Would Industry run schools better than government?

It’s possible, but by my reckoning, at best, not by much. Here’s my reasoning:
I’ve spent my life zig-zagging between upper and lower income communities, and one thing I’ve definitely noticed is that there is a difference in the quality and quantity of goods and services available in the upper-scale communities. Of course. That’s why everyone wants money. No-brainer.

However…the differential between the quality of goods and services in, say, Compton and Beverly Hills is in many ways starker when it comes to COMMERCIAL concerns than PUBLIC services. Banks, grocery stores, book stores, movie theaters…no comparison in quality. Water and power, street maintenance, etc.—closer to comparable. Police? Well, I’ve seen cops take DAYS to show up in poorer neighborhoods. Restaurants? Fast food is about the same (and to be fair, I’ve had a joke for years where I observe that “the worse run MacDonald’s I’ve ever seen is more efficient than the best run post office I’ve ever seen.) Looking at that, I see no reason, no reason at all, in the slightest, to trust that private industry would serve poorer areas better than government. None. Here’s an example: public transportation, say, buses and taxis. Buses running along Santa Monica, right through Beverly Hills, are definitely neater and cleaner than buses running through Compton. But the Compton buses do run on a schedule, and they’ll get you there. But the difference between taxis is enormous. Not only rattier and ricketier, but it’s damned near impossible to get one. In areas of the country where Taxi service is more important: New York, Chicago, etc, it looks to me as if this difference is even broader.

It isn’t that government is wonderful, but there seems to be a movement to promote the idea that private industry can solve everything. Just coincidentally, if we privatized these things, there are a lot of people who would get frigging RICH. Suggesting that they don’t have a motivation to strongly promote industry as a cure for everything is naïve. I had a conversation with a neighbor on this subject yesterday. He’s an educator, a very bright man, and a very good man. On the subject of voucher, he offered that children would have the option of going outside their neighborhoods to find better schools.

O.K….but that has NOTHING to do with whether the schools are run by government or private industry, and EVERYTHING to do with how the schools are set up to accept students. That particular objection could be dealt with by proposing that public schools take students from whatever area they come.

Now, there may be those who would say that they believe private industry would be more flexible in this, and other regards. Probably true. But in my experience, that will only be true at the top end. I’ve shopped in chain stores in poor neighborhoods (when you can find them), and at the very least, there is as much variation in quality as you get in, say, post offices in poor and wealthy neighborhoods. But in poor neighborhoods, you get pawn shops, not banks. I offer to you the thought that this is EXACTLY the difference you’d get in education, once the bruhaha had died down.

I’m sure that the majority of the people in favor of vouchers are just trying to make the system fairer for everyone, and have the best of intentions. I just ask them to look at the commercial concerns available to the people in the affected areas, and see if their apparently a priori assumptions about the wonderful effectiveness of the free market really holds up.
##
“Good Luck Chuck” (2007)

Well, dentist Dane Cook had a curse placed on him: any woman he sleeps with will find true love with the NEXT guy she meets. This gets him a lot of nookie, of course, but once he meets a drop-dead gorgeous Jessica Alba, he gets nervous. He doesn’t want HER to fall for the next guy. And therein hangs a slight, very raunchy piece of fluff, with probably more explicit sex than I’ve seen in a movie in many years. It all comes out about as you’d expect. There is some fairly cruel humor directed at the obese—be careful of this. But I also laughed. There are too few movies where stuffed penguins are give the erotic attention they deserve.
##
SAMBO ALERT

Yes, the dentist has an enormously fat black receptionist. Yes, she pounces on him, looking for “luck.” She is the only black person in a movie populated 99% with toned, perfectly athletic and sensual white people. And boy, is she a Mammy. Yes, he has a chubby best friend. Yes, there is a white woman who is…well, frighteningly obese and acne-scarred. But both of these are balanced by countless images of attractive, sexy white folks. I wish they’d warned me in the coming attractions.

And for those of you who (in my humble opinion) have your heads in the sand and will knee-jerk reflex “that’s racist Hollywood!” I can only shake my head. Yeah. And the fact that there’s never been a black President is due to “that racist Washington.” And the fact that there are so few black SF writers or characters is “that racist New York.” So few blacks in Country Western? That racist Nashville! Wow! Isn’t this fun? Encapsulating the worst human tendencies so that it’s just those OTHERS who have it? And if there are few female, say auto executives, its that sexist Detroit! How many more examples of denial can you think of?

Apparently, it is very comforting to believe such nonsense. It’s us. It’s the folks in the mirror. There’s no one else out there.

And by the way: do “Good Luck Chuck” and the question of school vouchers connect? Sure they do. The very same people who make decisions about movies like “Chuck”—whether in the executive offices or buying tickets, all of whom are in complete denial about the fact that it is their own unprocessed emotional crapola that creates racist imagery, are in positions to make decisions about whose children get what resources. So the only question I have is: which model, private industry or government service, has the greatest degree of upward mobility? I honestly don’t know the answer, but I’m willing to grant that the degree to which a person can be born at the bottom and work their way to the top might be roughly similar.

But under no circumstances do I believe that Old Money is more flexible than Old Political power. Although I sure do see the forces of capital working hard to convince people they are.

Anyone have any statistics? Because otherwise its welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss. A shell game of saying “we’ll take better care of you!” while we siphon off billions.

I don’t buy it. I’ve lived with at the effect of differential power all my life. Everybody gathers power to their own. Anyone who says that they’re making a change for MY benefit, or the benefit of others not of their group…and that change just happens to put vast resources in the pockets of members of THEIR group (and make no mistake: everyone in a position to write such legislation knows lotsa lotsa rich people)…I reserve the right to remember “Good Luck Chuck.”

Oh. By the way. I give it a “C-“

Would you want to know..?

That university professor who has six months to live and conducted a marvelous lecture on the meaning of life has created a minor storm: eight hundred thousand hits on YouTube in a week. I heard a radio commentator say that he thought it would be a nightmare to know the time of his death. His co-host thought that it would be a freeing and focusing experience, a gift. In my personal experience, once people know they are dying, it is wonderfully clarifying, and every one of them has grown to some degree, many times grown to a remarkable degree. I would like to ask you a question: Do you think it would be a positive or negative thing to know the time of your death?
##
I'm almost finished with my A-Z through writing. If you have questions about anything connected to writing you'd like me to address here and in my mailing list, please let me know...
##
A few weeks back I spoke of my friend Al Harvey, superb martial artist and terrific guy, one of Grandmaster Steve Mohammad's original students. I mistakenly identified him as an L.A. City Councilman. Honest to a fault, Al wrote me and politely hinted that I should correct the record. Al says:

"My position with the City of Los Angeles is Commissioner, for Council District 10. The Councilman who I am a Commissioner for is, the Honorable Herb J. Wesson, Jr.'

Sorry, Al!

Y is for "You"

Y is for “You”

This is, of course, the core of everything we talk about in Lifewriting. All roads lead here. The question is “Who are you?” you, after all, are the one who dreams, and types, and pitches, and hopefully cashes the checks. What does it all mean?

If you’re writing something scary—are you writing to frighten yourself? If sexy, are you turned on? I can’t help but think that the sleazy fun of something like “Basic Instinct” arose from the fact that Esterhauz was turning himself on. It was a trainwreck of a film in many ways, but potent, and incredibly successful. Movies like “The Exorcist” are best created by people who grew up within the Catholic framework, in which demonic possession is an affirmation of God’s existence. An atheist would surely have winked at the camera at some point.

But the question of quality of writing is actually secondary to the question of the quality of your life. If you’re going to spend hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of hours writing and planning to write, shouldn’t there be some connection between your work and your inner self? Shouldn’t you have a point of view in all you do?

I believe that the best writing comes from someone who is trying to say something, to give something. A person who yearns to express some essential spark of their core, their soul. To become excellent at anything (and I assume you want to be excellent!) you have to be somewhat obsessed. In every case where I’ve ever been close to someone at the top of their game, they inevitably spent more time practicing it than anyone else. How can you do that unless the activity is something that is as important as breathing?

For me, the driving obsessions of my work have probably stemmed from a sense of lack. Here are three:
1) Manhood. What is it to be an adult male, as opposed to an adolescent, or a woman? Is there a difference, and if so, what? This obviously is rooted in a childhood sense of lack: of father, of role models, of physical size and aggression, of courage.
2) Race. What is the distinction between different racial groups—not necessarily biologically, but sociologically, and psychologically? What are the historical forces that shape us in these regards?
3) Psychology and spiritual evolution. What is the relationship between nature and nurture? How shall we best live our lives? This comes from a sense that the external culture was reflecting my spiritual essence in a distorted fashion. I could trust nothing outside myself, and had a desperate need to determine truth.

There are others. What are yours? What do they stem from? What in your life would you die for? For me, that would be the ability to communicate clearly what I feel about the vastness of human potential, and the way our fear, selfishness and jealousy inhibit our ability to express and receive love…and our ability to grow toward our destiny.

Each of us has to work this stuff out for ourselves. There is no nobler way to busy up our days as we wait for the undertaker to call our number.

X is for X-Rated

Well, actually it’s called NC-17 these days, but I think we all know what I’m talking about. Sex. And like violence, sex can be used to reveal character, move the plot, or simply to add spice.

