American Gangster (2007)

American Gangster (2007)

In the early 1970’s, an enterprising young gangster named Frank Lucas traveled to Southeast Asia, made a direct connection with the opium lords, and opened a heroin conduit to New York so powerful that he was able to sell product that was twice as strong at half the price. He amassed a fortune approaching half a billion dollars, and was described as “the most dangerous man” in the state. He was actually above the Mafia in terms of dealing, and by maintaining a low profile, eluded notice by the police for many years. His story would be remarkable enough as it was, but the fact that Lucas was black makes it a sort of bizarre Horatio Algiers cum Black Caesar story, one of those tales that simply screams out to be made into a film.

And it has. Not a great film. Not even a great gangster film, but probably the best since “Goodfellas” with the possible exception of “Pulp Fiction” –which is kind of a deconstructed meta-gangster tale anyway. Denzel Washington is simply superb in the role, and Russell Crowe, as Richie Roberts, the amazingly honest cop whose parallel story ultimately intersects with Lucas’ empire is his equal at every step. The direction, by Ridley Scott, is deceptively elegant, and the script, written by Steven Zaillian in two completely different pieces—one from the POV of Lucas, and the other from the POV of cop Richie Roberts, is concise, powerful, and hypnotically rhythmic. The supporting cast, notably Ruby Dee, is just phenomenal/ Violent, profane, fairly honest and already creating major Oscar buzz, I’d been waiting for this one for months, and it was worth it. A B+.
##
WARNING: SAMBO ALERT

You guessed it: Frank Lucas is the most sexless gangster you ever saw. Russell Crowe has three different women, one in bed, one banged up against a wall, and the third just kissed leaving his apartment. Denzel gets a couple of kisses. That’s it. I had the naiveté to hope that they might take a chance and let him actually have some sex. Nope. If they had let us see the arc of his relationship with the Puerto Rican beauty who became his wife, just a glimpse into his inner world, his softness and personal passion, this might have been a classic. By denying us that core, it calls into question his entire reason for building the empire in the first place. It is dishonest and cowardly, and taints the enterprise. And it’s a terrific movie anyway. What a missed opportunity. Feh.

The Wind Done Gone

1) Alice Randall, author of “The Wind Done Gone” was at the Speculative South conference (along with Harry Harrison and Harry Turtledove) and it was delightful to meet her. What was truly inspiring was her analysis of her intent. It was a quite calculating deconstruction and attack on “Gone With the Wind”—the most popular and utterly poisonous novel in American history. To have young Black children forced to read this in Junior High without providing context is inexcusable. The Margaret Mitchell estate sued her for ten million dollars, and it took her over a million just to fight the case…but she won. Her book deals with the possibility that Scarlett O’Hara had a half-black sister…and that Rhett Butler DID notice that Scarlett “wasn’t beautiful.” And that Mammy (did Mitchell really have to deny giving the woman a name? Or a family? Or any hopes and dreams of her own?) had practiced infanticide against the po’ little white babies. Wow. What a subversive book. And when I think how much America loves the story, it’s rather terrifying.
2) The concept that racism is hard-wired is interesting in a political way. I would suspect that many on the Right OR the Left might have a problem with it, for different reasons. On the Left, to the degree that you think it’s all Tabula Rosa, the idea that something like Racism might be innate (to a greater or lesser degree, but in the vast majority of people) is disturbing. But on the Right, which seems to me to assume innate characteristics, if we assume that this is innate, then a conundrum arises. If you admit (or take the position that) racism is innate, then in looking at the racial situation in America you have to see that blacks are in an almost uniquely bad situation: cut completely off from their cultural roots, outnumbered ten to one by a group that has an innate predisposition to dislike them and find them unattractive. Under such a situation, blacks would have to be significantly SUPERIOR to whites to ever get even. Ever. So you have a limited number of options: either you approve of racial quotas, set-asides, entitlements and preferential treatments to compensate not just for historical events but the seemingly inevitable conclusion that if you DON’T do these things and the subconscious racist tendency—found in almost all human beings—will manifest in any situation where whites have power over or outnumber blacks. In other words, almost all situations. Don’t want to do that? Then the only honest thing to do is say “I don’t care what happens to them” and let the chips fall where they may. But then, of course, you lose the right to ever criticize them for the poverty, crime, and lack of education—you KNOW that this will result if you don’t leash the hounds of human tribalism. But truly…you DO have the right not to give a shit. But you DON’T have the right to not care AND point the finger. Take your pick.
3) In studying writings on the unraveling of the human ego and the state of enlightenment, I begin to suspect that I understand more clearly the reason most world religions are structured as they are. They know that actual enlightenment is “the small boat”—it is not for many people. Frankly, most aren’t up to it. Most people just want to have a comfortable dream. Fine. So teachings have to be constructed in multiple levels, so that they work for you at whatever level of understanding or maturity you have reached. This is one of the brilliant things about Christianity, by the way. It can work for 5 year olds, and it can work for sixty year old geniuses—but on different levels. But if I’m right about this, even after the unraveling process, in order to move through this world, you have to wear the residual ego shell. And that implies that those social rules which abide at the level of unconscious competence or reflex, which are in alignment with the deepest emotions and genetic imperatives, will remain. Implication: those who can automatically, unconsciously, function healthfully and joyously in all three arenas need have little fear of drastic external transformation upon Awakening. Those whose external behaviors are out of alignment with their inner nature, on the other hand, will probably destroy their lives in the process. Caveat Emptor.
4) Another implication here: a bad habit is going to be based upon a false ego identity. If you could identify the aspect of your personality that clings to the behavior, you might well be able to “unravel” it by investigating it deeply enough. Isn’t that part of what psychoanalysis is about, really? I know that if you investigate a headache thoroughly, giving it weight, sound, color, motion, and so forth, in rotation, the headache vanishes. Would the same thing happen to fear? Guilt? Anger? Seems worthy of investigation.
5) Fifteen minutes in the morning: 5 minutes visualization for each of the three arenas. To this end, Once the “Heartbeat” meditation is mastered at a basic level (you can do it continuously for 15 minutes) you should go to the next level. You should visualize the end point of results in each of the three major areas. Five minutes for each. If you are sharp and clear, and excited, and motivated to TAKE ACTION and actually follow through…great. But if the visualizations are muddy and unclear, or negative emotions arise, or you can’t follow through, it behooves you to use your morning meditations to investigate the “darkness”, the confusion, the obstructions. Give them identities. Get to know them. Name them. And then use the Literary/spiritual autolysis process to deconstruct them. Meditate daily, and look carefully at the question: DO I FOLLOW THROUGH on my exercise, my emotional/physical intimacy with my partner, my career moves? If not, you know the work you have to do.

On the plane...

I write this sitting on a little jet on my way to Raleigh, North Carolina, Chapel Hill University, where I’ll be lecturing a writing class and giving a keynote speech. The subject of the conference is “the Specualtive South,” meaning an investigation of alternate histories involving the Southern United States. Not sure what I’ll talk about. Probably will wait until I see the other topics of discussion, and then fill in the gaps.

I’d bet that my speech will deal with the work that went into the creation of my book LION’S BLOOD, set in an alternate history in which Africa developed a technological civilization prior to Europe, and colonized the Americas, bringing white slaves. Took four years of research, but that doesn’t mean I was writing during that period.

You see, I use a method of overlapping projects: I’m polishing one while creating rough draft on another while outlining a third and researching a fourth. It’s just the way my mind works. One question that is often asked is: when do you know you’ve done enough research? Good question. You see, in one sense, you can never do “enough” research, because the world of your book or screenplay has to feel like the real world. And the act of Creation, by that standard, requires a God-like knowledge of your world.

In practical terms, however, what you need is enough knowledge to be able to lay out the territory, and then map your character’s way through it. There is a very specific standard that I use in this regard. I begin with a general idea of what I want to know, and then start reading and asking questions. Along the way, I develop theories on the subject, and then search to disprove my own ideas. When I come up with a theory I’ve never heard of, and can’t disprove, I seek out an expert, and lay out my thoughts. If I get positive feedback on these original ideas, I know that my research phase is drawing to a close—I’m ready to write!

You’ll need to come up with your own standards, of course. And in the final analysis it’s an art-form, not a science. Only you know the effect you’re trying to create in your work. And only experience will teach you to create it.

Shh...the children are sleeping.

I have a friend locked in a loveless marriage for decades. She is finally about to make a move, and trust me, she is absolutely raving with fear, and that fear is biting her butt every time she turns around. Recently, she was speaking to a divorce support group which meets at her church, and was hypnotized by a video on the sacred bonds of matrimony. Let me tell you—in the decades I’ve known her, she has NEVER talked about her Biblical obligations to ANYTHING. But suddenly, she’s fixated on it. Her fear, seeking anything to hold onto, anything to keep her from plunging into the unknown.

I have another student who has a serious weight issue. She literally can’t keep her eye on that ball. She constantly distracts herself with synthetic busy work, constantly generated as soon as enough room or time opens up that she would have to admit she has the fifteen minutes a day it would take to get in shape. It’s amazing the number of excuses, distractions, rationalizations, and dark fantasies that arise to keep her from dealing with her truth.

I think that we have a certain number of “square inches” of humanity. When we are balanced, we grow to encompass more “square inches,” and can cover more territory without distortion. But that requires more honesty and willingness to tolerate existential pain than most of us are willing to endure. So we distort ourselves, creating odd geometric shapes to stretch out and cover some particular goal…refusing to see that we inevitably neglect something else.

