists to carry out an operation that would shock the world and would therefore justify U.S. adventurism in the middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq."


Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean, Former Governor of New Jersey - "FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue...We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us...It was just so far from the truth."

Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Homeland Security Advisory Council ~ "we got started late; we had a very short time frame...we did not have enough money...We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. ... So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail"

9/11 Commissioner, Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - "that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general...We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, Jr., Former Attorney General, NJ, Former Commissioner of the State Commission of Investigations ~ Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described...The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years"

T is for Television

T is for Television

Once upon a time I wrote lots of television: Stargate,
Outer Limits, Twilight Zone, Baywatch...stuff like that.
Had fun, and made a lot of money. Then my
first marriage blew up, my wife moved from
California to Washington, and I went along to
raise my daughter. Ten years later I returned
to Los Angeles, and found that I couldn't work
in the industry any more: the entire model of
writing had changed. Freelancers were no
longer hired, and they didn't hire anyone for
staff who was over 40. I think that the
technical name for this is "screwed."

Well, a couple of years have passed, during
which I've written three books, and sold a
movie to Fox Searchlight. Still, the inability
to work in TV rankles me a bit...

But I wanted to give my impression of television,
as I experienced it. Television is the one place
in the entire writing field where the economics
most resemble a "real" job. In other words,
so many minutes of television must be
produced each month, broadcast each night.
In that sense, it's a lot like the auto industry,
and there are actual jobs with paychecks,
retirement, and medical insurance for those
writers who can handle the grind.

Now, cable television is different from broadcast,
so understand that the following comment
does not apply to HBO or Showtime:

"Television is a creative medium where the
viewers are not the clients. They are the
PRODUCT, and are sold to the "client" (the
advertisers) in demographically-designated lots."

If you understand the above quote, you will
understand much about the nature of the
industry, and why the quality of television
--positive and negative--is what it is. I don't
have a lot more to say, because I don't like
to teach things not a part of my direct
experience, and as I've said, its been years
since I wrote for broadcast.

But study that quote. It will serve you well.

S is for Screenwriting Expo

S is for Screenwriting Expo

Here's a reach-out to my students: I'll be presenting
four lectures at the L.A. Screenwriting Expo, the 25th
and 26th of October. It will be out at LAX, and you
can learn more at www.screenwritingexp.com

This is actually an excellent gathering, with more
writing instructors WHO ACTUALLY KNOW THEIR
STUFF in one place than almost anywhere else on
the planet. My workshops will be on Horror,
Science Fiction, Plot, and Character. I've been a
"Starred Speaker" three years running. Let's see
if I can make it four!
So...in the craft of writing, there are many different
forms that have dominated the field at different
times in history. The narrative song, the play,
the short story, the novel...all have had periods
of popularity, decline, and resurgence. Currently,
the most vital forms are the cable television
drama, and the film.

Most of the basic aspects of writing are identical:
plot and character interact to create theme,
meaning, poetics and emotion. But with the
screenplay, it is vital that the majority of the
meaning is conveyed visually.

I was watching "Witness" yesterday. A terrific
movie about an Amish family caught up in the
violent world of world-weary cop John Booker.
Booker is ultimately forced to hide out in the
Amish community, and there the contrast
between the two lifestyles is played out on
multiple levels.

You could easily, EASILY, turn the sound off,
and follow the film. Every step of the relationship
dance between Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis.
The triangle with Alexander Gudenov. The
corruption at the police department. The savage
murder that sets the plot in motion, witnessed
by an innocent child. The insularity of the
Amish community, and their love and support
for each other--as well as their disapproval
of any action that challenges their customs.

Watch the film. Note the actions that symbolize
submission to the Amish lifestyle (Ford handing
gun and bullets to McGillis. Ford helping to
build a barn.) as well as actions that symbolize
the dysfunction of the "modern" world (a car
not starting. Rude tourists. The deceptions
of those entrusted with "keeping the peace.")

