"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "Forbidden Kingdom"

ﾠ

"FORBIDDEN KINGDOM" (2008)

ﾠI really only have one complaint with this movie: why couldn't it have been made ten years ago? Jackie Chan and Jet Li are past their peak...but still, arguably, better than anyone in the world. Yes, it's a mash-up of every convention of Chinese martial arts epics, and yes, it is Americanized as hell (what would you expect? It's our money. It has to appeal to our audiences. And at 55 million dollars, the box office for "Crouching Tiger" would barely break even--and trust me, this is no "Crouching Tiger.") Micheal Angorano ("Sky High") plays a kung-fu obsessed teenager who must return a sacred staff to the legendary Monkey King in a mythical, magical Imperial China. Along the way he meets a drunken-style indigent (Jackie Chan, who also plays an elderly shopkeeer) and a mysterious monk (Jet Li, who also plays the Monkey king). Look, this isn't the very best of Chinese cinema. But I promise you it's better than LOTS of Chinese epics I enjoyed the hell out of as a boy. And they put honest effort into it. Angorano is a decent actor, and actually moves with a bit of physical fluidity (he compares quite favorably with Keanu Reeves, trained by the same team for "Matrix").

ﾠAnd as for Jackie and Jet. Look. Life isn't perfect. But the chance to see them together is infinitely more satisfying than watching the few moments of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly dancing together ("That's Enertainment: Part 2" and the "Babbit and the Bromide" sketch in "Zigfield Follies"). And the comparison is apt. Jet is Astaire--he is the superior martial artist. Jackie Chan is Kelly--who wasn't the dancer Astaire was, but actually made the better, more creative movies. Jackie is simply one of God's gifts, and the fact that we finally got these guys together, wire work and CGI and all, is a miracle. I was grinning like a fool. Yes, they're older, but they move PERFECTLY. And any human performance at that level is a joy to behold.

ﾠI understand there was more of a romantic subtext between Angorano and a gorgeous Chinese girl seeking revenge for the death of her family (Liu Yi Fei), which was excised. Good. Frankly, if he'd kissed her it would have irritated me no end, considering how Jet and Jackie have been emasculated in American film. But by removing that element, I was able to relax and watch this cultural event with perhaps a lingering regret that it couldn't have been better...but a realization that were the shoe on the other foot, I doubt the Chinese would have been better at saluting an eccentric American art form.

ﾠWhatever its failings, "Forbidden Kingdom" is obviously a labor of love with two actual geniuses at play. You don't see much of that these days. Actually, you never saw much of that, ever. For someone like me, this fantasy adventure earns an "A". For a typical American audience, probably a "B". For a Chinese audience, probably a "C" and for stickler purists who are offended by anything less than perfection...maybe a "D+"

Nicki and ﾠI had a hell of a time. Jason is gonna LOVE this.
##
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (2008)

ﾠ

This latest comedy from uber-producer Judd Apatow (40-Year-Old Virgin, etc.) is written by, and stars Jason Segel as Peter Bretter, a television composer for the seedy cop show that stars his girlfriend, the eponymous Sarah Marshall. When she breaks up with him for being a slacker (hilariously) he pretty much melts down, ultimately seeking solace in a Hawaiian vacation, where he ends up in the room next to...his ex and her rock-star boyfriend. Hilarity ensues. The movie is quite raunchy, but not non-stop laugh-out-loud guffaws only. There is a touch of honesty and clarity about human relationships mixed into the stew, and a sweetness that is occasionally surprising. Very entertaining, sexy stuff, and I'll give it a solid "B".

##

WARNING: SAMBO ALERT

##

There are two black characters. One is a girl Bretter screws. The other is a grotesquely fat black man who counsels him on romance. So bizarre. The "Breeding Circle" phenomenon in full bloom: all the white guys are sexual (remarkably, athletically so), all women want to screw white men, and black men are either too fat, too old, too gay, too young, too dead, or too busy for nookie.
##
Remember that this blog is my attempt to externalize my thought patterns, a sort of internet quasi-spiritual autolysis. I don't present this as "fact", only a genuine insight into my thought processes. This is a PERFECT example of the reasoning process that leads me to reject the notion that Obama has an advantage on the basis of race.