Want to know the greatest tragedy? So many of these people are teachers, counselors, coaches, and therapists. Swiftdeer once said that “helping other people is a form of self-pity.” I interpret that as the position that it is easy to see what’s wrong with other people, hard to do something about your own crap. Helping other people becomes a substitution for working on our own lives. We get to feel good without actually destroying our ego shells. Our “Self” gets to believe it’s own press another precious day.

And what happens? How can you coach a student in areas where you yourself have only theoretical knowledge? And if you had true knowledge, would you really be stuck? Isn’t helping others just a way of dealing with your fear that you don’t know?
The trouble is that these people haven’t the faith to get through their Dark Nights. Instead, they back up, take a new goal, and charge forward full of enthusiasm. Wow! I’m improving my life! Well, yes. But you certainly aren’t waking up. But what the heck—and I mean this sincerely—for most people, it’s probably better to stay asleep and just get the very best and most comfortable furnishings for your dream. And shhh…walk quietly. The other children are sleeping. Best not to wake them, or they may cry.

I.F. and Social Pressure

One of the interesting things about Intermittent Fasting is the expressions of disbelief—and even fear—on people’s faces when I tell them I’m not eating. “How can you do that?” “I’d die!” “Are you sick?” etc. etc.

It’s interesting the way the practice of taking control of your own life tests every aspect of your reality. The way it tests social connections is especially fascinating. Here in Quincy, I notice that many or most of the kids are skinny. But among adults, there is a tendency toward obesity that is sobering. Huge buttocks and great sagging belts of fat around the waists. Shoulders and upper bodies so forward of the hips that the spine cannot possibly be supporting the weight properly. That would lead to back pain—and with the sagging guts, there is nothing to balance that tension, leading to a descending spiral of pain, fatigue, and deterioration. Food here is of the Fast variety. There isn’t a home-style restaurant to be seen. Subway is probably the healthiest thing in town (I have nothing against Subway) but meals are such a core aspect of social experience that if you actually invest some care in fueling yourself, you become suspect.

I consider what I see in that regard to be the end result of generational poverty. Children who have to control what they eat because there literally isn’t much food. Then when they become adults—BAM! They can fill their bellies any time they want. Bythe way, did I say that people here segregate themselves? And that there are very, very few children of mixed blood? It’s all black and white, and I stand out like a sore thumb.

Back to the subject…
I knew that I.F. allows you to inspect the “bare wiring” of your hunger drive, every damned day. On fasting days, you are staring down the Limbic Monkey every time the smell of food drifts your way. On eating days, if you exercise first thing in the morning, you are dealing with a completely empty digestive tract, and the urge to go out and hunt and gather, amplified beyond what most people ever experience. Fascinating.

But it’s great to watch people’s reactions. All of the “I can’t, because…” stuff. As if I suggested that they should! I don’t bring it up. But they ask if I want to eat, I decline, and one thing leads to another. I can see how it would be easier to eat if I’m traveling, or visiting, or at a banquet, or a friend is in from out of town…
And what happens? Our web of social relationships begins to intrude into one of the most intimate aspect of what you are: your ability to determine what you put in your own damned mouth.

Social pressure? Isn’t that what we tell our children they mustn’t yield to? Are we serious or not? Men and women BOTH are programmed to see themselves primarily as tools of society and family. And who does that programming? Why, society and family, that’s who. Either you are committed to being free, or you aren’t. Either you are committed to finding the truth about yourself, or you aren’t. And if you are, you MUST be willing to look directly at this stuff and say: I was lied to. By people who loved and cherished me, perhaps. And they were doing the best they could, no doubt. But if you would be an adult, you have to move beyond that.

Is Bill Cosby Right?

Was reading Michael Eric Dyson’s book “Is Bill Cosby Right?” and felt disappointed. The book criticizes Cosby’s current crusade to get poor inner-city parents to take greater responsibility for the problems of their children. While I agree that thos trapped in poverty are deserving of great compassion, and that Cosby tends to paint with too broad a brush at times, I found myself troubled by the book.

First, I never got the feeling, not for an instant, that Cosby was saying all poor black people are poor due to their personal failings. He always seemed to be saying that IF you behave in such an such manner, this is irresponsible and reprehensible. I grasp that it is possible to interpret his words differently. But Dyson’s book, which could have presented a lucid refutation or expansion or addendum or alternative thesis, instead seems to present largely a thinly veiled character assassination, presenting allegations as if they were true, trumpeting Cosby’s admitted affair as evidence that he hasn’t the “moral authority” to criticize, and devoting page after page to the charge that he fathered a child out of wedlock, pretty much discounting the fact that he offered to take a blood test and his putative daughter refused.

Fine, I guess…all’s fair in political rhetoric. But I went looking for Dyson’s explanation of one of the most disturbing statistics, that being the percentage of out-of-wedlock births in the inner city. I believe the statistic is 63% of black infants, as opposed to about 18% of white and 35% of Hispanic. This is horrific, and related so directly to poverty and crime that anyone who hasn’t looked this up is cheating themselves of a genuine chill. There would be many ways of dealing with this stat, and Dyson is smart enough to interpret that data in interesting and educational fashions. But instead…he ignores it. Doesn’t deal with it. Instead, he finds one narrow statistic, that unwed pregnancies over the last thirty years have decreased among black girls aged 15-17. What? Is that the best you can do, after spending five pages tearing apart the Messenger’s reputation because he MIGHT have been a girl’s father? After he offered to put her through school, offered support and interacted with her as a father figure? This makes me think that Dyson is deliberately dancing around something that he is too (and here it comes) politically correct to be honest about. That is, of course, that while on the one hand there is massive racism, poverty, and brainwashing to deal with, on the other hand there are serious, powerful actions that individuals can take to improve the lives of their children. Like, for instance, not having children until you are married. Brrrr.

This subject is simply too important to allow misguided empathy to color discussions. In my opinion, Cosby is saying aloud something that desperately needs to be said, and his contentions need to be debated as if he has earned a place at the table. His uncounted millions of dollars of scholarships alone have earned him that much respect.

Ad hominem attacks don’t illuminate truth or save lives. I understand Cosby’s frustration. My attitude is simple: you can’t take the position that four hundred years of oppression have caused damage without describing the limp. And while it is “unfair” to ask black parents to shoulder more responsibility than white parents, screw it. IT’S YOUR KIDS. And life isn’t fair. You do what you have to do, not what’s fair, or convenient. Playing field isn’t level? No, it isn’t. And in terms of the results you get in life, nobody cares if it's fair. If you can't afford a safety net, don't walk a tightrope. Don't tell me about the painful fact that another community can afford more self-destructive behaviors. That sucks. But now your baby's crying in the other room--what are you going to do, talk politics? While others are working the political tip trying to change things, people like me...and Cosby, emphasize individual responsibility. If there is anything, anything at all I can do to improve my children’s chances in this world, I will do it at the cost of my own life. And anyone who brings children into this world without that attitude is, in my humble opinion, being a selfish child. And if you want to have sex and be a child, fine. But use a rubber, dammit. And don’t complain when people who DO care risk public flagellation to speak their despair and disillusionment. And people like Dyson? He has a great deal to offer. If he believes that Cosby had an obligation to present a more balanced picture, Dyson may be right…but it behooves him to lead by example.

The Beginning of Wisdom

The following post is deserving of comment:

""And then secretly weeping at night, confused as hell: with all this wisdom, why am I so miserable?"

As an educated person there's a tendency to focus on worldly wisdom & reason and intellectualize religion in general. But the world and it's wisdom is opposed to the knowledge of God. The things of the Spirit are spirit and you can't have a "direct experience of the divine" through head knowledge.

For 2,000 years the salavation of the cross has be available to humanity, but sadly they largely have rejected Jesus.

I pray that you don't make the same mistake in order to make a some point about social utility and pop psychology that sounds awfully clever to most but is sheer folly to God.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. (Psalms 14:1)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10)
RW
##
RW seems to me a considerate, thoughtful person who has a point of view on the subject of enlightenment, reality, and so forth, shared by a great number of people-among them some of my favorite folks.
The following would express my response:
1)I quite agree that we cannot have a direct experience of the divine through logic.
2)I agree that Christianity is a valid path. I disagree that it is the only one.
3)I'm not trying to make any point about anything. I'm merely expressing what I see and feel and am currently experiencing.
4) While not suggesting that your first Psalm quote is a reference to me, I will go so far as to say that my faith in God is absolute. I also have to say that when we say "God" we may very well be speaking of different things.
5) Fear of the Lord is certainly one of the beginnings of wisdom. I was a child when I took my first steps. And I feared, a response I find appropriate to a child. As an adult, I find a sense of profound wonder and gratitude more in alignment with my spirit. At this point in my life, I am far more interested in the end than the beginning.

Everyone is Racist?

I love it when I get caught out. Keeps me on my toes, as in the following reply to a previous post:
#######
"EVERYBODY has it."

There's some part of my mind that reads statements like this and just automatically assumes that they're hooey. It's the same part of my mind that can't believe in Christianity.