This is a masterful Hollywood entertainment,
a small gem. Watch it again, with the sound
off, and see what you can learn.

In your own work, you have the obligation to
see that the dramatic spine is carried by the
visuals, not merely the exposition. You can
deepen and contrast your basic story with
exposition, but IF YOU CAN'T TURN THE
SOUND OFF AND FOLLOW THE STORY, YOU
MAY NOT HAVE A FILM.

Think about it.

Conservative versus Liberal Neurology

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/
la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center


Interesting article, if accurate. But I want to re-state that I have NOT seen, in general, a sweeping difference in fitness, emotional health, or finances between the two polarities. Whatever is going on here (if indeed anything is) should be evaluated without smugness or finger-pointing. One might ask: "under what conditions is tendency X more valuable than tendency Y?" Because, clearly, both ways of thinking are pretty deeply wired into our brains...

Jason the wonder-kid...

We just bought Jason a new bed. It looks like a blue sports car, and has no rails—he can get up out of bed now, and that creates new risks, and new opportunities. I punish him (a little) for sneaking around at night, but this morning he did something pretty wild. God, I love that kid.

At night, he sleeps in a diaper, even though during the day we have him in underwear. Well, he woke up wet, got out of bed…and changed himself. Took off his diaper, put on a new one, and threw the old one away! Kid cracks me up.
##
I finished my first 4X7 cycle using a Density technique for Bruiser Gama Casts. Got up to 10 reps per set, from an initial volume of 5 reps per set. Did yoga Saturday, and felt serious toxins wringing out of the old body. THEN I realized that I was at the end of the 4X7, and that it was appropriate to feel a bit trashed…especially since I felt strong as hell in my last workout. Now, four days of recover, and begin my next cycle on Thursday. It will be interesting to see how far I progress this time. I’m really going to take it slowly, though…
##
A dear friend who was sexually active at 13 with grown men has chimed in on the issue of my old training buddy, whom we’ll call “Wally” right now. Her judgment is that I should wipe the slate clean—not hold his past against him, but also consider that my “friendship” bank has been emptied. She spoke with great clarity about her position. And I trust her judgment: she knows how hard it is to climb out the emotional hole she dug for herself. One of the men who abused her was another old friend of mine, and when I found out, it permanently damaged my ability to look him in the face. Wow. When I look at some of the wounds around me, it really makes me wonder about myself. Clearly, my associations mirror my own core. I can’t point the finger. But I can continue to clarify and refine my relationships…and continue to heal my own rips.
##
I’m thinking about getting a “Life Coaching” credential. Sounds like an interesting framework to make some money doing what I ordinarily do for free. Does anyone out there have experience with the iPEC coaching organization? Or any of the others? I would LOVE to speak to someone who has dealt with these folks. Right now, they look like the best of the bunch, but if anyone has contrary data, I’d appreciate hearing it.

Free Copy of FlowFit for every American

Good Lord. I haven't talked to Scott about this, but apparently RMAX has decided to give away FREE copies of their FlowFit program. Basically, it has all the benifits of the Five Tibetans, plus most of the benifits of a decent yoga program, PLUS it has the ability to take almost anyone across the aerobic threshold, meaning you can use it for Fear Removal. I taught this to a 300 pound guy with diabetes and half a foot. And you can also tax an athlete. Add FlowFit 2, and you have a program to take anyone from completely un-fit to fine condition, in about an hour a week.


http://www.rmaxinternational.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15796

DO THIS BEFORE HE COMES TO HIS SENSES. It's nuts. But it seems to be true. FlowFit is a wonderful exercise protocol, and they're putting their money where their mouths are about making Americans healthier. Just do it!