These are my assumptions/positions:

1) Human sexuality is a deep and unconscious river. By the time you have accepted that a member of another group is having sex with a member of your group (say, your daughter or sister) without flinching, for all practical purposes, your "racist" tendencies are a non-issue.

2) Box Office in films is a good, fast-and-dirty measurement of what people are comfortable with, or want to see. It is better than surveys (where people might say what is politically correct) because movie theaters are designed to throw audiences into mild trance. The images we hunger for in this state are revelatory of deep emotional needs and desires.

3) With the single exception of a short period between about 1968-1973 when black film first matured, minorities have always been presented in films as partial human beings-specifically in the arena of sexuality. When sex is present in these films, the box office suffers. Thus, no film featuring sexual behavior in non-white males has ever earned over 100 million dollars, regardless of the fact that about 15% of 100-million plus films feature non-white male stars, and that about 25% of over-100 million movies feature sexuality. One exception to this: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon."

4) Because the filmmakers in Hollywood come from all over the country, and because Los Angeles is one of the most diverse areas in the country, and due also to personal experience traveling and working around the country, I completely reject the notion that Hollywood is more racist than America as whole. I actually find that notion almost comical. The results of the box office, over the thirty years I've been watching, match my social experience...and have allowed me to actually predict box office performance.

Add these things up. Remember I said that "If Will Smith can't get laid, Obama can't get elected?" The reverse is true: "If Obama can get elected, Will Smith can get laid" (in a movie). This means that I acknowledge that public acceptance might lead the (economically conservative) decisions that drive the movie industry. My guess right now is that Smith COULD get laid in a movie, and still get it across 100 million. But that it would hurt the box office of his NEXT film. Is this cynical? Well, if you'd been right in your predictions about something as painful as this for more than half your life, you might be cynical too.

So then, while I can see that it is POSSIBLE for things to have changed, my whole life I've talked to white people who say "gee, Steve, you're behind the times..." based pretty much on wishful thinking. And not one of them had noticed the sex thing. Which makes me think that there are countless other, subtler clues and cues they miss as well. Point these things out and they get depressed: "gee. I'd hoped things have changed. What can I do?" I've heard variations on these two sentences countless times.
Because of these statistics, and the fact that whites are oblivious to it until their noses are actively rubbed in it (I'm sure men can be this way about women's issues, straights that way about gay issues, etc: if you're winning, you don't ask if the deck is stacked) I listen to someone say "Obama has an advantage because he's black" and it makes about as much sense as saying "he has an advantage because he's Muslim" or "he has an advantage because he's a Junior Senator." Given my other belief systems and observations, it would make sense that my position is: "no, in all probability, he's where he is DESPITE these things. And that without those disadvantages, he would have smashed Clinton out of the race months ago. His advantage is that a large number of people see him as extraordinarily intelligent, charismatic, and uncommonly honest and direct. I think that most of those who disagree disagree not because they are racist, but because individual perceptions make the world look different to different people. I think that the Ann Coulter-ish belief that people who think him extraordinary are lowering their standards because he's black are exactly as reasonable as people who think those who DON'T think him extraordinary hold that opinion on the basis of race.

They are your mirror: look carefully, and tell me if you like what you see.
##
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying that this is honestly what I think, and why I think it. These are the voices that buzz behind my ears. Chances are very good every black person you know has thoughts similar to this, whether they will admit it to you or not.