Even the study you're citing repeatedly -- which may end up being found tendentious, as such studies soemtimes prove with time -- claimed a mere 80% of whites were racist, not 100 freaking percent! So, what's with this "EVERYBODY" claim?
Erich Schwarz
##############
Erich--

You're right. "Everybody" doesn't do much of "anything" other than breathe. I was exaggerating...but not by much. Note that of the 20% who don't display this tendency, 7% of those have no negative feelings about anything at ALL. So the percentage of people who are CAPABLE of forming negative impressions who DO form them on this one topic is what? 85%? 90%? The math escapes me. However, note that they don't say "completely negative." My guess is that it's a Bell curve, from "somewhat" to "extremely." And that "somewhat" can be overcome by a number of factors, for instance:
1) they “play” for your “team.” In other words, they help you win. Soldiers, athletes, co-workers, etc. who perform to your advantage will anchor positive emotions to your representations.
2) They are unusually attractive according to your value system. Intelligence, intensity, physical features or various kinds can compensate for skin tone, to the degree that positive emotions are anchored, generalizing out to other members of their group.
3) Belief in the Universality of Man. Many religious faiths and philosophical positions lead their adherents and followers to the conclusion that we are “all one.” At this point, the natural tribal wiring comes into conflict with “higher programming”—creating cognitive and emotional dissonance. Such people (in my judgment) often harbor deep, “shameful” prejudices, but refuse to pass them on to their children. Those children are encouraged to associate with people of many races, giving them an opportunity to anchor positive emotions.
In other words, the more evolved you are as a human being, the less things like skin color sway you one way or the other.
#

Erich, the idea that such a huge percentage of the population harbors such feelings makes perfect sense of the world. It explains bigotry, war, and the sense of deep confusion and self-loathing experienced by so many who begin to dig into their inner selves.

But this programming is basic survival stuff—third chakra, as it were. It can absolutely be overcome. My guess? The percentage of people who manage to be balanced in all three arenas would be the same percentage who manage to rise above their core programming. Not the same people, (that would be convenient and self-serving, wouldn’t it?) but the same approximate percentage.

Maybe a little higher. But the good news is that the emotional space that rises above this stuff is the same space sought by almost all religions and meditative disciplines, the same sense of personal integrity and self-love we all crave.

You’ll never convince me that that low-level aversion isn’t there as long as non-white males can’t have sex in movies without wrecking the box office, Dude. Sorry. Consciously, we’re all Kum-Bah-Yah. Subconsciously, we flinch away from the “Other” and demonize our political opponents. I can’t pretend not to see what I’ve seen my whole life.

It’s just old survival programming. The fact that we haven’t killed ourselves yet should be of great cheer: I have no reason to believe we won’t make it as a species. In fact, much of the dissonance between “Left” and “Right” strikes me as sort of mild epileptic convulsions in a brain with a damaged Corpus Collosum. Proper communication between the hemispheres takes care of all that.

Let’s keep talking.

"Dog" the Bounty Hunter

“Dog the Bounty Hunter” got his show cancelled because of racist rhetoric? Is anyone surprised? I mean, if it talks like a redneck and acts like a redneck, we’re supposed to be surprised that it has feelings stereotypical to that group? When 80% of whites evidence unconscious aversion to blacks? Oh, please. The real question is: what’s better: political correctness, or honesty?

Well…I think political correctness. Why? As Orwell suggested, when you can’t speak a word, it is difficult (although not impossible) to imagine a concept. Control what people say, and you begin to control how they feel. If racist attitudes are (as I believe) a natural result of our capacity to differentiate US from THEM, then all we can do initially is be aware that we have them. If we consciously choose to be polite and humane, that goes a huge distance. After that, it’s just a process of maturation. Existential loneliness can motivate people to join groups in order to stave off the fear of death and separation. Dealing with the cold realities thereof can be a powerful wake-up call.
#
In Quincy, Florida for a family reunion and eventually the Miami book fair. This is a tiny little town, with a painful racial past—and present. The races are still pretty far apart. They naturally segregate themselves in restaurants. There are few mixed-blood children. Old neighborhoods are chiefly one or the other race, although newer neighborhoods are mixed.

Much is made of “Southern Hospitality,” and you know? I like it. I find Southerners to be, in Hannibal Lector’s fine old phrase, “courteous and receptive to courtesy.” That goes a long way.

I have to give a keynote next week at a university in North Carolina, and the subject will be the alternate history of the south. Not sure what I’ll speak of yet, but it will probably revolve around research for “Lion’s Blood.” There’s an oddness about the Civil War. Southerners will often claim that it had nothing to do with slavery. Northerners will often claim that the war was “to free the slaves.”

But looking at documents and speeches, editorials and letters written during the War itself, I come to the conclusions that follow
1) Slavery was not the only issue, but it was the single most important issue. Those who fought for the “Southern way of life” or simply for “freedom” were fighting for a social system that was committed to keeping blacks in a very specific social position…if not actually economically dependant upon same. A minority of Southerners owned slaves, but there were countless interlocked motivations that were rooted therein.
2) Northerners would, in the main, have been perfectly happy to send freed slaves back to Africa, or over the edge of the Earth. While some definitely extended their own humanity to brothers and sisters of darker hue, others considered us barely more than monkeys. The point certainly wasn’t “I’m willing to die to help black people” but “I’m willing to die to protect and preserve the Republic. We can’t have Slavery because it would hurt the working man. Johnny Reb wants slavery, so Johnny Reb has to change.”
3) The South wasn’t as good as they want to believe, nor as bad as the North makes ‘em out. The North isn’t as holy as they want to believe, and not as bad as Southerners make them out.
4) Yes, there is more racism in the South than in the North. This is the opinion of most black people, especially those who moved away from the South, or have lived in both sections. That doesn’t mean there is no racism among Northerners. Remember what I said? EVERYBODY has it. But a core component of racism is fear, and God knows the South has more to fear. On some level, they HAVE to wonder when and if blacks will ever even the score. I doubt it will happen.
5) But it would be nice.
##
The next project after I finish SHADOW VALLEY will be a series of published articles, possibly for Creative Screenwriting, on Lifewriting, so I have to start organizing my thoughts. By the way, we turned in the rewrite on THE GOOD HOUSE, and keeping fingers crossed…

In Quincy...

I'm in Quincy, Florida, visiting my in-laws. Next Tuesday I fly from Tallahasse to North Carolina to give a keynote speech. Then back to Florida, we drive to Orlando for a day, then down to Miami for the Miami Book Fair. We'll be promoting CASANEGRA, and T will perform with the Rock Bottom Remainders. Fun. But it's a non-stop sprint to the end of the year. I probably won't have time to rest until February. Ouch...
##
Orlando will be interesting. Four years ago, T and I spent ten days there, waiting to see if a certain pregnant mother would deliver and bring us the child as promised. It was absolute torture being around all those happy families. I think that T was being stretched tothe absolute breaking point, emotionally. I had to finally insist that she come home. Going back there with our healthy, bouncy little boy is like re-claiming a piece of your life. I like that idea.
##
The recent Discover magazine article on racism just verifies my core belief: tht human beings don't much like the different, that they lie to themselves about their feelings, that whne it comes to racism and sexism and Xenophobia, the only thing we have to fear is the people who think they don't have it. The natural human tendency will be to say: "we don't have to worry about that any more"...or "wow! Wasn't it bad back then..." or "When will people stop complaining about what happened in the past..." or whatever. The point? To keep the power for their group, while consciously conforming to the socially agreed-upon "politically correct" behaviors. And of course, to constantly chip away from any of the protections that keep that natural tribalism in check. It's going to be a constant struggle, I think.

Why Even Care?

I was asked about “Assassin’s Creed” and I’ve got bad news: the book isn’t going to be published. No, there was nothing wrong with it: Marco Palmieri at Pocket Books was perfectly happy with it. But it seems that the video company got visits from descendants of the ORIGINAL ASSASSINS, members of the Ismaeli sect currently led by the Agha Khan in India. They…suggested that Ubisoft, the game company, show more respect for their ancestors, and Ubisoft went all pitter-patter. Next thing we knew, they wanted to remove all religious references from the book. I guess the Crusades were about shoe size or something. Then they hired an expert to vet the book. Curious that they hadn’t thought about that before, eh? And finally, they wanted to send the book to the Agha Khan’s people for their suggestions. By this time, Marco was thoroughly disenchanted. The book was turning into puree of bat shit, and I was no longer amused. The whole three-book project died.

Wow. Strange. Still got paid for the first one, though…
##
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/how-not-to-be-racist

Here’s an article stating that EIGHTY PERCENT of white people harbor some subconscious distaste for black people. Generalize this to a statement about how people of group X feel about group Y, jigger the numbers a bit, and you have my feeling for why we have so much strife. Specifically, this should help you understand why black people feel so angry and threatened. Wouldn’t you, if outnumbered ten to one by people who don’t like you, and have vast and pervasive power over you?

Interesting to note that many of the ones in the 20% who AREN’T racist basically don’t form negative associations at all. Do 80% of black people have negative associations toward whites? They darned well should, but I simply don’t know. On the one hand you have 400 years of hideous history. On the other, the brainwashing of countless images of strong, brave, smart, holy, impossibly noble and heroic white folks, begun in infancy and repeated countless times a day every day since, for the rest of their lives.

There will be quite reasonable chicken-and-egg speculation, of course. Which came first, negative attitudes and actions, triggering loss of faith in the system, rage and pain, followed by negative behaviors in black people? Or: negative behaviors in black people, leading to negative reactions on the part of whites?

You know my belief: this stuff is hard-wired, unless you program and brainwash otherwise. I find it impossible to believe that the average white American in the 21st Century has a lower opinion of blacks than did 17th=18th Century whites. In terms of world history, it is impossible to figure out which group threw the first stone. But in terms of the American Experiment, it’s pretty clear that we got hosed, and no one ever made a serious attempt to compensate for that thorough, multi-generational, 360-degree hosing.

Fine. I don’t expect people to be fair enough to actually undo the damage done. But try being honest enough to grasp the enormity of it…
##
I had a student ask why, if nothing ultimately matters, we should care about anything at all. Well, that’s why no world religion will take you all the way to clarity: there’s no social benefit. However, encoded within each major religion seems to be a hidden path to dis-assembling the ego walls without turning you into a bum, madman, or wandering Saint. It seems to be the inculcation of core values at a young age, such that the residual ego shell still functions appropriately even after you’ve shed the illusions. It’s tricky stuff.