HPP and a long-distance call

For the first time in fifteen years, I listened to my very favorite hypnotic tapes (well, MP3 actually) this morning. It’s one in a series by Dr. Lloyd Glauberman, using a sophisticated technique called “Hypno-peripheral processing), an exceptionally clever and complex way to create a subliminal program. What Glauberman does is create two “therapeutic metaphors” (stories containing embedded suggestions that will resonate with the subconscious of the listener) and play one in each ear, simultaneously. There are specific phrases in one story that actually “cross over” to emphasize or reinforce what’s being said in the other ear. Because you can’t consciously listen to both simultaneously, you drop into a deep and receptive trance quite nicely, thank you. The HPP program is called “The Pursuit of Excellence” and it’s worth seeking out. To my knowledge, only three people have ever made tapes using this process: Glauberman, a bodybuilding guru named Frank Zane (with Steve Reeves, the most beautiful athletes in the history of the sport. Astounding symmetry! Then again, he was a math teacher) and…me.

Yep. Years back, when I was conducting the Lifewriting workshops, I created a version of an HPP tape using my then-wife Toni (she has a great voice!) as the narrator of the second story. I created two scripts, printed them in parallel columns so that I could time them approximately, and adjusted the “embedded commands” so that they crossed over from one story to another. Then we practiced for a day or so, getting the timing right, and recorded a dummy version on my TEAC Tascam Mini-Mixer. Once we had that, we just went into a professional studio, put on headphones and listened to the reference track, and repeated what we heard, concentrating on vocal modulations. Sent a copy of it to Glauberman, and he told me I should hear from his lawyers…no, not really. He thought it was really good work, and that I should produce them for sale. I never did…
##
We had our meeting with the movie company yesterday (teleconference from Toronto) and it went great. We’re now in rewrite, to deliver in 6 weeks. Yowsa! And I told Tananarive that if my back is to the wall, she can be certain that I won’t screw the deal up with my racial politics. We’re playing for position, and I have to keep my eyes on the ultimate prize. The safety and security of my family is more important than ANYTHING. Writing comes second. Martial arts third. That’s the order of priorities in my life, and everything else comes in a distant fourth. So if I have to choose between a Harvard education for my son (I’d love to see him as…oh, an FBI agent, or maybe a Congressman…) and my ego, there’s no choice. Some wheels grind more slowly than others. The important thing is this: I don’t have to be a genius to have a career in this town. I have to be professional. That means that I have to learn to speak in pure visual metaphor, negotiate the ego traps of this whacko town, and provide the highest quality work I can on-schedule and without meltdown. That would put me in the top 1% of writers. I believe Steve Perry said that his goal was to “be a faster writer than anyone better than me, and a better writer than anyone faster than me.” I love that. Replace “faster” with, oh, I don’t know…saner? Nicer? More professional? Something like that. And you’d have a big chunk of my strategy.
##
To Mike—be careful with the KB. It is a VERY serious tool. Work into it slowly, no more than three times a week. On alternate days, CAREFULLY stretch, or better still, begin to develop a yoga practice. KB and yoga together could create a killer program for performance, appearance, and longevity. Let the first six weeks be your break-in period. Go lightly, have fun, just take a time period (15-30 minutes, maybe) and experiment with different fast and slow lifts. ALWAYS do less than you think you can do. Take one day a week off COMPLETELY, to check in with your body. Warm up your joints before practice: the Five Tibetans, Sun Salutations, or Coach Sonnon’s Warrior Wellness program would be very cool indeed. Also, look into Sonnon’s Be Breathed and FlowFit. Both of them will teach you things about your body that can’t be put into words.