Adding spice is probably the least (legitimate) usage of sex in writing. There are other, lower uses: to degrade characters, to shock the audience, to deliberately flirt with taboos, etc. There is a line that is difficult to define, and ultimately, this is where that ephemeral thing called “taste” slips in. For some people, the bounds of good taste are “what would my mother think of this.” Fine, but that often leads to excessive limitations, especially among those people who don’t have a healthy line of communication with their parents about sex.

I can probably do nothing more honest than to present my own views here. In novels, I consider that sex is the single time in our lives when every aspect of our personality is most clearly revealed. All human senses: taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing are simultaneously engaged. Intelligence, creativity, emotional health, morality maturity and judgment are all on the table. Sex is such a universal that the safest assumption to make is that EVERYONE is having it, and if they aren’t, there is something specifically wrong. Not always true, but the way to bet.

What will your character do to supply himself/herself with sex? What lines will he cross? What aspects of her personality will she repress to have that intimacy? You would be well served to seriously, deeply, consider what sex means to you and to others. Look at the way it has been controlled in religions around the world and through time. Look at sexual attitudes in different cultures and societies at different levels of technological development. Devise a theory that makes sense to you.

Then—as you take your character through his journey, you may find that sexuality rears its lovely head. What is the dance that the two characters choreograph on the way to bed? How do they negotiate their needs and wants? How much is subtextual, how much explicit? How much is controlled by social rules, how much by animal needs? Where and when does the spiritual realm enter into this?

Years ago (long before I was married!) I was unhappy with the way I wrote love scenes. It bothered me that I could write fight scenes better than love scenes—after all, I’d had a lot more sex than street fights. But that touched on the problem. In fighting, I’m used to analyzing distances, pace of engagement, environment, psychology of the opponent, techniques, etc. In sex, there was no such separation of mind from action.

What I felt I needed was a dispassionate engagement, where I could observe the dance without getting caught up in it. So what I did was choose a love scene from a good movie (specifically, THE BIG EASY) and find an actress to act it out with. For weeks, we practiced the scene, and then performed and videotaped it. Perfect. For the first time, I felt I could understand both the inner and outer aspects of a love scene.

Find your own way to understanding. But the primary rule is one of FEELING. You need to be clear on the emotion you want your audience to feel, and work to convey that as elegantly as possible. Study great love scenes with different emotional contents in different films and books.

And then, of course, there is home practice.

Yum.

Britney, Tyson, and Bruce Lee

Watching an apparently nice person completely implode is never fun. Always sad, but fascinating in a queasy way. Tananarive loves tabloids, and I admit that when they come in the house I brouse ‘em. And they had a lot to say about Ms. Spears and her coming melt-down.

Who didn’t look at her marriage to Kevin Federline and say “ouch!” I mean, the guy dumped the mother of his first two kids, so we knew he was scum. But now it looks as if he was considerably smarter than Britney. He saw an opportunity to raise the level of his game, and went for it. What was disaster for her was the chance of a lifetime for him.

Watching Tyson disintegrate was similar, in some ways. He was a violent boy who was adopted by a man (Cus D’Amato) who knew how to channel that violence into something fairly constructive: the practice and demonstration of the “manly art of self-defense.” Tyson was a genius. At his peak, his defense was so good it looked as if he didn’t have one. He brought lightning in both hands, and terrified his opponents like no one since Sonny Liston. Amazing. But D’Amato died just before Tyson gained the championship. He was 19 years old, just a boy. He didn’t have control of his emotions yet. If Cus had only lived a few more years…but he didn’t. And the sharks circled. And Tyson was offered the world, a world in which there were apparently no limits. I don’t know what happened in his hotel room the night he was accused of rape, but his public treatment of women suggests he is capable of the crime he was convicted of. Whatever that reality, he lost touch. Lost his way. Doesn’t know who or what he is any more.

Michael Jackson is, I think, the same. With more money than his own parents, he was a human being turned inside out, a machine designed to solicit approval from the crowd. He wanted so desperately to be the most loved performer in the world. Looks as if he tried to turn himself into Elvis, doesn’t it? Marrying the King’s daughter. Straightening his hair, thinning his nose, whitening his skin, adopting white children. So incredibly sad. I don’t know what happened in the bedroom between Jackson and those children, but I know that if he isn’t a pederast, he’s some even sadder, sicker creature, who destroyed his life not out of an unnatural appetite, but because he couldn’t seem to understand that his behaviors were so bizarre that he would be considered such. I mean, all he had to do was install a video camera in the bedroom to have a record that this was all just snores and giggles. Maybe hire a nanny to pop in on them with milk and cookies. A strange world…but he could have protected himself. He didn’t get it. Or, he’s a pederast. My money is on the latter, but I don’t know.

Britney has generated much good will. Seems to be a decent human being, but confused beyond belief. She had a one-note act: perfect face and body, and innocent sexuality. It is perfectly reasonable for people to criticize her body: hell, what else was she ever selling? If she was an opera singer, would it be unfair to criticize her voice? A ballet dancer, couldn’t we criticize her dancing? Britney never had much voice, or much ability to dance. But she could project a perfect image. And as that image began to erode, she didn’t have the chops to re-invent herself like a Madonna or even Christina Aguilara. And now she’s lost her children.

Britney, get help. Grow up. Take responsibility for your life. There’s still time. But not a lot of it.
##
Mike R. made a perfectly reasonable challenge to my position about the external world reflecting our internal state:

“To take some extreme examples: I doubt the world within European Jews in the 1940's was accurately reflected in their world without, or that the middle passage reflected the world within of African slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries.”

Mike: perfection. My answer: no map is the territory itself. Any philosophical position is not a “this is what is” but rather a “how does the world look if I look at it through this lens?” And like a map, it breaks down into dots if you look too closely. But have you looked too closely? I don’t know—let’s investigate and see where the edge of the map is.

I remember watching an episode of “Human Weapon,” the show where two fighters travel around the world, studying different martial arts for a week or so, and then jumping in the ring with a local champion. Fun stuff. One week, they went to Israel, to study Krav Maga. I watched a young officer demonstrating baton techniques with a rifle. He looked so much like Jewish kids I’d known in school—except for his attitude. Man oh man, his attitude was pure: NEVER AGAIN. The young Jews of Israel grew up with their parents and grandparents telling them of the ghettos, and the Holocaust. Clearly, they have educated themselves that it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to keep Jews safe. That, in other words, their forbears made a mistake to think that anyone else could be trusted to defend their lives and freedom.

And that is a mature, adult position. I remember Dawn Callan, the finest women’s self defense instructor I’ve ever known, say that her biggest problem in teaching rape victims is to get them to take responsibility for their rape. Not guilt, blame, or shame: responsibility. The ability to respond, get it? Without that, you are a victim, and victims attract predators. It is the natural order of the universe.

##
Go deeper. What is the nature of man? If one considers us to be part of the natural order, then violence has to be accepted as part of our spirit, because violence, the cruelty, death and terror of the constant dance of predator and prey, is part of our existence, and always has been. It is in our hearts, and because we long to be angels, we try to ignore it, push it away, pretend it is not true, externalize it onto the Other.

This denial can make us too optimistic. Foolishly blind. I look at the Jews who could see what was coming and flee Germany and think them not lucky but clear-headed. Of course, there were Jews without the resources to flee—as there were citizens of New Orleans who hadn’t the resources to flee. Blame them for their fates? No. But hold them responsible, yes. If they aren’t, no one is. And the children die.

The Jews of Israel respect their ancestors. But hold themselves responsible for the safety of their children. And that young man I saw with the rifle had fire in his eye. He was an animal in a uniform. An animal that walks upright and drives a car and speaks Hebrew and English. Scratch his surface, and you have war to the knife. THAT is something so easy for civilization to numb us to. If you don’t work in the slaughterhouse, it is so easy to forget the blood.

We must never forget. There is a war inside us, and external to us as well. Don’t prize the world of the mind and spirit so highly that you forget the drives of the body. Lethal mistake.
##
and as for my own African ancestors: there was little that they could have done, if the basic theories I accept about the formation of civilizations was correct. The difference between levels of technology and social organization meant pretty inevitable pain.

And human beings exploit each other. Always have. Slavery may well have mutated into something even more horrible than usual in the New World, but it was the same continuum: treating human beings as machines, as animals. Valuing their external aspects at the expense of their inwardness. We all do this to greater or lesser degrees. Africans did it to each other, Europeans did it to each other, and that’s the way of the world.

But even had they realized this, they didn’t have the communications or trade or social organization to create weapons systems that could have resisted the European advance. And from the position of adulthood, it wasn’t Europe’s responsibility to be “nice.” It was Africa’s responsibility to slaughter every European who landed on African soil. And they couldn’t do it.

Now, if you can’t resist physically, you can try negotiation, or non-resistance, of course. It takes time: maybe your great-grandchildren will succeed. Ghandi thought that it could have worked even against Nazis. That’s a lot of faith, right there. Certainly more than I’ve got.

So what else is there? Well, not everyone was caught and captured and dragged onto the ships in chains. What possible place might personal power, perception, clarity have had in this? On an absolute level, probably none. But on a practical level, those who run fastest and first, who have the best social connections, who understand human motivations, and who are best at achieving and holding rapport have always been most likely to survive wars, pestilence, captivity. Clarity of perception, practiced within, benefits without.