This stuff also seems to be consistent with my other thought patterns--it's turtles "all the way down" so to speak.
1) People who are in favor of Obama are because they have positive regard for his mind and heart, and because he "makes them feel good" (this isn't a pejorative or a complement on my part. A large stack of money makes me feel better than a small one. Ice cream makes me feel better [in the short term] than liver. Emotions can be connected to logical reasons or not).
2) People who are not for Obama feel that others surpass him in the arena of mind or emotions, making them feel good, or they do not share his vision.
3) While a higher percentage of black people probably support Obama for racial reasons than white people who reject him for racial reasons, numerically the number of whites voting against him for racial reasons would surpass the NUMBER of blacks whose votes he has won on that basis.
4) the percentage of whites who would vote for him based on race and the percentage who would vote against him on the same basis cannot be established to my satisfaction. I therefore cancel these out.
5) Since I used "blacks having sex in films" as a standard to measure when the playing field is level, and this has not happened, it would be illogical, in the absence of outside evidence, for ME to believe that Obama has an advantage based on race. It would be inconsistent with an entire rubrical architecture (is that a word) which has helped me make sense of the world most of my adult life. Not that it is CORRECT, but when you have something that allows you to predict with confidence, only a fool would discard it without solid reasons.
##

I would LOVE to think that things have changed enough for Obama to have some kind of an advantage based on race. But I see nothing, nothing at all in the culture to support that other than a lot of wishful thinking by very nice people. And a bit of venomous thinking by others who are not nice at all.

When black men have sex in movies, and white audiences come out to see it, I'll admit the playing field is level. Until then, I will extend no benefit of the doubt at all, except to believe that human beings are basically good, and motivated to evil and oppression primarily by fear. I can look at blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims, Conservatives and Liberals and love all of them from that position. Any other position seems to lead me into some pretty ugly conclusions...about everyone.

Question on Martial Arts

ﾠA student asks:

ﾠ##
Steve,

I have a question for you on physical fitness regimes. The question is when do you know that something is not working for you? I understand that part of getting to be good at anything is having the discipline to stick through the difficult and boring times, but when is it time to realize that a particular discipline or method is not working for you. I believe that you have mentioned that at some point you realized that bodybuilding wasn't a sound method for achieving a useful and healthy physical condition.

I've been training at a kempo school in XX for about a year now. Prior to that I had studied at a non-traditional self-defense school in YY for about 4-5 years until I moved to XX. While I still think that I can learn from the Instructor, who has a wealth of knowledge, it is starting to feel like a chore to me. I rarely if ever feel that I'm being pushed at during class. I'm in decent shape, by no means great (used to be, when I was in the Army, but that is another story), but I barely break a sweat in the class. There are several other schools in the immediate area that have compatible schedules and I think that I might get pushed a little more at each of them.

So, the question is, at what point do you move on to another discipline in your goal of achieving excellence (or at least "pretty-good-ity," yes that is a word) in one of the three areas? I guess this would be similar to the question of when do you get out of a relationship (spirit) or find a new job (mind)?

Your thoughts are appreciated?

G.L.

###
ﾠ

G.L.:

Your question has a lot of different strands. Let me try to wind them together. In my philosophy, the physical body should be treated with a level of importance roughly equal to relationships and career (although in actual fact my family comes first, followed by my career, followed by martial arts). This moving toward balance creates a situation where your personal flaws and demons are pretty clearly exposed, allowing you to engage with them directly and profitably.

That said, any physical activity that is wholesome and pushes you past previous limits will have a positive effect. The reason that there is no "ultimate" martial art is that there is no standardized human being, or human context. What exactly are you looking for? The Three-Dimensional Performance Pyramid (slightly adjusted) suggests that the order you should look for is:

1) Sanity
2) Health
3) Fitness
4) Skill
5) Competition

Only the first three are absolutely essential. Martial arts CAN cover this entire range (depending on the school and the instructor), but not always, or even usually. The average MA school covers 2-4, maybe 2-5. The average weekend athlete makes the mistake of concentrating on 4-5, and ends up getting injured because there is no cardio-muscular foundation to support the neurology. The result is Injuries Galore (younger sister of a certain James Bond babe, no doubt).

Understanding the relationship between stress, strain, and breathing can turn any martial art, sport or exercise into a meditation, so that's really up to you to do the supplemental research necessary to ground yourself spiritually/emotionally. So what's left is the question of physical stress and artistic or practical skill.