I LOVE Kbs, even though I’m not using them at the moment. I’m on a roll with the Clubbell Bruiser Century challenge. Today, I’m doing 12 sets of 9, starting one set every two minutes. It’s gonna be killer. Then later, I’ll do my martial arts workout (today is a “heavy” day, using Scotts “4x7 protocol. Tomorrow is a recovery day, and I always take Sundays off). Monday, it’s back to the BKF Kenpo class, hopefully having made the necessary adjustments in the last two weeks to do my workout AND theirs in the same day without overtraining. Being careful there—my pulse is low in the morning, my joints feel fine, and my overall energy is good. All indicators that I’m not pushing too hard.
##
I will probably go see “Shoot ‘em Up” today. Supposed to be great, brainless entertainment, a tribute to the phenomenal John Woo’s “Hard Boiled.” I also want to see “3:10 to Yuma” and the retro-slasher movie “Hatchet.” “Hatchet” will probably wait for DVD, but “Yuma” might go down on Sunday afternoon. Maybe. Going Salsa dancing with my cousin Oliveen later that night…life is just a cornucopia of delicious opportunities right now. I really have to pinch myself sometimes.

No idea what will happen next month, but right now, I’m feeling great.

Oh! Oh! Last thing: Bought Jason a new bed. Not a crib. No side-rails. It looks like a blue sports car. He’ll be able to take himself to the potty. Sniff! My little man is growing up.

Media Bias

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

The above link is to a UCLA study with some provocative insights into media bias. Take a look, and give your impressions. The study seems to have used fair and intelligent methodology.

Media Bias

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

Emotional Membranes

Today at 11am, we’ll have our next conference call with the studio making our movie. After that, another story meeting, probably face to face, with our producers (both very very smart ladies). And after that…T and I dive into the re-write on The script. Her novel deals with a black family moving back to an all-white town in the Northwest (curiously, T got her inspiration for this while we were living in Longview. Hmmm.) In writing the script, and dealing with the studio, I’m becoming aware of a casting issue.

It’s like this: the lead character, has a rather nasty husband. She also has a love interest who develops after the husband bails on her. Now, one thing any studio wants to do is recoup its investment. They want the film to play to the widest possible audience. This, of course, is why we were asked: “do the characters HAVE to be black?” This is in practical acknowledgement of that “5-10% disconnect” that I’ve talked about so much. Now, I’m seeing a casting situation that might very well develop: the husband will be cast black, and the love interest will be cast white. This sort of “color-blind casting” (it never really is. There are very specific types of roles that can be “color-blind” we all know which ones can’t.) could very easily happen if no one is watching. My own leverage isn’t great in this situation. I can easily see a situation where a black man is cast as the husband, and oh, Matthew McConaughey is cast as the love interest. And I can see the studio looking at me quite innocently (in the form of numerous execs) and accusing me of racism if I object. I think that my best defense is to point out the creative bankruptcy of the “evil black man, white guy gets the black woman” model. I’ve seen variations on it so often I’m tired of hearing my own voice on the subject, especially since it seems to be a lone voice in the wilderness.

Wow. Would I have the balls to risk the best chance I’ve ever had to get a movie made, based on a point of honor? And if I rolled over, would I really be doing it to be a “team player”? Or to maneuver myself into a stronger position for future gain? Or would it be simple cowardice and creative fatigue? I don’t know, but one of those interesting life tests might be right around the corner.
##
This has all been brought home a little more sharply with the release of the AOL “Top 25 love scenes” list. Before I looked at it, I predicted the following:
1) None of the males would be Asian or Black.
2) “Monster’s Ball” would be high on the list.

I was right, of course. There were a couple of Latino males on there. I tend to use a more sociological than anthropological approach to racial typing. The fact is that there are interestingly “exotic” types that don’t seem to push the “Other” button as hard as I’d think. On the surface, some of these are often considered “non-white” but in practical emotional reactions, they are clearly “whiter” than Asians or Blacks.

And the standard I use most often? Simple: do we see them in natural romantic/sexual interactions with white females, without the ethnicity being a gigantic factor, massive pain being anchored to the relationship, or the relationship leading to death for one of the partners.

Clearly, Latinos fit in this category. Desi Arnez and Lucy, anyone? Arabs fit. Danny Thomas or Omar Sharif? East Indians seem to be sliding in there as well. Examples of this are smaller and less blatant, but I suspect its there. Although the skin color can be dark, somehow it doesn’t trip the tripwires that a Chinese, Japanese, African, or African-American does.