No matter what, it is likely that great numbers of Africans would have suffered the Middle Passage. But I’ll bet there was some individual wiggle room. If only two people from my village were going to escape, I would sure as hell try to be one of them.
##
Of course, in a broader philosophical sense, what does it all matter? There was nothing really happening. Life is what it is. This is all just a dream anyway. Of course, that’s why you have to be careful about broader philosophical senses.
##
Ever wondered just how good Bruce Lee actually was? There are very few direct comments from anyone other than worshipful sycophants. A few people like Joon Rhee (“the father of American Tae Kwon Do”) who said that Lee was so fast that he, Rhee, couldn’t even get set. Or Louis Delgado, a fine competitor in the 60’s, who said he couldn’t touch Lee. Of course, there’s also the very believable story that grappler Gene LeBell simply tied Bruce into a knot—but then again, LeBell did that to EVERYONE. He’s simply the baddest bear on the block.

But regarding Lee, I came across an interesting clue yesterday. 60’s Karate legend and kickboxing pioneer Joe Lewis wrote a book called ‘How to master Bruce Lee’s fighting system.” Now, Lewis was arguably the greatest Karate Fighter in American history, and one of three people to be considered Lee’s private student/competitors at that time. The other two were Chuck Norris and Mike Stone. You might remember Stone as the guy who took Pricilla Presley away from Elvis. Elvis is rumored to have tried to take a hit out on Stone, and no one would take it. Stone, you see, was an absolutely awe-inspiring fighter. Earned his black belt in six months. Was unbeaten in individual black belt competition. Was never even scored on to the face! Considered an absolute animal, with a level of athleticism, speed, and aggression that was simply phenomenal. I saw the guy on “the Guiness Game” trying to break the world record for the flying side kick, many years ago. He injured his leg on one of the metal clamps used to hold the target board. Was bleeding all over the stage. But every time he made an attempt at the jump, he moved as if he had no injury at all. It was frightening to watch. What the hell kind of human being is THAT?

At any rate, Stone was, and remains, pure ego. I mean, he had no respect for ANYONE as a fighter. Thought there was no one any good at the time he was competing, and that he hasn’t seen anyone he thought was good to this day on the tournament circuit. Just not impressed by other fighters, at all. What does he say about Lee? Two things jumped out at me.
1) “He was much too fast to have competed in tournaments.”
2) When people thought that Stone was Lee’s student, he generally corrected them, stating that they worked out together. He thought that Lee had nothing to teach him about techniques. He didn’t consider Lee his teacher, he considered himself an equal. Wow. For a man with this record, that level of ability, that great an impact on the men competing against him, that much pure ego to say “I considered myself an equal” even though he was at least four inches taller suggests that Bruce Lee was, indeed, an absolutely superlative fighter, I kid you not.

More on Adulthood

The Kingdom (2007)

The new Jamie Foxx/Jennifer Garner film directed by Peter Berg is most certainly not a political film with action. It is an action film with political context. Those looking for Syriana will be disappointed. But if you want a movie with one of the tensest final 20 minutes I’ve ever seen on film, you’ve come to the right place. It’s set in Saudi Arabia, and begins with a pocket history of the region, and the discovery of oil. The attempt to establish a holy kingdom is instantly corrupted by a level of wealth so fantastic that even saints would be tempted, and the Royal Family are hardly saints. A movement to overthrow the royals is thwarted by western allies, especially America. And fanatics like Bin Laden don’t like this—culminating in the 9/11 attacks. History in a thimble. Flash-forward to an American oil worker compound in Saudi Arabia, attacked by terrorists. An FBI response team weasels and blackmails its way past pencil-pushers to investigate, and from there on it’s pretty much a formulaic Hollywood movie, with Arabs either impenetrable enigmas, insanely wealthy and distant aristocrats, helpless onlookers or vicious revolutionaries in a shooting-gallery. Great fun, and because they have the obligatory “good” Arab for Foxx to buddy-team with, by my definitions they skirt overt cultural bigotry. But just barely. Exciting stuff, and insanely topical. I’d give it a B for the water-cooler conversations alone.

##

“Eastern Promises” (2007)

Very John Woo-ish film dealing with a driver for the Russian Mafia in London (Viggo Mortensen) who meets a midwife (Naomi Watts) who delivered a dying teenaged prostitute’s baby. The diary left behind by the dying mother is…explosive, and entwines their fates. Violent, darkly sexy, well-directed by David Cronenberg and featuring one truly memorable fight scene (yes, THAT one), the less said about “Promises” the better. I loved it. It was a good weekend. “A-“

##
More on Adulthood.

Got this note this morning from a student who moved his family from one coast to another, only to find that the guy in the mirror is experiencing the same problems…

“I think I get part of it now.

The struggle that I am going through with (my wife) and life in general here in (the new city) mirrors the struggle that I am having inside? So long as I am not balanced within myself, nothing else that happens in my universe will be balanced. I’m beginning to understand that we create the worlds we live in. If I am not happy on the inside, then the outside cannot be happy, by definition.

But then it also makes sense as to why we are so close to losing our house. Inside, I don’t want to be here, so I am shunning part of the responsibility for being a home owner. And instead of building my business and doing something I care about that will pay more, I am choosing to stay in a job that is guaranteed to keep us from having the money we need.

It also stands to reason that should we lose the house, I will then have a built in excuse that the job and its bad pay caused the problem, and it allows me to shift blame away from the real reason: me…

Wow, how insidious…”

Indeed. And this is one of the reasons why I consider adulthood to be the first step to enlightenment. And adulthood requires accepting responsibility for our own actions. Look around: most of the people you see around you, of whatever religion, political orientation, gender or race, are children. They are not fully responsible for their own emotions or actions, and are terrified of the gap between their essence and their self-image. They blame society, their parents, their spouses, or the “other” for their happiness or lack thereof.

Taking the position that the world outside us mirrors the world within us opens a different door. Positing that we are mirrors of our spouses, that we create the world we experience, that until we can trust ourselves to keep our own word, we have no right to complain when others lie and cheat…these steps are painful, but create bridges of understanding, interpersonal and intrapersonal connections. It allows the various levels of our personalities to communicate with each other, rather than our past fears and angers breeding in the dark like rabid rats, ready to chew up our dreams and spit out nightmares.

This stuff isn’t funny. And the demons will devour your life if you aren’t careful. Life is not a dress rehearsal.

Moneypenny is dead, and a Modest Proposal

Lois Maxwell, Moneypenny in 16 of the James Bond movies, has died at the age of 80. I agree with Roger Moore: it would have been great for her to have been promoted to “M.” Sigh…
##
As the drumbeat to war in Iran grows louder, I look at two basic possibilities:

1) there are good reasons that the average American would agree with for going to war.
2) There are not.

another two possibilities:
1) we can trust the Average American to understand what is in his or her best interests.
2) We can not.

I will put my opinion out front and center, publicly:

I would be willing to trust my fellow citizens, had they the information. I feel that the only honest thing to do is to lay out my own criteria for deciding that the situation is sufficiently dire enough to launch an attack.
1) The best predictor of the future is the past. Therefore, we must assume that it will cost a minimum of half a trillion dollars and kill a million Iranian citizens. If it isn’t worth this, it isn’t worth it.
2) The possibility that the intelligence is WRONG simply cannot be overlooked. Like Dubya said: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…can’t be fooled again.” One of the vicious debates post-Iraq is whether or not the White House cherry-picked the information that went on to Congress. Whether those offering contrary opinions were shouted down, or threatened. Whether the weapons inspectors were in fact correct in their assessments of Iraqi WMD. Was Richard Clark right that Dubya wanted war from the minute he came into the office? This debate has been pretty raw. I would assume that there are many Americans who wish that Clark had come out BEFORE the invasion and said these things. I am one of them. All right then…let’s have a public debate, a public presentation of the reasoning for and against, presented by loyal Americans TO loyal Americans. Let ANYONE who has anything to say about slanted data, shaky sources, shady deals, or ANYTHING else that they would write a book or hit the talk show circuit with in the coming years come out NOW. Let Bush make a public pronouncement: that the ultimate act of patriotism is to stand up and speak. Let him vow publicly to bring the full weight of punitive action against anyone who attempts in any way to retaliate against these patriots who seek nothing more than informed, intelligent public discourse.
2-A) The only reason I can think not to do the above is that you genuinely do not believe in the intelligence and courage of the American citizen. Fine. I invite you to say this straight out, and publicly: these decisions cannot be left to the voter, or the Average American isn’t smart/good enough to sort this out. There is nothing dishonorable about thinking this. It IS dishonorable to lie about the fact that this is what you think.

This is an impossibility, and I understand that. This is, therefore, not a completely serious suggestion. I have to say it, however. In a perfect world, the only ones allowed to present or evaluate information would be those willing to swear that they do NOT believe the average Muslim is in any way morally or intellectually inferior to the average Christian or Jew.

Ideally, the best people to make and evaluate such presentations wouldn’t be Christians, Muslims, or Jews at all. They could be atheists, Buddhists, or Hindus, perhaps. The reason ties into my entire theory of perceptual lenses.

Having Christians and Jews make decisions about what should be done with Muslims is like having Muslims decide what to do with Israel. The only disagreement I can see is on the basis that Muslims are intellectually or morally inferior—or deluded—in comparison to Christians and Jews.