Let's say that you want to increase your skills, but see useful skills in multiple arts. It sounds to me like you are hungering for a discipline that will leave you pleasantly exhausted or exhilarated, dripping with sweat and with that overall "glow" after class. You'll get that from an art that twists your body through the Six Degrees of Freedom at the same time that it takes you through the gateway called "Second Wind." Achieving flow state during maximal exertion while letting your Predator mind out to play...Yowsa! Talk about a neurological cocktail!

Now, you don't have to choose a martial art based upon fitness. In fact, it is NOT optimal to try to get in shape in a martial arts class--they are too skill intensive. When fatigue climbs, skill declines. As coordination breaks down under fatigue, trying to reach a high level of fitness gets problematic. This is why most fitness activities are very simple coordination-wise: you want to be able to push into that fatigue zone even after the lactic acid has built up to the point that the muscles aren't firing perfectly any more.

So the optimal thing is to make a MA class a place to learn and express skill, rather than fitness. In other words, you go to the gym to develop fitness, and then go to the MA school to test and enjoy it.

That said, what is MOST important about any physical activity is that you do it. And the easiest way to ensure that you do it is to enjoy it. That means that the activity has to match your goals and values. That you have clarity on what YOU want out of it, and to the degree possible, EVERY TIME YOU GO, you get both what you want and what you need.

So...if I read you right, you want a wringer of a workout. You have the right to get what you want. As long as your body can handle it, then, look for something that fits the "feel" that you desire.

One exception: if you have a history of quitting things half-way through, be careful: this might be a way for your mind to trick you into quitting something that would change you. ANY time you approach an activity that triggers deep change, your ego will fight back. If this behavior is NOT part of your history: hell, you're a grown-ass man. Find a school where the students move the way you'd like to move. Where they form a community that you would be proud to join, and their bodies look the way you'd like your body to look. There should be people of approximately the same age. If there are women there, they should be treated with respect, as if, pound-for-pound, they are as dangerous as the men (there are multiple reasons for this, not just Political Correctness).

To finally answer your question: leave a school when it no longer matches your goals or values.

Have fun!

Kinesthetics and Visuals

ﾠ

ﾠ

Two weeks ago I finally put the last piece into place with my new exercise program. The thing is that I wanted to use the Gama Cast Century, but found that the DOMS was brutal. I not only needed to solidify my weekly yoga practice, but to include yoga as a daily "capper" to my sessions, jsut to de-pressurize the tissues and realign my joints. Finding the 15-minute Ashtanga routine was simply GREAT. It seriously reduced the amount of soreness. Now, by Saturday I'm ready for a day off, but that's why God made Sundays, after all. The point is that in the two weeks since I've started grooving the new routine (which incorporates yoga, martial arts, Bruiser Clubbell, Jump rope, and FlowFit in varying configurations, as well as the 'Legendary Abs" routine) I've seen that soreness is general rather than localized, there is no joint pain, I can easily feel when it's time to take a day off, and I love what I see in the mirror. More on this in six weeks or so...

##

Working on "Night of the Heat" today, and then on the jacket copy for "Shadow Valley" and then back to the "Good House" script. Definitely a juggling act.

##

And in the midst of this, family stuff. Parent-teacher conference at Jason's preschool. Everything seems to be fine. I've got a summer internship lined up for Nicki (who is on the Dean's List again. Yea!) and so that plate doesn't seem to be wobbling at the moment.

##

It looks like I'm going to Worldcon this year. Anybody out there attending?

##

I noticed that Obama has something in common with Bush: they both seem to process information kinesthetically. His "umms" and "ahhhs" before answering, as well as his tendency to look down as he pauses before answering questions, is a hallmark of someone with this style. Bush does much the same thing...which in combination with his malaprops gives the impression of being less intelligent than he actually is. It's a "How does this feel?" tactic. Obama seems to be "Kinesthetic-Visual" which is an interesting combination. "How does this feel, and what do I think about it?" With the thought component expressed in visual images. Personally, I'm ultra-high visual with "constructed" kinesthetic components. Definitely some messy wiring in my head. Most school programs I've seen are designed to be primarily Visual, with some Auditory. Puts kinesthetic processors at a disadvantage. I've met tons of athletes with this style of thinking, and visual types often make the mistake of thinking them stupid.