My guess is that the gate of Adulthood—responsibility for the core values held by the culture (my version of this is body-mind-spirit) MUST be passed before deeper, more secret teachings are offered. Most will try to go straight for the goodies. But religions are what Buddhism refers to as the “large boat” while direct experience of the divine is the “small boat”, not for everyone. I don’t recommend it. I just speak about it because, as I realized yesterday, this blog is my version of Literary Autolysis.

But to more directly, try this: a baseball game doesn’t “matter”. But if you decide to play, you learn the rules and play hard, to the best of your ability. If you don’t want to play, you lose the right to complain about the results you get in this world.

The challenge is to be “in the world, but not of the world.” To play hard, to learn the rules, to clarify our understandings, and then to move on.

To say “it doesn’t matter” falls right back into dualistic thinking, and logic breaks down a bit. “It matters/it doesn’t matter.” They don’t exist separate from perception.

If you can’t play hard, work hard, care for your family, engage with your community, preserve your body, provide goods and services, and grasp the fact that we can know NOTHING other than the “I am”—then please, please, please don’t try this. Don’t use “nothing matters” as an excuse to ignore your worldly affairs.

Remember the chakras? Master the lower ones BEFORE you get to spirit. Otherwise, I promise you, rather than clarity, you will be lost in illusion, and feeling holy about it. Obese, broke, and lonely…and feeling smugly superior to all us idiots who act as if the world is real. And then secretly weeping at night, confused as hell: with all this wisdom, why am I so miserable?

Trust me: you don’t want to go down that road.

Where does "further" lead?

“Impartial Distrust, combined with an understanding of the word `further’, is all that is necessary to awaken from the dream state.”
--Jed McKenna

While at the African Martial Arts symposium this last weekend, an Afrocentric gentleman expressed disbelief that I didn’t agree with his contention that white people, white culture, is especially violent and corrupt. How could I see and acknowledge the injustice, lying and prejudice, the colonialization and mass murder, without seeing that, well, white people are as inferior as white racists think black people are..?

Ahem. Sorry, can’t go there. My new friend is trapped in the dualistic mind-set, I’m afraid. But the corker was that he suspects that I don’t let myself think that “truth” because I want white folks to buy my books. Wow. That’s actually kind of interesting. He’s close to a truth there, but not squatting on it. The truth is that if I didn’t have to live in a world dominated by white faces, that I might not have begun the philosophical inquiry that led me to mistrusting all of presented reality, and eventually to the spiritual path I find myself walking.

To believe that whites were especially corrupt would demand the same kind of thinking I’ve always loathed in bigots: to assume that the presenting situation is equivalent to a peek into the soul. In gradeschool, I KNEW that I was smarter than the teachers assumed I was, and while it hurt, I felt myself sort of bifurcating…a quasi-personality disorder where I was compartmentalizing the pain while acting cheerful and upbeat.

The fear was indeed that I would not be able to survive if I let people know how angry and hurt I was. But the outgrowth was that I trusted nothing, and no one, to tell me what reality was. Not the church or the state, not my parents or teachers, not men or women. No one. I had to work it out for myself.

Wherever I looked, I watched people organizing their reality to make themselves look good. Realized that from every human perspective, the world is revolving around whatever group the viewer belongs to. Wow. And that their entire philosophical set will exist to justify their greed and fear, while making it look noble and loving. Double wow.

Sorry, but I can’t buy into any of this crap. And that was what separated me-I had no tribe, really until I met science fiction fandom. And you all know the problems I have THERE.

Now, we’re all alone. Every one of us goes in the box by ourselves. But we deal with that reality differently. For me, every time I thought I had an answer, I assumed it was just another question, and went further.

The whole “Lifewriting” thing with balance and the Hero’s Journey and so forth, is designed to point in the direction of Truth. That Truth is ascertained by taking action, not by reading philosophy. It can be glimpsed as we try to balance our lives, but never quite put into words. Want me to try?

“There’s nothing. And that nothing is everything.” Pretty bad, huh? If you can make true sense of that, (not fortune-cookie sense) you’ve glimpsed it. If you feel a bit sad, but simultaneously exhilarated, you’ve glimpsed it. If you laugh at the cosmic joke, you’ve glimpsed it.

And that glimpse makes a mockery of black versus white, gay versus straight, male versus female, Christianity versus Islam, Right versus Left. They are all part of the same thing, the differences created by human perception, even the perception of individuality created by perception, like a snake eating its own tail. It’s a joke, the biggest joke there is.

While I’m alive in this world, I feel like I’m sitting in a movie theater watching a flick. And it’s entertaining. But I don’t buy it for a moment. Watching each side of a political argument using the same data to come to different conclusions is like watching two men argue about which side of a sandwich is better.

And yet, it doesn’t mean that, from the perspective of the game, there is not truth or “better or worse.” But you can never forget it’s a game, or you’ll go right to sleep.

One of the most interesting signs of the ability of human beings to perceive flaws in others that they cannot see in themselves is in the accusation of blind sheep-hood, made by the Left and the Right about each other.

Global Warming, according to the Right, is a boondoggle slavishly adhered to by lock-stepping eco-zombies worshiping at the church of science. No thinking person could possibly believe this crap.

Support for Iraq, according to the Left, is a mind-warp inhabited only by Bush-worshipers who can’t see the forest OR the trees, people so frozen with fear that they’ve done a horrible thing that they cannot even process the truth.

Each side is so self-righteous. Each side is employing the exact intellectual plowshares that get beaten into swords as soon as the voices get out of control…or the talking stops.

It would be sad, except that I remember that I’m just watching the show. As soon as Jason is grown, however, I’m looking for the exit. I’ve enjoyed about all of this I can stand.

No, I’m not talking suicide. That’s that life-death duality thing again. This is bigger than life and death.
##
The whole “adulthood” thing is necessary at least because only an adult can raise a child. Want to see what happens when children raise children? Look at the disintegrating aspects of the inner cities. Look at the percentage of violent criminals who never had a biological father in the home. Look at people who spend their money on depreciating goods. Watch the infomercials promising something for nothing. Watch the politicians who can sway the country by punching the fear or shame buttons, the lawyers who free murderers by playing the race card, the pundits who sell hate-speech disguised as satire.

It’s all so sad. And funny.

God, I love this life.
##
“Further” is the key. When you think you’ve got it, you don’t. If you think you’ve run out of “it” you’re close. If you can resolve those dualities, you’ve got it. As long as you know that “it” is nothing. And everything.

Isn’t this fun?

Why define adulthood?

Actually, I would say that in a perfect society, only adults would have say in adult matters. That might well include voting and holding public office. That probably isn’t achievable, however, and setting an arbitrary age standard for these things plus marriage, purchasing alcohol, running for public office, etc., is the best we can hope for.


Most traditional cultures have standards that separate the “child” from the “adult” stage. In the West, we prolong the “child” stage so that our citizens can have a more extensive education phase…but the downside is that people are easier to manipulate.

Children are to Adults as dogs are to wolves. In that sense, social organizations find it useful to prolong the childhood of a citizenry, because it makes them better cogs—easier to manipulate.

I wouldn’t think that marriage and children would be necessary for adulthood, although adulthood should be required for marriage and children. Nor would I think being independently wealthy. Willingness to be a teacher, police officer, fireman, etc. implies working within the system, but I suspect that a true adult would be “in the system, but not OF the system.” Same with artists. Only a fraction of artists will ever be “independently wealthy,” as the population as a whole has a limited degree of support available for the arts. That doesn’t mean that said artist can’t explore mature themes, concern herself with the safety of the children, and face the limitations of life and human experience without blinking.

Why define Adulthood?

I think that the concept of Adulthood is valuable because it allows us to more swiftly sort out the nature and value of perceptions, opinions and actions of those around us. If you are committed to seeking truth, it is valuable to have a way to hack through the forest of differing opinions. If I hear an opinion I am uncertain of, if the person presenting it doesn’t match my broad criteria of “adult” I am likely to discount said opinion until I hear it from someone who has a more accurate grasp of the adult world.

That certainly means I’ll miss out on some solid and reasonable information, but it also allows me to discard a mighty heap of drek. As “unfair” as it may be to sort ad hominim, it’s also saved me a gigantic amount of time and energy.

I remember checking out a spiritual teacher once who had come highly recommended. I liked his teachings immensely, but noticed that there was dysfunction among his followers:
1) They struggled for money.
2) Their physical bodies were not disciplined.
3) Their long-term relationships were in bad shape—more divorces and so forth than statistics would predict.

I kept my radar up high, and over the years watched the followers make very little psychological progress. And listened to them express frustration about their lack of spiritual growth, despite their intense and sometimes grueling work. Twenty years after exposure to these people, they are drifting away from this teacher, with a vague sense that they wasted their lives.

As “unfair” as my standards might have been, they saved me twenty years. Children follow indefinitely, because a strong leader seems confident in his teaching or leading. Children say “I’m scared. Save me!” and suspend their judgments and values.
Children still believe in Santa Claus.
I know this is a bit tautological, but adults recognize each other pretty quickly. Fortunately, they are also usually kind to children.

Why define adulthood? There are so many things wrong that are obviously the result of children playing adult games: burying themselves in credit. Having babies without taking responsibility. Stealing because you believe the myth of “fast money.” Road rage because someone “dared” to cut you off. Obesity because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions and emotions. And on and on. No, I wouldn’t want to try to legislate that the age of adulthood be tied to some standard of mine. I’m not political, and have no interest in manipulating groups to my notion of proper behavior.