Strange, and interesting.
##
I think that there are psychological “membranes” relating to certain kinds of change or evolution in our lives. For instance, someone with a serious weight issue carries 250 pounds. They can lose maybe 10-15 pounds of that before hitting a psychological “wall”—if they lose more, they are exposing themselves in some way, and will panic. I’ve simply known too many people who can lose about 10-15 pounds, then put it back on. They stay in this cycle, constantly (on the surface) satisfied by their “progress” and not “noticing” that they are in a loop.

The same thing would HAVE to be true in finances (you can earn 10-15% more, or clear up your finances to X degree, before you freak out and self-sabotage) and relationships. Harder to quantify here, but the most blatant thing I’ve seen is people who have massive wounds in their own psyche, but think that they are “more advanced” than their partners. It’s very human, and is in my mind, a revulsion for what they see in the emotional mirror.

I’ve seen this with smoking as well—people who are always “cutting down” and then backsliding and “cutting back” and so forth. And pretending not to see that the game is to SEEM as if progress is being made without actually getting anywhere.

Well, I’ve noticed this in myself. As I approach the 170 lb mark, I can feel that my subconscious is confused. It doesn’t recognize the guy in the mirror, who is looking really RIPPED these days. So…on Fasting days, by the evening I find it much easier to talk myself into, oh, just a little piece of salmon jerky. Which triggers Limbic Hunger, and leads to more eating. I KNOW this will happen, but the voices in my head talk me into that first bite anyway. Just one bite, they say. What’s the harm?

Man, that’s like a philandering husband saying: what’s the harm with one drink in her room? Or a thief saying: who’ll miss a single dollar?

It opens the door, folks.
##
Somehow, this ties into my friend (did we decide to call him Wally?) Wally is a child in an adult body. He has serious impulse control problems, and blames his actions on the external circumstances. “I was stressed because of my divorce” “she was so mature” “I was depressed.”

And here is where the rubber has to meet the road. Whether the true reality of Mankind is either nature or nurture is probably the wrong question. We’re really looking at a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors.

But one thing is certain: if someone consistently has a negative reaction to stimuli which does NOT trigger such a reaction in others, you have to look at this very carefully. It doesn’t matter that “in there somewhere” is a good person. In my mind, the safety of our children is paramount. The safety of our society is precious. A person who might, with infinite resources, be salvaged is a tragic case, because we don’t have infinite resources.

And where we spend our resources, and our time, is the best indication of our true values.

Thanks!

I want to extend thanks to you guys for cautioning me about my old friend. I will be very, very careful, keep him at a distance, and offer only generative help--he has to do all of the work. I think he is perilously close to a completely wasted human being: I pray there is a spark left in him, but I don't know. I really don't.
This is hard for me, but as Dan Moran pointed out: I've seen this before. The people I grew up with are mostly dead. Life is easily wasted. And he betrayed a primary trust in life: the care of the young. Even worse, in my mind, the care of a young woman. Sex is so incredibly precious to me, and the thought that he violated the trust of a girl NICKI'S AGE makes me so murderously angry that I have to process my emotions with care. I wonder: is part of my wish to help a reaction to my own repulsion? Am I "not living up to" my own self-image in some way?
One thing I know is that I don't have energy, time, or resources to waste. And this is as close to a lost cause as I've seen in a long time. But what I won't, and can't do, is kick him off the bottom rung of the ladder. I'm sure I can find some compromise...

But again, thank you for caring.

R is for Reading

Here's one I REALLY need to pay attention to,
myself. It is easy, so very easy for a writer to
forget that he must read. In general, the
minimum safe ratio is ten words read for every
word written. If you don't, it's much like
working out without eating--you can get away
with it for a while, but then your body will
devour itself.