And can’t you see how easy it is for Christians and Jews to come to such a conclusion? They are, after all, dealing with somewhat competing metaphysical views. The average Christian ABSOLUTELY thinks that Muslims are, well, theologically inferior (and vice versa). How can I be so certain? Because I challenge you to find a single “Christian” who believes that Muslim theology is superior. Good luck. That means that the best you can get is a belief in equality of purpose and truth between the two religions. That’s the BEST you can do. That means that one single Christian who believes Christianity is superior skews the entire group. Anyone want to speculate what percentage of Christians think Christ is a greater spiritual figure than Mohammad? Any other attitude is simply contrary to human nature.

Having members of group X comment about the rights, capacities or status of group Y almost ALWAYS gets answers supportive of group X’s interests. Southern Whites in the 60’s would say blacks were perfectly happy—and not quite capable of governing themselves. White South Africans about blacks. Men about women: “why, we’re not repressing them, we’re protecting them!” Women about men: “if mothers ran the world, there would be no wars!” Straights about gays: “they’re sick, and we’re just trying to help them.” Rich people about poor people: “we produce the wealth that benefits everyone. Let us hold onto more of our money, and a rising tide lifts all boats!” Poor people about rich people: “Workers of the world unite!” And on, and on and on.

If everyone making policy, evaluating information and implementing action is of group X, you can be pretty damned certain that, no matter what they say, no matter their intent, no matter their morality, intelligence, or education, they will view the world through perceptual filters that exclude data contrary to their own self-interests, and automatically end every engagement with more territory, wealth, power, or influence than they started the game with. It is automatic, it is natural, it is about as human as breathing.

But that’s wishful thinking. There will never be a situation where we accept the judgment of those who aren’t “us,” no matter how clearly it can be demonstrated that the perceptual dice are loaded. That too is human nature.

So virtually NO ONE is gonna take the position that Muslims are on the average superior, or that Islam is superior, or that the Middle East is superior to the West, a big chunk of Americans will extend the belief in equality. And then another big chunk (anyone want to speculate on the percentages?) believe us to be superior. Which means that the average American believes us superior. Anyone want to speculate how this percentage rises among the power elite? The military? Conservative Christians? You’ve got to be kidding.

That means that you can expect the same result as if you only canvassed Muslims about America or Christianity. Wouldn’t you love to find someone stupid enough to bet with you on the odds of a bunch of conservative Muslims finding America superior to Saudi Arabia?

But I get that even though it is inevitable that if group X has the power to control group Y they will end up controlling Y’s territory, resources, and reproductive rights, there’s nothing much to be done about it. Further, the radicals within group X knows that some percentage of their population DOES consider Y to be “equal” (and boy, do they snicker about that!) and therefore will offer humanitarian and security reasons for doing what everyone wants to do: control or eliminate Y.

This is so incredibly dangerous, and it pops up whenever there is a clearly defined X and Y. And boy oh boy, do we have such a clear definition now.

So…if we can’t step outside the human perceptual system, could we at least have a public debate, with loyal members of our own government appointed to present the case for and against? Let anyone who has information come forward now instead of later?

And how about looking at everyone who was RIGHT about Iraq, and give them a special forum to present their opinions about Iran? We might not automatically agree with them, or consider their opinions golden, but wouldn’t it be the worst kind of folly to ASSUME they are wrong? And if they turned out to be right—again—for God’s sake, wouldn’t you feel foolish and used?

So…if we aren’t interested in the opinions of the rest of the world, could we at least have a conversation among Americans, and have the civil servants we hire to evaluate and gather data charged with making the case for and against publicly? Please?

Coloring outside the lines

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/09.27/99-longdiet.html


A study suspect that they may have discovered how low-calorie diets extend life. Their theory is that it revs up the mitochondria, the power plants in the cells. Of course, they’re trying to isolate a drug that would enable them to imitate this effect without diet or exercise. Which is both good, inevitable, and bad. The whole pattern of people seeking “short cuts” to meditation, diet, exercise, whatever, is one of the things I love about the West, but also feeds the whole “brain in a box” syndrome that I’ve seen kill so many hearts. They say it might take five to fifty years. Meantime, if you want the effect, why not try I.F.?
##
Is Hollywood more racist than the rest of America? I have an opinion based on actually working and living there, and the opinion is “no.” I understand why, once one sees the negative images encoded in the films, it would be comforting to think so. But as I’ve said, very few people “grow up” in Hollywood. The scripts and executives come from all over the country. If the movies don’t appeal to the average American, the exec loses his job, and someone else comes in.

I complain about racial images in SF and publishing. So…what is it now? That Los Angeles and New York are more bigoted than the rest of America? Or creative people are somehow more bigoted? My experience has been precisely the opposite. That the reason New York and Los Angeles were destinations for black immigrants is because of increased opportunity and decreased bigotry. Were they stupid or wrong for thinking this to be true? The arts communities…ANY arts community…tends to be more integrated than the surrounding “straight” community, whether you’re talking dance, drama, poetry, painting, whatever. I just don’t believe it. If you don’t like what you see in Hollywood, my answer is that you won’t like what you see in the actual social mirror of America. Or in the actual reality of the way human beings, white, black, yellow, whatever, all over the world, do to each other in the name of tribe.

Artists color “outside the lines.” They would naturally be the first to embrace the possibility of integration. But…here’s an odd thought. If racial equality were ever actually reached, that “outside the lines” tendency might very well backfire, and one would find a GREATER amount of racism in Hollywood than America as a whole. Wow. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone mention THAT possibility before.

For those who disagree: can you suggest a mechanism by which Hollywood executives might be expected to be more bigoted than whites of their income and power level in other cities? I’d love to hear the speculation.
##
Interesting how, as Jason nears control of his body functions (four out of five days he has no accidents) we see “wobbling” in some of his other behaviors. It’s as if he has a finite number of Appropriate Behavior points, and as he concentrates on one area, he lets something else slip elsewhere. But he’s definitely growing as fast as he can. We got him a bed without crib-rails, and he loves it, but the increased freedom leads to creeping in the dead of night. We have to watch him like a hawk, which is amusing in one sense, but means I have to punish him more often in another. I don’t like that. I hate conflict with the people I love…
##
Nicki is ending up her first week away at college. Last night, some knucklehead in her dorm hung a heavy bag from the sprinkler system, and it flooded the dorm. Big fun having a slumber party in the Community Center. Life in the big city!
##
What do I think about the relative importance of Conservative and Liberal position? I think that Conservatism can be the skeletal structure of a culture, its strength and solidarity. Liberality is it's muscular system, moving it into new positions, or its skin, feeling the weather and reacting to the environment. Without bones, you have movement without power. Without muscle, you have strength without motion or sensitivity. We cannot throw away the wisdom of ages, and stable value hierarchies. And we have to remember that we are driven by selfishness and fear--and must constantly seek flexible response and spiritual connection. I see one as the root, the other the branch. Neither is superior, either dies without the other. Male and Female energies, perhaps, Yang and Yin, often in deep conflict, but both are required to create the Tao.

More damaging physical practices

Just a couple more things that occur to me:

1) Sanchin pressure breathing. Great for developing power, but the practitioners seem to be taking an average of 5 years off their lives.

2) Power stretching/kicking. Not sure why, but the number of hip replacements among American Practitioners of Korean styles seems excessive.

3) Excessive Chinese-style stretching. Flexibility without balancing strength leads to an imbalance and destabilization of the hips. Again, not the fault of the system, but a problem seen in individual schools.


4) Excessive jogging: hip and knee and back problems.

5) Excessive yoga. This is more subjective: I've seen a kind of passivity, an excessive "Yin" quality among many man who do tons of yoga.

The point is that anything, done to excess, can be problematic.

Bill O'Reilly

So…Bill O’Reilly “Couldn’t get over the fact” that there was no difference between patrons at an upscale black restaurant in Harlem, and white restaurants in other parts of the town. And then was surprised when people considered his comment racist.

This is sad, and a perfect example of those Right-wing perceptual lenses I speak of often. I repeat again—I think that both sides of the political spectrum see the world through tinted filters, and neither side has an exclusive on accuracy—they just make mistakes in opposite directions, and tend toward different dysfunctions.


In O’Reilly’s case, the preassumption is that there WOULD be a difference between patrons, and it would seem reasonable that he assumed that difference to be on the basis of race. As people often do when they don’t want to take personal responsibility for an attitude, he then went on to say that “this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris and Snoop Dogg." I believe that in his way, he was actually trying to say a good thing, a positive thing, to facilitate a healing.

I’ve had countless conversations with white Americans, mostly of Conservative bent, who have said similar things. One that stands out is a man who proudly considers himself to be “to the Right of Ghengis Khan” politically, a southerner of considerable education and stature. He was a university professor at one point in his life, and, in speaking to me about race relations—and he’s made it clear that he believes the basic tenants of the Bell Curve—tried to communicate the moment in his life when he began to see that black people were capable of more than his father had taught him. It seems that the smartest student this gentleman ever had was black. “And Steve,” he told me, “once you see a talking dog, you can never look at any dog the same way again.”

And I am quite certain that he meant this as a complement, that he considered this an epiphany and was sharing this with me as an attempt at honest and heart-felt communication. And was terribly confused at my attempts to explain why this was offensive.