I merely am interested in the path that leads to clarity, the awakened mind, and that quality referred to as “enlightenment.” Enlightenment itself involves the destruction of the ego—and right now, my ego is still tied up in being Daddy to Jason. I can’t disassemble myself without risking emotional pain to my boy, and I choose not to do that. Eternity isn’t going anywhere. I can wait.

But between the common human experience and enlightenment is this thing called “adulthood” which I believe everyone CAN aspire to. So I think it’s useful to define it, so that we can determine when we are NOT being adults, or when those around us are NOT being adults. In general, the good and lasting works in the world are created by adults—although children can follow them and contribute.

We need all the adults we can get. Enlightenment, on the other hand, isn’t particularly “useful” in a cultural sense. It encourages people to awaken from the shared consensual dream. We tend to crucify people like that.
##
There are so many martial arts because of:
1) Cultural differences in rhythm, perception, availability of tools, etc.
2) Historical differences dealing with frequency and variety of warfare, terrain, social organization.
3) Individual differences that deal with size, psychology, philosophy, available time, etc.
4) Specialized differences dealing with: emphasis on weapons, punching, kicking, grappling, aggression, defense, etc.
5) Perceptual differences dealing with: available teachers or inspirations, reality filters, religious preferences, etc.

No two human beings are exactly the same. Even in the same environment, one person might drift toward Judo while his brother studies the sword and his sister takes Karate. No one art can really encompass everything without stretching mighty thin.

What is an adult?

Back from Detroit. Was at the African Martial Arts conference, hosted by a gentleman named Kilindi. More later, but I had a fabulous time. Much of what I saw was similar to an Indonesian or Filipino art—but there was some material that was so archtypically African, so clearly extrapolated from (or evolved in parallel with) African dance forms that it opened my eyes to the way arts like Capoeira actually work (as opposed to the stuff shown to tourists.) Very serious, very lethal, very very non-Asian.
##
Flew in Sunday to do the CASANEGRA signing at Eso Won. We had a couple of hundred people there. Thanks to all of you who came out in support.
##
Got two more days to turn in the script to Fox, so this is brief. But I would love for you guys to send in questions you’d like me to answer about writing, I.F., Human Adulthood, or whatever.
##
What is an adult? Well, considering that only an adult can help a child through the rite of passage, I can hardly think of a more important question. This can be a difficult one to touch on. But clearly, an adult is one who takes responsibility for his or her own life, in all major arenas. And yes, from time to time we all blame others for stuff, but let’s just consider that a momentary failure, as long as we get back up on the horse and keep going. But there are vital distinctions.
1) Adults take responsibility for their lives and actions.
2) Adults factor the inevitability of their own deaths into their philosophies and values.
3) Adults don’t think someone is going to come and rescue them from their lives.
4) Adults can admit when they are wrong without it diminishing their sense of self.
5) Adults know that their goals must be time-bound and supported by actions: otherwise they are merely dreams.

Those are the first thoughts off the top of my head. What are your thoughts?

Eaten by our blind spots?

Had a wonderful and grueling 5-hour read-through of our “Good House” script yesterday. Had real, live actors in doing the reading, and that makes a hell of a difference…
##
Not interested in flame wars. That’s not the point of this blog at all. But I think an interesting impasse was reached a few days ago, dealing with issues like whether Bush lied, and whether there is an international consensus on the issue of man-made global warming, and if such a consensus represents “proof.” The yea or nay of it is NOT what I am talking about today.

What I’m discussing today is why wars happen. Please note that, unless people on either side of these issues are openly, consciously lying, what we apparently have is people of roughly equivalent intelligence, education, and personal responsibility (and I have no reason to think otherwise) interpreting identical information completely differently. To the point where, despite efforts to be polite (and people on this board tend to be VERY polite. Thank you!) note the comments coming to the edge of active insult and impugning of motives and intellect? Did you catch that?

What does this mean? Well, I have my own opinions about what is “true” in each of these cases, but that’s irrelevant. What IS relevant is to grasp that there is more flexibility to our apprehension of reality than most people want to admit. Want to see why people of different religions or political orientations kill each other? Why people die rather than negotiate?

Start with each side having a belief that they are the logical ones. The intelligent ones. “I just don’t understand how anyone can believe Bush lied/deny that he lied!” “I don’t see how any thinking person could join the cult of Global Warming/deny the obvious fact that scientists agree on Global Warming!”

In each case, what I suggest is that you back down, step out of the system, and generalize. What is it about human beings that makes us—ALL of us (from time to time) back into a corner, put our fur up, and support positions that make others of us, more or less identical in capacity, shake our heads in disbelief?

It is easy to see this tendency in others, and I think that everyone reading this blog believes that (on one side of the issue or the other) we’ve seen some examples of straight-out brainfreeze and groupthink. The problem is that this is probably right, but that tendency exists on both sides of any human issue imaginable.

What is the tendency? Herd think? My side is fighting for X, “Y” is also under the same tent, so I’ll support “Y”? I don’t think it’s that simple.

But do people who support the man-made Global Warming concept hate money, or industry? Not that I’ve noticed. Do those who oppose it strongly hate their children and grandchildren? Not that I’ve noticed. But the clear sense from those who have a settled position on either side is that the other side is nutty.

Divorce, war, incredibly bitter election cycles…hell, deciphering the Kennedy Assassination data, arguing over the basic nature of reality…

Don’t make the mistake of getting caught up in the “is it this or that”-ness of this discussion. There is something far more basic going on here. If on the external signs two people have equally accurate reality maps but see things completely differently, how do you explain that?

To me, it’s that a mountain can look one way from the south, and another way from the North. Some see a reality that consists of resolved dualities. Others one with absolute blacks and whites. Some believe that our inner essence governs our reality, others that it is primarily our programming and experience. But it seems clear to me that many of these basic positions exist at the unconscious level, and that they drastically effect our ability to sort reality afterward.

I’m not saying that one or the other side is “wrong.” I’m not qualified to say that. I can say I agree with one or the other position, but hell, I’ve been wrong before. Far more interesting to me is the ability to sum up the same data and reach drastically different conclusions—and then, of course, each side thinks the other is either lying or blind.

There is something here that needs discussing, and I’m actually not certain that I have described the problem adequately. I know that it is disturbing as hell that some of these issues seem to have come down to political orientation. In some cases that feels natural. In others, it’s “what the hell happened?”
##
Here’s a thought. What if, behind the scenes, there is a death-battle going on between two different and over-lapping forms of organization: political and commercial. Government and Industry. Now, the extremists on either side would like to gather all of the power in their corner. Call it Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism? Each side throws interesting fast-balls at the other. Note that in Global Warming, for instance, that each side claims that the other is swayed by money: in one case government grants, in the other, oil money. The same dragon with two different heads?

In other words, each side accuses the other of actual intellectual dishonesty.

But that wouldn’t explain why people who stand to make no direct profit (the average consumer) would take a drastic position. Are we back at herd instincts? The tendency to become rigid under pressure?

I like that one, because stress tends to conceal itself. Post 9/11 I watched a political death-struggle playing out in America, and some of the rhetoric, frankly, is alarming in its tendency to vilify. And it reminds me of bitter divorces, where each side believes the other was at fault.

More to the point, it reminds me of imbalanced people—those who have real problems with money, relationships, or their bodies, and the perfectly rational explanations they offer for why they don’t have the time or interest or capacity to have a healthy life.

We lie to ourselves to conceal pain, guilt, and greed. And then we point the finger and accuse the other side of doing exactly what we’ve done. I don’t have an answer. I just want you to look at it. Try to identify ways you’ve done this IN YOUR OWN LIFE. It is easy to see it in others. If you can’t see it in yourself, the safest assumption to make is that your blind-spot may be in danger of consuming you.

Monday Thoughts

1) I don’t believe that Bush passed along everything he got. I believe that it was filtered to reflect what he believed. The “American People” or Congress, did not have the same range of information Bush got, and therefore are not remotely as responsible for their vote. ONLY if evidence was presented to Congress contrary to the position of "Saddam has WMDs." Sorry, but I believe Richard Clark's assertion that the White House seemed set to go into Iraq from the get-go. And after he has left the White House, and no longer has so much leverage to distort and shut people up, I think that this will become clearer. It is totally possible that he believed that everything done was done for the good of America, however. Ultimately, this is between Bush and his soul. I do think that as evidence emerges, the case for him having deliberately distorted and filtered information will do nothing but get stronger.
2) It is certainly possible that torture resulted in information, available no other way, that saved American lives. Yes. It is possible. But I’ve seen no evidence to suggest torture works better than other methods, and some to suggest that it is inferior—but DOES appeal to the righteous and revenge-seeking part of our personalities.
3) Tananarive, Blair and I will be signing CASANGEGRA at EsoWon books in Leimert Park from 3-5 next Sunday. Tananarive and Blair are going to be there too—don’t miss it! 4331 Degnan Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90008 323-290-1048 website: http://esowon.booksense.com email: esowon@sbcglobal.net
4) I don’t think its racist to suggest that a country isn’t ready for Democracy. It would be racist to say that “those people will NEVER” be ready, or to suggest that there is something intrinsic to their genetics. If you believe that a child adopted out of Iraq and raised in America would be pretty much just another kid, then racism isn’t the issue. To suggest that there are developmental stages that a people have to move through to be ready for Democracy, and that they are still operating at a tribal level (for instance) isn’t racist in my mind, although there are people who will say it is.
5) Tyler Perry’s new movie “Why Did I Get Married?” opened at the #1 position with 21 million dollars. Critics wonder why, when the films are admittedly clunky and populist. I offer an explanation: ask what they are offering that their intended audience hungers for. If you haven’t eaten in a week, you’ll swallow a sandwich with sand in it. I’ve yet to see this one, but will.
6) The blogosphere is buzzing about Al Gore's Nobel Prize win. The most often quoted objection I see has to do with the British judge who had 9 (0r 11) points of contention with the film "An Inconvenient Truth." He requested that the substance of those objections be offered to British students watching the film. All across the Internet (and I heard it first on El Rushbo) this was described as "Eleven Lies" in the film. But the thing that disturbed me was that the judge also said that the content of the film was "substantially accurate." Excuse me? If you trust this judge enough to quote him, doesn't it hit you that if the content of the movie is "substantially accurate" then this is a frightening and dire situation, worthy of rapid action? I literally don't understand. To say "yes, anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis with growing support. But we don't no quite what to do yet" might be a responsible reaction. But denial? That seems like some kind of odd death wish--for your grandchildren. I really don't understand, and the easiest answer I can come up with is that there is a schatoma tied to political position, a sort of: "don't give the Left an inch" mindset that even obscures doomsday scenarios. This is kind of frightening, actually.