And it isn't just a QUANTITY of reading we're
talking about. It's also the QUALITY. As I've
said before, please note that if you eat steak,
you excrete feces. If you were to BEGIN with
feces I don't even want to speculate what
the end product would be. Yucka.

The point is that your output will be one step
down from your input. You can't read comic
books and write classics. Sorry. Here's a
joke I always tell students:
"If you want to write comic books, read pulp
fiction. If you want to write pulp fiction,
read popular fiction. If you want to write
popular fiction, read bestsellers. If you
want to write bestsellers, read classics.
And if you want to write classics..? Choose
your grandparents very carefully."

Yeah, I know, I sneer at the concept of
talent. I believe only in "hard work and
honesty." True. But there's another side
to it, and that's that obviously an organism
is created by both nature and nurture.
We cannot change that immutable aspect
of Self given to us at birth. So we must
learn to mold our clay most effectively.

For writers, this means reading. Even if
you are screenwriting, your depth of
knowledge of human nature, plotting,
texture, the history of drama...all of these
things are fed by writing, even more than
watching film. Even though you are
manipulating visual and auditory input to
create emotion, you have a responsibility
to know what the craftsmen who came
before you accomplished. And this means
reading.

Me? Sigh. Too damned often, I don't have
the discipline to both put in a hard day's
writing, AND get my reading done. So I
start my day, every single workday, by
reading one Shakespearian scene aloud.
Even if I can't read the 10,000 words I
know are necessary to hit my peak, I'm
still feeding my subconscious some of
the highest-protein quality input on the
planet. Hopefully, I'll cope.

Q is for Question

Q is For Questions

There are times when you simply get stuck, when
the literary road you are traveling seems to have
come to a dead end. The answers simply will not
come.

And this is when it is important, in fact vital, to be
certain that you actually understand the questions.
In truth, I find that correctly formulating a question
will place you closer to the answer. In fact, a
properly formulated question will often jar your
mind from its stagnant track and get you moving again.

A recent example:

I'm working on a film treatment for a major action
star, based on elements created by other writers,
who had been developing the story for about two
years.

Where do I start? Well, I have to identify the most
important aspects of the project. What is my end
point? Well, how about a movie that is well-received
by both critics and public, and is deeply satisfying
to me as well.

What is the point previous to this? To create a
script that will excite a studio, stars, the technical
and financial people necessary to produce,
complete, and distribute a film.

What is the point previous to this? To create a
script that will excite the executives who evaluate
the projects that come through the door of a
studio, so that the higher-ups will take it
seriously, and set up face-to-face meetings in
which the possibilities can be discussed. And
the script will be purchased.

What is the point previous to this? To create
a treatment that all of the producers involved
in the project can agree upon.

Now, this is where the very human element
comes in. The people who originally created
the project are just people, with egos and
emotional needs. They invested themselves
in this work, and although there are aspects
of their vision that are...shall we say non-optimal?
There are other aspects that are quite
impressive, ingredients that could actually
make a tasty cinematic meal.

This situation (and at least one person reading
this knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
Hi, Sweetie!) is delicate, somewhat akin to
entering a kitchen after three other cooks
have half-finished a meal, and being asked
to make an exquisite dinner.

If feelings are hurt, people will kill deals just
for spite. Happens all the time. So I have a
"stew" of odd parts, that doesn't work as a f
ilm. But... what if I had to make it work?
What if someone offered to blow my daughter's
brains out if I didn't make it work? Or to put
a million dollars on the table if I did?

Then...another question. What if I look at the
treatment I was handed as a newspaper story
about actual events that happened. Some of
the facts may have been garbled. Some of
the witnesses interviewed may have been
wrong, or their words distorted or
misremembered. They may have lied.

But SOMETHING actually happened.
Something very similar to what was written
down. If I can dig deeply enough, think
broadly enough, I can reconstruct the actual
event.