I’m afraid that this is one of those cases where you either get it or you don’t. Do I think O’Reilly is a racist? I think that he has attitudes typical of 20th Century white Conservative Americans--that essence preceeds existence, that nature trumps nurture, and that blacks, on the average, were just a teensy bit cheated by God. Well, maybe they were given extra sports and musical ability to make up for the lack of civilization, intelligence, and civility. Maybe. But this attitude rarely comes to the surface, because of a constant century-long hammering of Political Correctness: “Racism is Wrong.”

So everyone agrees racism is wrong, even though it is still a part of the human psyche. So everyone pushes the subjective line of “bigot” just a little farther along than where they happen to be. Why, they’re not a bigot! They just notice reality. They’re just willing to say what others are too intimidated to admit.

So speaking as if it is astounding that black people would behave in a civilized fashion is merely saying that, on average, he thinks (or has in the past thought) that they don’t. And that he belongs to a community of like-minded Fox News Americans who he assumed would agree with his position, and perhaps even be enlightened by his radical news. O’Reilly more honest and sincere than I previously assumed. That kind of gaffe is only made by someone actually confused about where they are on the map. I’m sure he is angered and dismayed by the uproar.

It’s simple: if you told someone “wow! I’m surprised your son doesn’t throw like a sissy!” or “that Jew actually gave me correct change!” or “that white man can actually dance!” or “that woman was actually courageous” you are revealing your preassumptions. One can defend those assumptions, but to deny you have them is merely saying that your values are held so closely to your chest that you cannot see them.

This is the danger of political zealots, on whichever side of the spectrum they sit. They simply cannot see their own filters. Or to put it another way, they cannot hear the talking dog.

iPhone warning, and a question

An honest question: we’ve discussed regime change through military action. In Iraq, it seems people are surprised that there were high civilian casualties. Fair enough. Does anyone out there know of a regime change caused by a war that didn’t have high civilian casualties? My sense of history may be off.
##
Watched “The Unit” last night. Third season opener. It is a threshold show for a number of reasons.
1) Dennis Haysbert is the lead (name appears first in the title)
2) He is dynamic and highly masculine.
3) As of last night, he also has slimmed down. In the first two seasons he was noticeably chunky for a television warrior. Note that every other military guy was lean and ripped. As were their wives. Note that Haysbert’s television wife is Mammy-sized. She’s slimmed down as well. Nice. Still, if you look at the opening credits, his white subordinates kiss their wives passionately, while Haysbert and wife hug each other in a spiritual, non-sexual way. Sigh.

This is important, because my definition of a successful show involves staying on the air more than two seasons. It’s made it, even if it gets canceled next week. I believe Chi McBride starred in an ensemble show—in which he was the only overweight character. Of course, Anthony Anderson stars in “K-Ville” or something, playing a tough New Orleans cop. His partner is half his size.

Man oh man. And don’t you folks dare say “it’s Hollywood.” Hah. If Hollywood is that bigoted, the rest of the country would be Nazis. Everyone knows Hollywood tilts to the Left. Hollywood executives don’t grow here—they come here from all over the country, and if their tastes don’t match the taste of the average viewing American, their careers die.

So the Unit suggests that America is becoming more accepting of a black man presented as…a man. Not safe behind fat padding. Not merely a sexless second banana. Not a spiritual guide. A guy. THAT I find very promising.
##
Someone misinterpreted my attitude toward Halle Berry’s interracial sexual liaisons. I get pissed at her, but know that that’s my junk. She’s just doing the best she can. And for those who point out that she’s biracial, I say that you’re being blinded by the discomfort of acknowledging your cultural advantage. Are there any biracial MALE stars who are as sexual as Berry? No. And damned sure not with white women. Vin Diesel might come closest, and he’s so light he can play an Italian. What I am angry about (other than the overall situation) is that black women don’t criticize Berry (or other black women) for sex with white men the way they criticized Denzel or Wesley on the occasions they had screen sex with white women. Back in the 70’s, in college, I had black men telling me that having sex with white women was some kind of revolutionary act (!!) but that black women shouldn’t cross the color line. I told them they were full of shit. That people should be free to find love (or lust) where they will. I know black women who will seriously contend that it is somehow BETTER for black women to date white men than black men to date or marry white women. Better for the race, they claim.

They can’t really argue with me, because I have the contrary rather than the opposite position. And if you put them across the table from a group of black men claiming the opposite right for their gender, it would simply devolve into a screaming match.


To me, it’s simple hypocrisy: everyone wants the greatest freedom and latitude for their group. I’m quite sure these women have their reasons. As black men would have theirs.

Separate and equal lies.
##
iPhone warning: if you don’t have a 2.0 USB port on your computer, the iPhone gets wonky while synching. And there seems to be nothing I can do about it for my old iMac. Sigh. Well, I’ve ordered a MacBook, so it will sync better there. Wish I’d known that, though.
##
I have been playing around with David Swenson’s ashtanga yoga “short forms” DVD over the last months, whenever I can’t make it to Bikram. I REALLY like Ashtanga (vinyasa yoga) and plan to increase the amount of it I’m doing. I need to be doing yoga three times a week. On yoga days, ALL I do is yoga. I try not to think about martial arts. Do too much M.A. and your subconscious will try to turn you into a weapon. And that’s not necessarily healthy for you, Bubba. But I find the balance between yoga and M.A./weights to be very, very nice.

Aww Man...

Found out that my corneas are too thin for Lasik surgery. Damn. Too bad.
##
Have a cough today, picked it up from my little Petri dish Jason. Boy oh boy, was he happy to see Tananarive when he walked through the door today. Her trip to St. Louis was a total success, and the Joplin folks apparently loved her Ragtime renditions. Very cool.
##
So Iran has no gay people? According to it’s president, that’s the case. Well, that says something about the value of having him speak for himself, in a public forum. You can catch him in a bare-faced lie, or detect evidence of serious delusion. I now feel perfectly comfortable assuming he’s lying and/ or deluded about anything else he says, as well.

Sigh. So what’s needed is neutral observers evaluating the Iranian potential for future mischief. Unfortunately, I smell too much similarity between the White House’s comments about Iran and what was said about Iraq. Unless neutral observers suggested that Iran was an emergency situation that HAD to be dealt with within the next 12 months, I would have no interest in trusting Bush and his people—they floundered our way into the most ghastly mistake I’ve ever seen, and I have no reason to believe that they have really learned from their mistakes.

If they’re mistakes. With every additional former member of the administration who criticizes Bush, I have a deeper and deeper, sicker feeling that as soon as Bush is out of the White House, no longer able to manipulate and threaten, there will be facts arising about the entire Iraq war that will make Watergate look like nothing at all.


My Conservative Republican readers: you are faithful, and loyal, and I think you’d be great friends and neighbors. But I honestly believe that your tendency to stand by your principles, and support your elected leaders—especially in war time—has been sorely abused. We’ll get over this, and back on track. I don’t expect any agreement on this, and I’m not offering pity.

But as more and more of you have to admit that Iraq is a misadventure of the most horrible magnitude, I’m sure you have to ask yourself if you wouldn’t have come to that conclusion sooner had the “political football” aspect of the entire situation not been so alive—much as Feminists glossed over Bill Clinton’s infidelities because they liked other aspects of his political philosophy.

I think we’ll be years healing from this.

W is for Writer

W is for Writers

I wanted to use this letter to remind everyone what the core principle of all of this is—and the basic reason that I spend my time going over and over and over these ideas. Some of them are advanced, but most of them are pretty basic, and relate to that concept that I call “Lifewriting For Writers.”

The Lifewriting concept suggests that fiction contains, encoded in its most basic structure, the secret to the pattern of life itself: acceptance of responsibility, handling fear, constant effort, gathering allies and abilities, dealing with failure, faith in the unseen, and passing wisdom on to the younger generation.

Applying this to the specific craft of writing asks you to examine the ways that this pattern has operated in your own life, and integrate this wisdom, or pain, into your writing efforts. It asks you to tell the truth about your failures, fears, hopes, dreams, loves, passions, and hatreds.

The idea is that as the work can be seen as a conversation between you and the external culture, the process of working is a conversation between the different aspects of your own personality. That integrating the different “people” inside you allows you to release old pains, dissolve the ego shells intended to protect your essence, and evolve to the next level of your life. Meditation does this, as does journaling, ceremony, and the process of living itself. Writing approached this way is an act of courage and commitment on the part of the writer, and the power of our own inner drive to complete ourselves and move on can create an inner momentum to the work difficult to create through any conscious technique.

Don’t try to be clever. Seek to be honest. How do we approach honesty? My answer is to examine the accuracy of our reality maps, the lenses through which we view the world. They are clouded by self-pity, greed, fear, and ignorant acceptance of Politically Correct ideas—whether those ideas originate on the Left or the Right. How do we do this? Every philosophy has its own approach, but the one most central to Lifewriting says to commit to balance and excellence in all three aspects: Body, Career, Relationship. Why not body, mind, and spirit? Because the definition of “spiritual” varies so much as to be almost useless. Because we’ve all known supposedly “spiritual” people who were simply dreadful.

On the other hand, I’ve never met anyone who was physically fit, honestly employed, and committed to a loving relationship with his/her family who did not seem to be actually engaged with life, open to hearing truth, who did not seem to be progressing from year to year—becoming MORE of what she really is, rather than wandering further and further from reality.