Z is for...Zero Tolerance

Dear %$firstname$%,


Z is for…Zero Tolerance

For sloth. For dishonesty in your writing. For the
voices in the back of your head that tell you
you’re not good enough. One of my students
is ex-military, a man who has been and done
in more dangerous theaters of war than he
can ever tell a civilian about. In discussing
writing with him, he confessed that he is
totally frozen by comparing himself to the
masters he admires: Faulkner, Hemingway,
Shakespeare, Dickens. He just can’t get past
the voices. This man, who has lived for decades
in a world where the slightest mistake could
cost him dearly, is up agains the fight of his life.
As I’ve said before, one of the smartest men
I’ve ever known said that if you only had two
things to maximize your chances of success in life, they would be
1) Well defined, written goals and
2) The ability to take action despite the
voices in your head.

And what would be a fine goal? How about
1000 words a day. And watching one movie
a week, while reading the script? Or reading
10,000 words a day. Somewhere in there
is a damned fine goal, one which will get
you to your optimum function in just a few years.

As for the voices in your head, you need to
integrate some form of meditation,
contemplation, exercise or activity that
allows you to either shut up the voices,
or separate yourself from them. Prayer.
Playing music. Dancing until you reach
second wind. There are many techniques,
and you’ll need to find one that works for you.
The point of these twenty-six mini-lessons
is to give you an overview of a set of skills
and attitudes that can help you reach your
goals as a writer—whether you want to
write books, stories, or for the screen.
The truth is that you’re going to have to
develop new skills. To work like a field
hand. To deal with disappointment, fear,
fatigue, and betrayal. To learn something
new every day, and to overlearn those
skills until you have them integrated
at the level of unconscious competence.

It is a long road. Start walking!

Bush and Clinton—separated at birth?

Regardless of which you hold in more esteem, there is an interesting way in which these two former presidents (oops! Did I say that? I must be engaging in a bit of wish fulfillment…) have accomplished the exact same thing: degrading the English language. I mean, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and “We do not Torture” are functionally exactly the same kind of sentences. Both are based on the fact that no word exists in a vacuum, that no word means exactly the same thing to two different people, and that there must be an intent to honest communication between speaker and listener.

Clinton took advantage of a linguistic peculiarity I’d noticed maybe twenty years ago. That is that, among a wide swath of Southerners I’ve known, the term “sexual relations” means, specifically, genital intercourse. Everything else, and I mean everything, isn’t “sexual relations.” Its oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, whatever. But the term “sexual relations”, much to my amusement, means only an act that can cause pregnancy. It was explained to me that a bride could wear white at her wedding even if she’d gone down on half the men in church. Nice image. But as soon as he said “sexual relations” I knew the game he was playing. There was no intent to honest communication. But it wasn’t exactly lying, either. That’s probably why he didn’t get convicted—too many of the men and women in Congress understood the game.

Now, Bush has defined “torture” as something very, very specific, allowing him to say “America does not torture.” To my knowledge, his definition was not the generally accepted definition prior to 9/11—in other words, if someone had done those things to our soldiers, we sure as hell would have defined it as torture. And the Geneva Convention certainly seems to define it that way. But nonetheless, by using that definition, and sticking to it, there is a queasy echo of the Clinton testimony. No intend to communicate honestly. But not exactly a lie, if he really believes that. Does he? I can’t read his mind. I know what I think, but I can’t prove it. So those who love him have their wiggle room, their gray zone. Just as Clinton’s fans did.

Sigh. I hate politics. I really, really do.
##
A student who has been in personal crisis for a while was advised to try the “Fear Removal” process. He started by saying that he pretty much couldn’t find anything he was afraid of. Then he dug deeper:

“I've got it.

My greatest, deepest and most secret fear is of finding that I am correct in my
internal assertion that I am completely inconsequential. Of not mattering to
anyone or not having any purpose. (even though I do understand now that purpose
is all internal, nothing external could ever really 'create' purpose for me, its
all in how I decide to act)

It's why I stopped writing, it's why I can't connect with my kids or my wife,
it's why I won't pursue an obvious increase in pay and happiness by doing my own
business. It's why I started drinking and stopped bodybuilding.

I have slowly convinced myself that in the scheme of my own life I don't matter.


Hell it was easy. I tend to allow people to ignore me anyway so making the
intuitive leap from - ignore = doesn't count - wasn't a stretch at all.

It also explains the disconnect within my own feelings. If I don't matter, then
neither does how I feel. It becomes a self-fulfilling cycle.

Hmm. Lots of work to do yet...

I'm not going to try the exercise yet; the stuff above came to me while
meditating.”

##
This is excellent, excellent work. He is very close to the core, existential realization of “nothingness” that lives at the center of so much of our damage, hate, and anger. My advice: do NOT try to deal with this directly. He’s not balanced and focused enough to take that ride and keep his sense of priorities and dynamism in this world.

Can you deal with extinction of ego and not decrease your motivation, joy of life, ability to express love? Can you grasp the non-dualistic position that nothing and everything are two sides of the same coin? I don’t’ blame you if you can’t. But until or unless you can, best to stay away from that edge of the reality map. Don’t pry it up.

Start with self-love and self-esteem. The ability to live to give love and support to others, and then learning to accept it as well. The BOTTOM of Maslow’s hierarchy, up to the 4th Chakra. When ALL four bottom chakras are lit up, then you have a foundation to lead to full and honest expression, deepening your grasp of reality, and finally letting go of all material expectations and surrendering to spirit.

Try to do these things without proper rooting, and many people spiral into despair, disconnection, and even a bizarre “spiritual amorality.” Hell, you could be an enlightened serial killer. No joke. So…first root. Then grow.

To my student: damned good work.

Do Homeless People Enjoy Being Homeless?

“Across The Universe” (2007)

Anyone who grew up with the Beatles and remembers the dreadful “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” film could help but have serious reservations about Julie Taymor’s ode to the 60’s, a psychdelic extravaganza like nothing I’ve seen in a decade or more…certainly not since Foreman’s film version of “Hair.” Weaving several stories together, and featuring archetypes more than characters (the radical chick, the immigrant Brit, the antiwar draftee, the Black Guitar Hero, the Rock Goddess) traversing a map of 60’s America—drugs, war, class struggle, racial strife, musical transformation, political activism and more—using the Beatles songbook. Because the songs are used (roughly) in order of their actual composition, it is fascinating to see the progression from simpl love songs and bouncy dance ditties to meditations on reality and sanity itself (Goo goo goo Joob!) and there is a use of the phrase “she’s so heavy” that made me laugh louder and harder than I have in months. Ultimately, though, I think this is the kind of movie that you either get, or you don’t. I got it, and loved it. Be warned—it’s a mind-bender, and the narrative is secondary to the emotional threads woven by the music itself. For most viewers, a “B.” For old Beatlemaniacs like me, an “A.”
##
A reader opined that America provides the basic services I suggested that we should provide as a safety net. He didn’t state whether he thought this was a good idea, but shall we assume he does? If so, all I’m saying is that these basic services provide a foundation from which an even more gracious, successful and dynamic society. Now, I think that this belief of mine is rooted in a basic sense of what human beings are—and at the most basic level, you can’t come to any universal conclusions. This stuff has been debated for thousands of years, and we ain’t gonna settle it here. I WILL say that I think our attitudes about these things relates to our basic sense of self. What we think WE are. And that the things inside ourselves we like the least we project onto others.

I believe (and I try very hard to label these opinions of mine AS opinions, rather than “facts”) that people on average aren’t “good” or “bad” but rather trying to move away from pain and toward pleasure. And as the levels of abstraction grow more complex, we tend to learn to cooperate to get what we want, to give and receive affection, to learn to be honest. In other words, we learn to do the things which are considered “good.” We want to survive.

But it seems to me that the average person is capable of performing, accepting or justifying horrors, given the right (wrong) situation. The more I researched slavery, the more it seemed clear to me that slave owners, and their neighbors, were just ordinary people who saw an economic necessity. And because of that necessity, they supported or participated in a system which inevitably led to murder, torture, rape, and brainwashing on a stupendous scale. I know their descendants. I’ve read letters and speeches by the people who profited by slavery directly or indirectly. The people who fought to maintain it, even if they didn’t own a slave (most Southern whites did not). Utter, raving horror. And people had to be in SERIOUS denial about its effects, create an entire mythology suggesting that blacks were sub-human, in order to justify the institution they felt they needed.

Evil actions. Evil people? Not in my mind. Most of the time, just people doing what they felt they needed to do to get by. I’m sorry, but I see human nature as damned flexible, that the standards and ethics we’re programmed with in childhood—explicitly (by parents, schools, churches) or implicitly (by observing the actions of the society around us.) determine our behaviors and beliefs to a degree most people would be terrified to admit.