And then find the way to tell it most creatively
and honestly and entertainingly...
##
Do you see how this process all began by
asking questions? And that if you follow
the right questions to their conclusion, you
can dismantle a creative log-jam? Try it.
Try writing five vital questions about the
project you are currently working on. Until
you get your own, try these:

1) What is my climactic scene?
2) What is the dominant emotion of this piece?
3) What is my lead characters great desire,
his grand obsession?
4) What is the hidden truth of the lie my
lead character uses to justify his existence?
5) Who is the audience for my story, and
how can I most deeply satisfy them?
##
There are more questions. Infinitely more.
Start with these, and keep going.

An old friend resurfaces...

Nicki’s been out in Las Vegas at an Anime convention this weekend. I’m still getting used to her having this much mobility and freedom. Ah well, it’s all to the good. She takes off for college in three weeks…
##
I want to attend classes at the BKF school down in Leimert Park. My most serious concern is one of balancing the exercise with my personal recovery work. Can’t let the workouts there interfere with my private work.

The reason for this is that my own private workouts are tuned to my physiology and psychological makeup, designed, to optimize my health and performance. The workout at a martial arts school is designed to maximize your performance in that particular style. Often, they are a collection of exercises that produce generalized fitness, or some particular set of attributes considered desirable by the teachers.

Often, these are exercises that are more appropriate for teenagers than those of us over forty. Long sets of pushups certainly produce upper body strength and muscular endurance, as well as a certain amount of overall dynamics. But they also court repetitive stress injuries in sufficiently high numbers, and need to be monitored for joint damage. They knock off a hundred pushups and situps in a class, so I have to be able to do that, but also have to integrate that preparedness into my overall plan.

So yesterday was a test. Full “Density Cycle” workout in the morning (12 sets of 9 Gama Casts, starting one set every two minutes) nd then a game of “Cards” starting at 8pm in the evening—the time a class starts at the Leimert Park school. I chose Hindu Pushups, Situps, 16-KG Kettlebell C&J, and the “Over and Under” 3-2 punch combination that is the core of BKF Kenpo. Assign each a suit, shuffle the cards and off I go. I completed the deck in 33 minutes and 57 seconds, and felt a little (but not a lot) wrung out by the end. The trick is to:
1) make my home workout tougher than the one in class
2) See what it takes to recover effectively.

I don’t feel sore today, but I’m betting that’s an illusion. If I don’t do my yoga, and maybe Spa as well, I’m gonna be a hurtin’ unit tomorrow…
##
I have a situation that I’d love some comments on. An old friend of mine, call him Wally, made a hideous mistake, in the form of initiating a sexual relationship with an underaged girl. Even worse, he was an assistant instructor at her school at the time. We were all shocked when it happened, and I was very disappointed by his apparent inability to understand what he had done wrong. After all, she was a VERY mature thirteen year old…

Jesus Christ. Anyway, he’s just finished almost six years in prison, and is out. As you can imagine, his life is pretty close to destroyed. He would love to be in touch with me, and I spoke to him on Saturday—he lives in another state. I’m really not sure who he is anymore, how prison might have/must have changed him. He could be broken, he could be dangerous. I just don’t know, and I have a sinking sense that there is nothing I can do for him. I’ve tried so hard over the years, and he just wouldn’t listen. I certainly didn’t see THIS particular problem coming, but there was a lack of adult responsibility, as well as some serious impulse control issues.

He has done some terrible things…but he is also someone I care about. If there is anything I can do to genuinely help him get his life together, I really want to. But I’m afraid there is nothing, that he is too far gone, and that I’d be pouring my energy down a sinkhole.

This is especially important to consider because of the opportunities opening to me right now. If I can keep my act together, this is the moment I’ve waited and worked for my entire life. Success at this point, at this time, in these ways means not only fulfillment of personal dreams but the ability to contribute to my family, my community, and the culture at large. But…I fear that I am tempted to throw away a human being who is holding on to the edge of the world by his fingernails. Terrified, ashamed, possibly close to just checking out.

What do you do? When do you let go of an old friend?