You don’t have to ACHIEVE excellence in these three arenas, any more than you have to reach the North Pole to head north. You do have to commit, to admit that you want security, health, passion, love, contribution. My sense is that anyone who says they don’t is simply lying. I could be wrong about this…but more often than not, when someone claims not to care, it turned out later that they were lying through their teeth.

Look into your own life. Find your own lies. Seek to find truth. Trust me…as you head in that direction, you will stir up massive silt. Meditation, journaling, and writing can help you work through it.

That’s what Lifewriting is about: using your life as a source of writing. Using your writing to empower your life.

Nicki and King Tut

Took Nicki to UC Irvine yesterday, with mixed feelings.
Her mom Toni was
at the Monterey Jazz Festival (at our insistence), and
Tananarive was in
St. Louis speaking/performing at the Scott Joplin house.
She actually
played Ragtime at the Scott Joplin house!  How’s THAT
for heuvos?  So
it was me and Nicki, her boyfriend Mike, and Jason.  I
was in an off
mood—some combination of stress and sadness, I guess.
I’m sure she’ll
be fine, but I’m gonna miss my little girl.
##
Meditations a little muddy, but that’s not surprising.
I’m working on
a whole different level of crap right now. In every way:
 career, family,
fitness—I’m starting to bore into new goals.  The whole
 BKF thing is
interesting.  Man, that school caused me very real
emotional pain back
in the day.  I just couldn’t handle it.  Right now,
I feel just fine.
But I’m sure that the old emotions are lurking around,
 even if they’re
residual memories.  Have to be careful, not get too
cocky.
##
Here’s an essay that appeared in the Philadelphia
Inquirer yesterday.
There has been a controversy there about the racial
 identity of…(no,
not Barack Obama) but King Tut.  (By the way--yesterday
I heard Guliani
opine that Obama will be Hillary's running mate.  Not
 necessarily a
good idea--a little too much strangeness for
rigid voters...)
I was asked to weigh in…
##########

The King Tut exhibit at the Franklin Institute will
 close its
doors Sept. 30. Throughout its four-city American
tour, the show has
attracted protesters who claimed it was downplaying
the fact that Egypt
was in Africa, downplaying Tut's African racial
roots. Protests in
Philadelphia spurred the museum to host a conference
in July on the
subject. The King Tut Action Committee of Philadelphia
declared that the
Franklin Institute had "knowingly misrepresented the
 young African king
and African history, culture, and heritage to over a
million visitors."

  The only opinion I will offer concerning Tut's
ethnicity is
that, to judge from their official art, the Egyptians
 seemed to consider
themselves a golden mixture, separate from either
Europeans or
sub-Saharan Africans. (That hasn't stopped Europeans
from portraying the
Egyptians _ and, indeed, Moses, Christ, and many
other non-Europeans _
as positively Western-looking. See below.)

  If you disagree that Tut was black, fine. But
don't make the
mistake of thinking that black intellectuals who
claim he  as are doing
anything other than what other groups have done since
the beginning of
time. The hunger of blacks to see themselves in history
 is a core human
need, shared by all.

  There is a cartoon by political satirist Jules
Feiffer in which
two intellectuals, one white, one black, sit across
 the table from each
other. The black man says: "You have your history.
White history.
Written by white men, to promote white power. We want
 our history. Black
history. Written by black men, to promote black power.
 Our demand is
separate but equal lies."

  I've never forgotten that cartoon. It contains a
basic truth:
Everyone wants to think the world revolves around
them. Many indigenous
peoples have a name for themselves that means, simply,
 "the people," and
the mythology of many groups in the world suggests
 that God created them
first, loves them best, and created everyone else
later  ...  and less.

  This basic perceptual lens, powered by the
emotional need to
feel primary in the universal order, colors a gigantic
 proportion of our
political, moral, and even artistic debate.
  Perhaps the only racial/ethnic group in the world
denied such a
foundation of mythic history are black Americans.
 Torn from their
linguistic and cultural roots, sociologically
brainwashed through 300
years of slavery and another century of Jim Crow
and de facto
segregation, we are like PCs programmed to believe
 Macs are the ultimate
computers.

  In 12 years of public school, I don't believe
I got the
equivalent of a single day's education on the
contributions to America
or the world from people of African descent. Every
day, almost every
hour, it was all about the greatness and primacy
 of white culture,
genetics, philosophy and science. I doubt most
 white people can begin to
conceive of how damaging this is _ and how hungry
 the human mind and
heart are to believe "we" (whoever "we" are) are
 capable of, and have
produced, greatness.

  Europeans, faced with the fact that all sorts
of races (not just
their own) have produced greatness, had a nifty
solution _ simply
portray them all as "us." Europeans have produced
countless books and
films depicting Egyptians with European characteristics.
 And for the
most part, archaeologists who might have known
different didn't seem to
make much of a fuss.

  The image of the historical Jesus Christ is lost
 in time, but
rather than depict him as he probably was _ a
dark-skinned, curly-haired
Galilean Semite _ American and European paintings
 and film portrayals
are rife with blue-eyed blond-haired Messiahs.
  Hey, it happens everywhere. Siddhartha Gautama,
 the Buddha, is
depicted as Indian in India, and Chinese in China.

 EVERYONE wants to
co-opt the powerful image, to say, in essence:
"We were here. We are
here. We make a difference."
  Of course, asking, "Was Tut black?" raises
 the uneasy issue of
what "black" is, of how much racial heritage
constitutes "blackness."
The Egyptians built their four millenniums of
culture in northern Africa
and down the Nile, so the idea that they were
a blend of genetics from
(what we now call) Europe, the Near East, and
sub-Saharan Africa is
hardly absurd.

  And in America, thanks to the defining prejudice
 of 18th-century
whites, "one drop" makes you black. Anyone out there
 think Tut didn't
have "one drop"? I thought not. Is this an absurd
definition from a
genetic point of view? Probably. From an
anthropological point of view?
Probably. From a sociological point of view?
Certainly. Absurd or not,
it once was the law of this land, and it affected
 countless lives, tore
families apart, determined lifestyles and careers
and education
potentials. It said who could marry whom, and who
 could live where.

  This is the reality blacks lived with for 400
 years. To tell
them now that claiming Tut as "black" on the
basis of a partial African
heritage may well be on technically "incorrect"
is all well and good--but don't you
dare think that white, or Latino, or Asian, or any
 other culture in the
world acts or reacts primarily according to what
is logical, scientific,
or "correct." Human beings aren't wired up that
 way.

  Take whatever intellectual position you wish
in the discussion
of Tut and his racial composition ... but then
watch the debate with
compassion. We're all in this together. We all
have been the victims,
and beneficiaries, of separate and unequal lies.



  

Dinosaur nations and the "jena Six"

“Many linguists predict that at least half of the world's 6,000 or so languages will be dead or dying by the year 2050. Languages are becoming extinct at twice the rate of endangered mammals and four times the rate of endangered birds. If this trend continues, the world of the future could be dominated by a dozen or fewer languages.”

Another sign that mankind’s ego walls are slowly dissolving. Cultures separate people, and anthropologically, you need isolation to create a truly separate culture, isolation that no longer exists. Again, I believe nations existed to serve a genuine purpose: the difficulty of communication that exceeds the speed of horseback. Once “instant” communication became possible (the telegraph) then all that’s left is thousands of years of propaganda that human beings are extremely different and alien, all caused by the ego-need to rank your own religion, political orientation, language and culture at the top. Others MIGHT be given equality, at the very best. But in our heart of hearts, I think we’re programmed to believe that if it isn’t us, its less than us. Otherwise…wouldn’t we move there? Adapt that religion or way of being? We’re programmed to move away from pain, toward pleasure.
#
That brings us back to Maslow (or the Chakras, of course). If survival is so primary, why do martyrs sacrifice themselves for spiritual causes? The answer that makes sense to me is that each level serves a purpose. The hunger on that level satisfied, you move on to the next. People risk their lives for sexual satisfaction. They Ignore their sexual partners to dive into their careers. They give up comfort and sexual promiscuity for love. They Risk their careers to speak out with honesty against corruption and lies. And the spiritual realm is about preparing yourself for death—grasping that everything in this world will be left behind. Some religions promise that you can take your ego with you. Some insist that you cannot, that the realm of spirit has no room for the “wealth” of this world—including individual identity. You take your pick, and take your chances.

But no matter how I look at it, I see how every human action in this world either glides along this path or is a specific contradiction to it. If a specific contradiction, one tends to see the culture disapproving of such actions, or find reproductive punishments built-in. The expression “awakening the Kundalini backwards” might be defined as obeying higher levels without anchoring yourself in the lower. For instance:
1) Abandoning your family to chase a spiritual dream
2) Developing advanced political theories without grounding yourself in actual day-to-day reality (isn’t this how Communism got its start? If I’m not mistaken, one of its core proponents let his own children die of malnutrition because he was too busy theorizing? Maslow-wise, this guy missed the bus completely, disconnecting from his own instincts to follow his intellect)
3) Allowing sexual needs to destroy emotional ties.
4) Refusing to mature sufficiently to build a career, then complaining that women aren’t attracted to your “inner being.” A bird who builds no nest shouldn’t wonder at the lack of eggs.