Do homeless people enjoy being homeless? I had a friend say that he’d researched this, and found a world of hustlers and con-artists who “enjoy the life” on the streets. All right. I’ve had to rescue friends from homelessness, and that was certainly not my experience. Perhaps it would be more useful to say: “I believe that X percentage of homeless people are on the street because they consciously refuse to “play the game” of society” What would that percentage be?

All of these discussions really come back to the question of how shall we live together in society. And that question rests on the beliefs we have about human nature, what is it that we are. “What is Man that thou art mindful of him.” My position is that we are one family, that the evil we see in others is a reflection of what we fear in ourselves. THAT is why I say the things I say, and I’m very clear on that. To have less compassion would be to begin to judge the injustices I see in the world—and in history—in a very different way. I won’t go there. Wouldn’t be healthy.

Prison amenities and Maslow's Hierarchy

“"But then they'll shoot you back!" I can expect you to reply. But, you're postulating a situation where I'm sitting here minding my own business and somebody else demands my subsidies on the basis that they're able to hit me in the head. Notice the asymmetry of that situation; also notice that mostly what I want is to be left alone, and that the threat of violence on my part is a response to the threat of violence towards me and my loved one that you're invoking. So, big whoop. You want to impress me, start by making an argument that doesn't begin by treating mugging as a morally neutral phenomenon.”
##
You miss my point. Anyone who would consciously shoot you—or anyone in the head, or demand “money with menaces” is the last person I would want to pay off. But in most of the industrialized world, we DON’T execute people. So say: “crack you over the head with a pipe, and then run to the police.” Now you’re still stuck—we’re not going to execute someone for putting you in the hospital, and doing so wouldn’t make it a better world, in my opinion.

What would? Certainly some people need to be locked away (and if it were really possible for it to be fair, capital punishment seems a sound idea in many cases) and that includes, as I said, anyone who would have the basic necessities of life and still contemplate violence.

But how many good, decent, honest people would steal if they were hungry? If their children were hungry? I think that the average person, pushed far enough by hunger, would certainly steal. And the instant you decide to steal, you risk having to do violence to back that up.

The ability to kill, to steal, to take by whatever means the substance necessary to maintain life is probably in 99% of the human beings on this planet. When we perceive others as being of the “Other” tribe it gets easier. You make a sociopath at least partially by completely withholding affection and connection early in life. Obviously this is a bell curve. Some people won’t break down into criminal action, no matter what. And others won’t be good citizens no matter what.

But I think that most of us are somewhere in the middle. Most would kill to defend family and friends. And if society broke down, the rules by which one decides what is “us” and what is not get mighty fluid.

Take the average person and put them under perceived threat and they’ll o.k. a government’s plan to bomb strangers, even given the statistical certainty that innocent people will die. Those who feel the system works for them often have a difficult time believing that anyone could think otherwise.

I’d guess that 80% of people would steal if you denied them food for two days. They would try to keep violence out of it, but if you tried to jail everyone who WOULD commit violence if hungry and frustrated, I think there would be more people in jails than outside them.

Nature says some percentage of people will be bad, no matter what. Nurture says that the majority of otherwise good and decent human beings, if they believe themselves to be in a no-man’s-land where there are no rules, will revert to the law of the jungle. Again, they may not WANT to hurt you, but if you are between them and the food they need, or the food their child needs, someone is going to be hurt.

This doesn’t mean that they are bad, or that human nature is bad. It means that the gentler tendencies, the spiritual tendencies, the civilized and intellectual tendencies, are based on a foundation of survival, security, and satisfaction of basic physical hungers. That’s Maslow’s Heirarchy.

It takes a saint to remain true to higher values when it seems that cheats and robbers and dominators are getting rich. You don’t want to go down that road.

A huge amount of civilization, I think, is designed to channel the basic aspects of human nature into higher stages. And there are damned good selfish reasons to engage in charity. Not only is it good for its own sake, but it helps remind those who receive it that there is good in Mankind.

When I say that I feel we will have raised up a notch in our level of society when we provide those basic benefits it is because I think that caring for the least among us is a healthy thing in every way. I believe that human beings given love and safety during early development are far, far more likely to develop into healthy adults. And that providing a security net helps people feel that they have not fallen off the edge of the world, into a place where law and morality seem to be lies created to keep an unfair social order in place.

I don’t want that. I feel that it increases my chances of living to a ripe old age, and my children being the same, if no sane person needs to crack my head to get food and shelter. That still leaves the crazy and the bad, but you know something? I think that is actually a pretty small percentage of humanity.

Most of the rest? Bad reality maps.

What do the Haves owe the Have-Nots?

“Different people have different likes when it comes to job styles, and it's been my personal experiences that teaching attracts a certain type of person; usually not the go-go-go competition-competition type. Some people might fear that rewarding teachers based upon results could change their job into the type of job they never wanted to have.

That's not to say that their preferences are more important than giving the best education possible to the students, just that that info may be useful to understand the position of the teaching unions.
Mike R”
##
Yep, this precisely matches my sense of teachers. Considering that I am almost pitifully grateful to some of the teachers I’ve had over the course of my life, I also feel that they are less competitive than the average person. All I care about is their ability to function so as to transmit data, experience, and maturity to students. And the fact that the best and worst teachers get paid about the same drives me nuts.

So I agree about the teacher’s unions being problematic. Of course, being a balance freak, I’d feel obligated to point out that the management structure is likely to be just as big a problem.

Here’s another underyling problem I have. And this is PURE thought experiment. Remember my position that

1) I see Liberals being more Nurture over Nature, and Conservatives more Nature over Nurture?
2)Combine this with the natural human tendency to selfishness (present in all human beings, regardless of political orientation) and 3) the tendency of people to try to justify their actions to themselves and others. (Prime example: slavery. The institution per se was less ruinous than the justifications. Rather than saying “we did this to you because we could” it was “we did this to you because you are natural slaves, and it’s GOOD for you.” That was hellaceously more poisonous, and the repercussions lasted for generations. They’re still operating.)

Now remember: I’m not saying the following is true. I’m saying that it is an honest representation of the way I think, presented for your amusement.
##

All right. Now, since the majority of the people I’ve heard promoting Voucher programs are Conservative in general politics, I am automatically looking for traces of the Nature before Nurture position. I ask myself: why might someone who believes that some groups defined by race or ethnicity to be superior or inferior to others promote such an idea? Since it feels to me that Conservatives are consistently pushing for lower taxes, reduced “entitlements” and smaller centralized government, if every human being automatically tries to maximize advantage to whatever they perceive “their” social class to be, wouldn’t it be reasonable that there would be a core of Americans who believe that:
1) Some people are more educable than others.
2) Whites happen to be better at this.
3) Blacks (my own personal interest is showing here) are worse at this.
4) That innate capacity is the hidden factor in the failure of inner-city schools, the “elephant in the living room” that no one has the courage to talk about.

Now, according to things I’ve said, where do I think you will find the majority of people who think this way? On the Right. And if you thought this way, and were in favor of vouchers, is the real point to equalize the performance of these children? How could that be true if you don’t believe that they are intrinsically capable of parity?

Now, the majority of Conservatives I’ve met seem to believe in the equality of human beings…but I have to admit that it seems that they have to work to remind themselves of their position. They tend to shade toward the Republic aspect of the “Democratic republic” equation—that some are more suited to make decisions than others.

In truth, I think anyone who has been in the world will notice that, indeed, some people are more capable than others. The question is what you think is responsible for this—in individuals, or in groups. And we can take the difference between the Right and Left in this regard to be however small a percentage tendency that you wish—but I do feel that I detect it, and have in countless conversations, articles, and speeches over the years.

So…no one I’ve heard speaking of Vouchers seems to believe that this will be MORE expensive than the current system. So the natural conclusion is to think that people think it will be less of a tax burden.

The more money you have, the less dependent you are on public education, at least for your own kids. And the more the average person will think it a burden to pay for services you yourself don’t need. But almost NO ONE will come straight out and say “I don’t give a crap about other people—I’ve got mine and I’m keeping it.” Even really mean people will justify their greed.

So I see a situation where part of the group promoting vouchers will be people who:
1) Believe Government should do as little as possible
2) Taxes should be non-existent
3) Blacks have less innate capacity, and this genetic roadblock is actually responsible for the failure of inner-city schools.

If this group is only 5% of the Right (let’s say. And remember that I believe that there are also equally poisonous attitudes on the Left. They just don’t hit my personal buttons in quite the same way) can you detect their rhetoric? Can you hear the code words when they speak publicly?

Remember, my base contention is that the average person has a 5-15% prejudicial affinity for (and exalted opinion of) “their” group, and that 5-15% of people have a seriously stronger affinity that might be labeled “prejudiced” or “bigoted.” Where is their interest in all of this? What tent are they in?

Now, please remember that I clearly labeled this my own personal speculation, with the understanding that NONE of this means that the Voucher concept can’t work, or that the majority of its adherents have anything other than positive intentions. It means that these are the reasons that the hair on the back of my neck stands up:
1) I see no reason to believe that commercial interests are more ethical or effective in serving the disadvantaged. This simply doesn’t match the shoddy services and predatory lending practices I’ve seen all my life.
2) People who seem to be prone to “us-themism” in one arena are, in my opinion, more likely to make the same kinds of judgments in others. Racism is so un-PC that no one this side of David Duke will cop to it publicly. But its still there, still virulent.
3) The rich will tend to side with the rich, the poor with the poor. Does this mean that, considering my background, I would take a position disadvantageous to the wealthy? And if so, would this be fair? Well, the way I look at it is that a more basic level of Maslow’s Hierarchy trumps a higher level. Survival trumps self-expression. If a wealthy person says that they have no obligation to pay taxes to provide health care or other entitlements, I can get where they’re coming from. But I look at the most stable and healthy societies as those in which everyone feels that there is an investment in the health of said society. And a wealthy person who can’t purchase a Picasso is not, in my mind, as disadvantaged as a poor one who can’t get medical care for their child. The two positions are not equivalent, in my mind. Note that it is this kind of reasoning that leads me to support Israel—not that the Palestinians are not getting the short end of the stick, but that the Israelis, as Jews, have only that one little piece of land. Whereas the Palestinians, as Muslims, have a vastly larger selection of places to live where they are the majority. To deny the Jews Israel is almost like saying “I don’t care if you live or die.” And to say that is to give permission to exit the community of civilized nations, and do whatever the hell you want.