I could go on and on. Sting singing, so long ago, that “the Russians love their children too” encouraged us to see the commonality of man. I am obsessive about this, partially because without this point of view, I would have been like the bigots who directly or indirectly controlled the culture I grew up in—and I refused to be like them.

I just can’t grow up on war movies in which throwing yourself on a live grenade to save your buddies…or a suicidal charge on a machine gun nest is seen as great courage, but Kamakazi pilots or suicide bombers are seen as “cowards.” What? Or hear politicians soberly assessing “collateral damage” as an unfortunate side-product of war, and see them as utterly, completely different from those who actually target civilians to terrorize a population and break its will. To me, the same grim and ghastly continuum.

No, I genuinely see the commonality, and believe that the differences are caused by a thousand thousand different views of the same mountain. And as we climb the mountain together, the view of the lowlands is increasingly similar, and those who climb, from whatever direction they do, will understand what those who live in the lowlands rarely do.

Now, it will serve those of political bent to have the lowlanders believe they are all very different from one another: one of the easiest ways to keep people from evaluating your worth is to convince them that you are protecting them from an “other.”
And boy oh boy, will people make excuses for their “leaders.” I remember several biographers “justifying” or “explaining” George Wallace’s racist rants on the basis that “oh, he was just being political. He swore he’d never be `out-niggered’ by his opponents again.”

What? They said this as if it makes him more human, more admirable. Heck, he wasn’t a bigot, he just used bigotry to assume power. I want to vomit. To be an actual bigot means to see the world through a lens that says “this” group is better than “that” group. That’s your core programming and conditioning. Frankly, I don’t blame people for having such poison in their system…although I applaud when they can throw it over. But you’re telling me this man DIDN’T BELIEVE IT, and still used it? Still made the lives of millions of innocent people hell, just to gain power? To me, this is a thousand times worse. To me, such a person has a reservation in the lowest circle of hell.

It serves those who hunger for power to convince us that the “Others” whoever they are, are in some way critically different, unimaginably alien, essentially…inferior. We can only convert them, control them, or kill them. We certainly cannot listen and see if they have actual grievances, oh no. That would be admitting that we aren’t perfect.

Frankly, in terms of governments falling, or becoming less important, one very real possibility I see is in essence a “Rollerball” world—corporations becoming more powerful than geopolitical governments. They’re wealthy, they’re immortal, they live to increase their market share and answer to no direct human morality. From their own perspective, selling cigarettes to children, or exploding cars to consumers, makes perfect sense. Why should they care about individuals? I figure they have about the “awareness” of simple multi-celled organisms right now.

But wow, I know people who believe in “free market” and “the power of capitalism” to a degree that NO ONE I know believes in governmental power. Seen as organisms, it is to the advantage of corporations to have human beings believe that they are the only answer. Privatize schools, health care, the military? Sure, why not! The biggest problem is that the people who prate about this don’t have what I would consider a logical attitude, that the power of corporations can grow until it balances X percent of the power of political organizations. They seem to have more of the “shrink government until you can drown it in the bathtub” attitude. And if corporations are these simple multi-celled organisms (each with as many cells as there are human beings working for or investing in them) then they have only blind hunger, are operating at the very lowest levels of Maslow’s Heirarchy, concerned only with survival and growth and hunger.

And what exactly do you expect to balance them? And if they aren’t in balance, well…life will be great for those who invested in them, or are in the top 20% of their employees. But I wouldn’t want to be in the bottom 80%.
##
I haven’t looked deeply into the “Jena Six” situation. From what I see, if the races were reversed, I wouldn’t think that a charge of attempted murder would be appropriate. Five or six kids kicked another kid while he was down. Aggravated assault, I’d think. A terrible thing, worthy of prosecution. But attempted murder? Really? The prosecutor called tennis shoes “deadly weapons.” Having trained to kick both in bare feet and tennis shoes, I can say that it’s the feet themselves that either are or are not deadly weapons. Hitting someone with tennis shoes without feet in them don’t hurt much.

Is there a racial component in this? Absolutely. Hell, the entire context is poisoned, and it’s a lie to pretend otherwise. Hanging a noose from a tree is a clear attempt to intimidate, based upon racial history. As someone whose mother told him stories of black men dangling from trees while whites giggled, I can promise you that there is no comparable threat one can make to whites in this country…except maybe threatening a woman with gang rape, or a gay man with bashing. It was designed to trigger fear, which is what it did. The next months at that school were apparently tense, and there were numerous fights and conflicts. This sounds like the worst of them, but the kid was released after two hours of medical treatment. His attackers should be in jail or juvie. But attempted murder? That sentence, by an all-white jury, begs me to ask the question: would I believe they would be as swift to bring down an identical verdict if the races were reversed? How about if the jury was all-black? Of course, I doubt if in the entire history of this country, any white person has ever been tried by an all-black jury.
I guess the final thought is that we have a crime here, a terrible crime, but the intent was not to kill him but to kick his ass thoroughly.

Of course, I may not be seeing something…like I said, the entire context of race in America is poisoned. After 400 years, we only really started processing those toxins about forty years ago. This shit takes time. Can anybody name a wound that takes less time to heal than it took to inflict?

V is for Violence

I saw "The Brave One" last week, and was favorably
impressed. But I can also understand how someone
might accuse it of simply being a feminist version
of "Death Wish" or an upscale rendition of "Ms. 45."
While true in a sense, both criticisms would be, in
my mind, missing the point.

I received an email on the subject from a lady friend
who has, herself, been the victim of violence. She
was greatly moved, experienced the sense of
emotional dissociation that Jodie Foster's character
experienced after her savage mugging. I have
known enough people who have suffered violence
to understand the frustration with the justice
system that can boil over into self-destructive acts
...or a need for cathartic entertainment.

Personally, I love violence in film--if it is integrated
into the story, if it is motivated, if the characters
react like real human beings, at least within the
context of the story world. I love intensity, and
what it does to human beings. And I have enough
personal demons that watching teenage campers
dumped into the meat grinder...or soldiers
battling across a war-torn landscape, or giant
rubber monsters trashing Tokyo, or scar-faced
crime-lords wiping out their competitors...all
this stuff can be great entertainment, done right.

Of course, it can also be done very, very wrong.
There can be a thin line between telling a grim
fairy tale, and exploiting (for instance) male
fear of a woman's power. Or women's fear of
male power. Or racial tensions. Or class
distinctions. I've seen some loathsome things
in film, and most of it comes from viewing
human beings as objects to be torn rather
than human beings with hopes, needs, and
fears.

Almost any human interaction is legitimate to
investigate in film and fiction. But forget that
your characters have feelings, and you subject
your audience to a charnel-house tour with
nothing to offer but screams and special
effects. There is an audience for such films,
but do you really want to play to them?

What you CAN do is explore fear and its
influence on relationships. Revenge and its
role in society. Anger and the way it destroys
the heart. Guilt and the way it shatters the
soul. And on, and on.

But always reference your work back to your
own feelings and experiences. We've all had
powerful negative emotions and experiences.
How did it affect you? Really? Take THAT
and put it on the page or the screen, and you
have the core of something real. Build on
that, and you have a work of art, limited only
by the power of your craft.

Craft you can learn. Honesty, you have to
work out for yourself.

U is for Understructure

About now, I wish I'd make "O for Overstructure"
because then I could have balanced things out
with "U." As it is, I'll have to touch on both, so
you might want to think of this as "U is for
Understructure/Overstructure."

You might want to think of this as the Yin and
Yang of storytelling, or the Male and Female of
it. "Understructure" movies and novels are
those dealing with the internal world of the
characters, their emotions and feelings and
subjective experiences. "Overstructure" films
deal with actions, objective incident, and
sweeping event. I'd suggest that you go to
Variety.com and take a look at the top box
office films. Currently, I see MAYBE one
(probably) heavily understructured film,
"Becoming Jane," which I believe deals with
the life of author Jane Austin. Most of what
you see there is Overstructure, or a balance
between the two. "Transformers" is almost
pure event, with barely enough human
emotion to hold the special effects sequences
together. "Bourne Ultimatum" is actually
decently balanced, because the entire thrust
of this spy film is the search for personal
identity and meaning.

The conclusion we can draw is that most
films are "Overstructure," if for no other
reason than that external events are far
easier to film. They are photographable
acts, by definition, while understructure
is really far easier to pull off in the novel,
where the internal monologues of the
characters can be endlessly explored.

The best, and most successful films are
those balancing spectacle and emotion,
and I would suggest that in your own
creative projects you look deeply into
this, seek the external image that expresses
the internal states, and the emotions that
justify the external actions.

The Brave One

I got the following email this morning, from a friend who has suffered personal violence. She speaks of her reaction to the Jodie Foster film "The Brave One." Some reviewers got it, some didn't. I very clearly understand the sense of shock when violence comes into our lives. I got the movie, and why Foster was attracted to it. It is a revenge film with a soul. If not perfect, it is disturbingly well-done, with only occassional lapses into B-movie territory. Here, with all identifications removed, is this lady's comment.
####
"It is astonishing, numbing, to find that inside you is a stranger. A sleepless, restless stranger who keeps walking, keeps eating, keeps living." (said by Erica Bain in The Brave One)

We went to see Jodie Foster's new movie, The Brave One, last weekend. I haven't stopped thinking about it since. It was not what I expected. A vigilante move. Guns and violence. The violence in most films just leaves me numb. This film left me raw. It was both riveting and terribly difficult for me to watch. I rarely cry these days. At movies even less. This one had me sobbing at one point. It's not a tear-jerker movie. But it managed to hit me in a place I live.

I have rarely seen the experience of being the survivor of an assault that captured anything close to how I feel about it. This did. Want to know where I live? See it. There but for the grace ... of family and friends... am I. It is her isolation in the midst of the shattering pain and fear that drives Foster's character in the film to kill. I know the urge. I think it is the people who love me who made, and continue to make, the difference. They keep the rage from becoming all consuming.

Despite the title, this film is about alienation, not bravery. One of the amazing aspects of this film is the way it shows how such a trauma can rob the person of the sense of self. She becomes, in her words, “another person — a stranger to the person you once were.”

People thought of me as "fearless" before the event. I used to have no understanding of those "pitiful" people who were so terrorized by an event that they couldn't leave their home. Then I got to know the experience at the gut level. I am better now. Better but not returned to the person I was. There is a moment in the film that used mood and camera as well as Foster's amazing acting talent to really capture the way that fear can force you into isolation.

Another point in the film that made me cry out as if struck was a near direct quote for things I have said. "I miss who I was with him." I believe that one of the reasons I do better when my son is home is that I like who I am when I am with him. When he leaves, it is always a kind of small death of the self I prefer to be.

One aspect that the move glosses over is that most people damaged as badly as this character was will never be healthy again. Hard to move on when you are always in pain. They skip over what would have been months, if not years, of physical therapy and continuing health issues. The film focuses entirely on the psychology losses.

A part of me had hoped I would find a way back to at least most of who I used to be. Part of my grief - rage and sadness - is accepting that will never happen. Though I have problems with some part of the movie, this is one I had to agree with. Such experiences change who we are. The question is how to be that changed person. The character in the film doesn't find that. I sometimes wonder if I have.

I know that one of the ways I am working through my own issues is through the fiction I write. Recovery from assault is actually a common theme in many of the novels I have written in the last year. The characters find that horrible things can happen and you can still find a way to live a meaningful life. Sometimes I believe it. Other times, I remember this is fiction. I know that writing the characters' triumphs over such tragedies does bring me a large measure of comfort and relief from my own pain, both psychological and physical. It may not be perfect. It is a hell of a lot better than taking massive doses of pain killers or other medications (done that) or going around hunting down strangers who deserve to die.

Why I think Nations are dinosaurs

Understand something—anything I say here (or any of you guys say, as well) is colored by my own perceptual lenses, which are formed by my beliefs and values. My underlying belief: the vast majority of human beings are pretty much the same. And living and social systems tend to evolve toward greater levels of complexity.
I never said that progress (if that’s what it is) toward a world without Nations (as we understand them today) is a good thing, or that it would be smooth and continuous and uninterrupted. Much to the contrary, I’d say hell, no, it won’t be smooth. The breakdown of “artificial” states (colonial) as opposed to more organic (created by agreements or even conflicts between groups of genetically or culturally similar people) will not “create” conflict, but will release the potential energy of conflict that was tamped down by the oppressive force. My belief? There might very well be slaughters and internecine conflict. But after the most warlike have killed each other off, the peacemakers will have their chance, and evolution continues.

By the way: I think that Conservatives, in the main, tend to concentrate on what is different between A and B, while Liberals tend to concentrate on what is similar. Neither approach is correct. Both need to be factored in, and most sane and functioning people can move between both modes. An excess of either is toxic.
##
With the disclaimer that I KNOW my perceptions are skewed by my beliefs, here are the major reasons I think that Nations are evolving toward a world-wide network where “the difference between America and Japan will be about the same as the difference between New York and California” in four or five generations:
1) communication. Language creates barriers. With the advent of translated web pages and automatic translation across phone and computer lines, this is shifting.
2) Communication. Instant communication around the world makes a vast difference. Hard to convince voters that your enemies eat babies when they can pick up the cell phone and call a friend in wherever and get their own opinion.
3) Travel. Nations are geopolitical entities. When travel between nations is as rapid as travel between towns used to be, the flow of cultural and genetic information flows rapidly.
4) Intermarriage. As “White” “Black” and “Asian” start melting into shades of brown, those specific barriers lower. Exogamy is a simple fact of human existence—which is why authoritarian states have to pass laws against it.
5) Religion. The more people can discuss the differences between their religions, the less likely they are to kill each other over them. This goes back to communication—the more communication, the less violence.
6) Time. The younger folks tend to bond to the youth of other cultures, and ignore the barriers their parents took for granted. Of course, they themselves get more rigid as they get older. This may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly consistent. Those who grew up thinking of America as a fortress against the world are going to have fits with the “one world” idea. It won’t be up to you, or your children. It’s 21st-22nd Century kids who grow up listening to African Jazz, watching Anime, and back-packing through Europe who will make the decisions.
7) The real test is your answer to the question: do you believe, at the fundamental level, that we are all the same? Or do you believe that, at fundamental levels, we are very different. Note that either point of view selects some information and deletes or de-emphasizes others. I am willing to state my own position clearly and for the record: I believe that the roots of Maslow’s Heirarchy are the same for everyone, all human cultures and probably most animals as well: survival, reproduction, sexuality, power. The further UP you go (emotions equaling relationship patterns, power equaling forms of government, communication equaling language, intellect equaling reality maps, etc.) the more “different” people get. Religion is one of the worst, because the “faith” aspect of all religions indicates things which, by the very nature of consciousness and existence, cannot be “proven.” But people tuck their fear of death away here, and become rigid as hell.

And this is another place where I think Conservatives and Liberals vary. Conservatives, in my experience, see two different people behaving in different ways, and assume there is a difference in the basic nature of those two people. Liberals look at those same people, behaving in different ways, and think that there is something different about the contexts in which they find themselves—in other words, it’s the software, not the hardware.
While most people come down in the middle on these, I think its not unfair to suggest that this is the broad strokes of the situation. Therefore, for those on the Right, as you see different nations, I think it is tempting to believe that the differences are created by differences in the people. Whereas on the Left, I think you almost inevitably come to the opinion (note that I didn’t say “conclusion,” which might imply accuracy) that those differences are the result of historical or environmental differences.

Add to this the fact that high-testosterone males tend to think in terms of high walls, while estrogen-types might be said to think in terms of open doors. This, I think, explains the problem with racism among cops—it’s perfectly natural for such Alpha types to think “Us versus Them.” And furthermore, at the lower levels of Maslow’s Heirarchy, it’s even healthier. And when I say “lower” I don’t mean “less than.” The roots of a tree are not less important than its leaves.

But once those basic needs are satisfied, we automatically evolve toward more complex and subtle interests and perceptions, including those of unity and Oneness. A percentage of folks will always hold powerfully to the “us versus them.” Most warrior-types I have known tend more toward this than the general population, for instance. They are not “wrong.” In fact, we are only safe because some of our best and brightest think this way.

But I believe we make social progress because of those who have the luxury of standing on the warriors’ shoulders and seeing the possibility of peace and commonality. “Segregation Yesterday, Segregation Today, Segregation Forever” used to be the rallying cry not of radical racists, but responsible representatives of the people, elected to high office. The level of racial intermixing we see today would have been incomprehensible to them, or to a typical 19th century American white or black.

It will not be uninterrupted. There will be plenty of backsliding. But meanwhile, I can use my Visa card all over the world without inquiring as to exchange rates. Exchange emails almost instantly with people in Africa and Europe and Asia. Learn about the lives and customs of people in other countries in their own words, not just filtered through the perceptions of educators and politicians. Visit anywhere in the world at speeds that boggle living grandparents, and for a percentage of my income so low it is absurd. Buy products made everywhere. Watch films and listen to music made everywhere. Watch people of all races and creeds marrying and strutting the streets with their little brown children.

“Nations” have only existed for a couple of thousand years. There's nothing natural or permanent about the concept. They were just the progression from family to village to tribe to state to nation, in a world in which a week on horseback took you to the edge of the map. Do you really think that nations are the end of the progression?
Can't you just hear the patriarch of a family saying "I won't join the village"? The headman of a village saying "I won't join the clan"? The head of a clan saying "we'll never be part of a state"? The leader of a state saying "Uhh-uhh, no Nation for me!" And now nations saying "No one world." And the all=Earth Federation will be FURIOUS at the idea of joining the Galactic Federation...
it is to laugh.

Saying that “things seem more fractured now than twenty years ago” brings a big fat “so what?” Tell me that over a period of generations, centuries or Millennia and maybe you’ve got something. But to me, all primitive (a little political incorrectness, anyone) societies are pretty much the same. As they evolve, they become more different, but the roots stay the same. My guess is that as individuals have more and more right of self-expression, movement, thought, communication and self-determination, societies will begin to look more and more similar, once again. The ONLY way this could not be true is if different groups of human beings are, at their core, quite different indeed. And then, of course, we are right back to a Nature-Nurture argument.

Unless you believe that there are some gigantic differences between human beings, it’s all a done deal. But don’t worry—you won’t have to live to see it. None of us will. But that’s where I think it’s going, and there isn’t a living thing any of us can do to stop it—any more than your liver can tell your legs where to walk.

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..?