How does this play out in life? I think that we will have evolved to the next level as a society when we see we can afford to offer every citizen the level of medical care, education and basic amenities that they would get in a state prison. Since all they have to do to get it is break your head, isn't it best to cover these basic necessities? I think that we all have a capacity for evil and violence. Love and nurturance early in life helps prevent sociopathic behavior. On the societal level, showing "Lifestyles of the rich" while claiming we can't afford school lunch programs fosters a sense than those who benefit most from our society just don't give a damn. And if they don't, what is the motivation for reciprocal courtesy? Don't most people obey the law because they believe it to be in their own self-interest? If you think the deck is stacked, don't you leave the game or kick the table over? I have NEVER seen human beings behave in any other way.

##

The natural human tendency to think that “your” group is better, to hold onto everything you can get, and to try to make selfishness look like enlightenment, can cloud the water.

I believe that the people writing on this topic on this blog are being honest about their position. That they believe that Vouchers will be the best for the children, and for society. I freely offer that.

But I started life hearing politicians--and the general public-- openly taking racist positions, and being driven slowly underground. And I sure as hell don’t think people don’t think that way anymore. They just don’t TALK that way. And I know I’m hypersensitive.

My fear: I see a situation where Vouchers are distributed, funded with tax dollars. Followed by the natural tendency of money and services to be superior in advantaged neighborhoods. And as for people who claim that poor people will shuttle their kids around to the better schools…well, to put it bluntly, if they were that savvy, they wouldn’t be likely to be poor. That’s kind of like saying that there are tax breaks for the poor written into the codes…but they’re written in such legalese that your chances of finding them without an accounting degree are pretty slim. Down the road, as the march toward privatization, smaller government and lower taxes increases, what do I fear? The natural human tendency toward “I want to keep as much of what I have as I can” kicks in, and the tax money allotted for vouchers is nibbled away. I mean, rich people didn’t need it in the first place, right? And excuse me for being naïve, but are there many poor people writing and passing laws?

So…the question of Privatization versus State-run schools will really only be settled in a generation or so. And if in the process of that, the school system, starved of a larger chunk of its income, buckles and snaps, and down the road someone says: “oops! This isn’t working!” the gap between the have’s and have-nots will have widened dramatically. And it will be terribly difficult to build the public schools back up again.

And meanwhile, it looks an awful lot as if the other countries out-competing us are using public education just fine. And the majority of the successful human beings I’ve known came out of public education. And yes, private schools DO provide extra value—that’s why people are willing to pay the extra money. But would they provide it if they weren’t operating as a “value added” commodity? That I don’t know.

Smelling rancid milk in inner-city supermarkets REALLY makes me doubt it, though.
##
In my mind, what I WOULD like to see is a few towns in each state trying Vouchers. Wait ten years. See what happens. If it works, expand the program. Otherwise, if you want to increase the efficiency of schools, you need to
1) Create a metric to measure the efficiency of schools, programs, and individual teachers.
2) See which schools, systems, and teachers are “best.”
3) Specifically contrast them with the “worst” to isolate the attitudes, strategies and actions that produce the positive results.
4) Get the creators of these programs, the administrators of the systems, and the best teachers together to synthesize their approach into something that can be replicated.
5) Implement this.

Now, given such a metric, it would be easy to determine, for instance, if private schools are better than public, religious than secular, small than large, etc. Does money make a difference? Personal philosophy?


Now, I openly admit that my position is that environment is the critical factor in the non-performance of inner city schools. But I also believe that a big chunk of that environment has to do with parents who don’t provide a healthy, safe, emotionally balanced situation at home. Who feed their kids crap, don’t provide a two-parent household, don’t read, and program their children with buggy social software.

Do the Haves have responsibility to the Have-Nots? I think most people would say yes, within limits. But grasp that if you secretly believe that minorities simply aren’t as capable as whites, that the key strategy would be to stop “wasting” money on programs to achieve the “impossible.” You probably wouldn’t phrase it that way, but isn’t that what you’d do?

Esowon Bookstore needs your help

Esowon bookstore in the Leimert Park area of Los Angeles is having the same troubles independent bookstores across the country have faced for years. Specializing in black-themed material, Esowon has been a friend for a long long time. If any of your friends or family would appreciate books dealing with art, history or drama of the African Diaspora, I’d suggest stocking up for Christmas now, and doing your shopping at this fine small store.
##
I find myself grimly amused that many of the same people who are stalwart Nationalists also seem to believe that Privatization is the way to go. That’s odd to me. Give more power to corporate interests? Unfettered capitalism? Privatize the Military? School vouchers? Sure.

But do you really think that Corporations give a rat’s ass about national boundaries? Aren’t they eager to place their assets offshore? Go wherever labor is cheapest, natural resources most plentiful, and taxes lowest? Multinational corporations are, I think, one of the strongest forces that will reduce the primacy of governments as geopolitical forces. Hell, they’ve even got their own armies now. And they are composed of the same rapacious human beings that run governments. With no allegiance to anything except increasing return. Go ahead. Turn over your security and education to the very powers most antagonistic to the concept of government. Watch and see what happens.

Are you gonna say “oops!?” or what..?
##
I tried something a little different last week: running and FlowFit. Decided I wanted to ramp up my cardio a little. Tananarive has been running at a little track a few minutes’ walk from the house, so I could combine fitness and a bit of family time. Cool. But I decided to do one rep of FlowFit for ever lap. This is because my Bruiser Gama Cast Work is intense now (9 sets of 12 reps, starting one set every 120 seconds) and I could feel that the 15 sets of FF were, in combination with my other work, pushing the edge of recovery a little much. But what if I combined them with running..?

Well…it felt strange. Really, really strange. FF does odd things to your breathing, contracting and twisting your body in every which way. It is a really odd interruption of the rhythm you’re trying to develop for running, and heightens the exertion considerably. On the other hand…due to Coach Sonnon’s rather brilliant choreography, FF takes your body through the “Six Degrees of Freedom” that break the chains of emotional and physical stress. So it’s like stretching once a lap. Without letting your heartbeat calm completely. So there is also an aspect of the Tabata protocol, known as one of the most efficient means of increasing cardio fitness. That is: wind sprints.

Also, of course, running is primarily a lower-body activity. FF 2 engages the upper body considerably, evening out the level of stress, allowing you to push your heart while under a lower perceived level of exertion.

I have no idea where this is going, just thought I’d report back that the effects were really odd. I felt different—good different—all day. More powerful at yoga. More focused on my work. Placebo effect, maybe. But my entire body felt extremely compact, light, energetic, and flexible. Very strange for a single exercise to shift that much subjective experience.

I’m just scratching the surface here, of course, but it sure felt interesting.
##
Steve Perry wondered what Bruce Lee’s speed would do against Serak’s phenomenal use of center line. It always depends upon the relative skill of the practitioners, of course, but assuming the defender has the ability to attack with smooth explosive and penetrative precision, then unless the attacker also has a fine sense of center line, I would expect Serak to do just fine. The Serak player’s job would be to keep that floating center line active, so that the attacker can’t change lines and angles to nullify the advantage: you can’t be a static fortress, or you’ll get flanked.

But then, it’s a paper-rock-scissors world, isn’t it? As Bruce slowed with age, timing and positioning would HAVE to compensate. We know he had Wing Chun, and sufficient practical experience to learn whatever he needed to know. And advanced experts in any martial art start looking more and more alike in approach.

Different roads up the same mountain, as it were.

How much waterboarding...?

So the memo comes to light specifying what techniques can be used to extract information. I doubt it will convince anyone one way or the other. But I am flat certain that if these identical techniques were being used against OUR servicemen, anyone who claimed it wasn't torture would be thought an insane liar.
##

Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

That was the United Nations. How about the American Heritage dictionary:

“1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

tr.v., -tured, -tur·ing, -tures.

1. To subject (a person or an animal) to torture.
2. To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). See synonyms at afflict.
4. To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.”

Wow! That last definition sounds to me EXACTLY like what the Bush administration has done to make Waterboarding not a “torture.” And remember: this is the stuff that they’ll put down on paper. Do you really believe that people don’t exceed their given limits under stress? You have to build in a safety tolerance, knowing that going over the line 5-10% can be absolutely expected. Trying to pretend that’s not true is just naive.

To those who say that torture is only sufficient damage to cause death or organ failure, I can only say: really? Cutting off your toes one at a time, putting a blowtorch to a woman’s breasts, slicing the skin off someone’s stomach and rubbing salt in the wounds…none of these things are torture? I can’t believe that you believe this. I have to think that some people’s terror of death is so gigantic that they are willing to do ANYTHING to save their bodies, even if it costs their souls.

And those folks will not consider the techniques allowed to be torture, no matter what I say. Fine. But answer me one question:

Even if his precious legacy was at stake, how much waterboarding do you think it would take to get Bush to say it WAS torture?