##

And the question of the day is: in which major area of your life have you had the most difficulty, and to what would you attribute that?

Moving beyond stretching

The following quote from William J.D. Doran is valuable:

"The core of Patanjali's Yoga Sutra is an eight-limbed path that forms the structural framework for yoga practice. Upon practicing all eight limbs of the path it becomes self-evident that no one element is elevated over another in a hierarchical order. Each is part of a holistic focus which eventually brings completeness to the individual as they find their connectivity to the divine. Because we are all uniquely individual a person can emphasize one branch and then move on to another as they round out their understanding.

In brief the eight limbs, or steps to yoga, are as follows:

1. Yama : Universal morality
2. Niyama : Personal observances
3. Asanas : Body postures
4. Pranayama : Breathing exercises, and control of prana
5. Pratyahara : Control of the senses
6. Dharana : Concentration and cultivating inner perceptual awareness
7. Dhyana : Devotion, Meditation on the Divine
8. Samadhi : Union with the Divine"
####
What we have here is a complete life path: morals and ethics, occupation, exercise, prayer, meditation, intellectual study...a core of meaning running all the way through life.

ﾠ

One measure of Mastery is to be in control, or aware, of every moment of an action. In Tai Chi this equates to slowing things down so that you are aware of "every half-inch" of motion. Only then are you ready to move more quickly. Not much real Tai Chi in America...but what I've seen of those who have actually mastered this is devastating.

ﾠ

If you meditate, somewhere in the practice you will hit a point where you are more centered than you ordinarily are. Notice this: how does your body feel? How are you breathing?

ﾠ

Take THIS quality of relaxed focus, and bring it into yoga.The point is to be centered and calm while under physical stress--consider this to be, in one way, a low-tech form of biofeedback. But this is not theater for the mind. It is a finger pointing to a very precious door. On the other side of that door is the real you. No words suffice here.

##

Now then...what should one do to maximize the health and fitness benefits of yoga? Take the previous comments: remain calm under stress. But once you've learned to do this, you want to take your body to the edge. This is vital for multiple reasons. One is that if you aren't on your edge, the chances are good that your mind is wandering. Don't go PAST your edge. If you can't breathe smoothly, you've gone too far.

ﾠ

Yoga poses are like putting your car up on a rack at the mechanic's and looking at the suspension and power train. Sports are like running your car on a track, and life is taking that car on the road.

ﾠ

While you are calm, and centered, it is time to let your mind penetrate deeply into your body. Get a skeletal chart if necessary, but really KNOW how your bones, joints, tendons and ligaments work together to create posture, motion, and so forth. Think about the "six degrees of freedom", the basic planes of motion: forward and back, side to side, and twist to each direction. In some cases, your motion will be limited by joints, others by stiff tendons, and in others by unyeilding muscles.

ﾠ

After your body is warmed up, your synovial fluid runs more readily, and your joints should be capable of greater mobility. Tendons also yield more readily. Muscles are more a matter of your mind releasing the Golgi tendon organs. In all cases, IF you keep the thread of breathing steady, you cannot hurt yourself.

ﾠ

Every day, you should work your way through all basic joint and muscle flexions. The "Sun Salutations" are great, and a full workout in themselves. Scott Sonnon's "Warrior Wellness" program is terrific, as is the 15 minute "Yoga short forms" routine by David Swenson.

ﾠ

As we age, the fluid in the padded disks in our spine dries out. Spinal flexion exercise, performed carefully and consciously, is wonderful for the back. For other joints, gentle exercise can wash he "joint capsule" with nutrients, allowing it to rebuild itself more rapidly.

ﾠ

For damage that cannot be healed (or is not yet healed), such slow and careful work will tell you where the damage is so that you don't accidentally aggravate the injury. It grieves me how often people throw their backs out performing ordinary daily movements.

ﾠ

What you have here is, in a physical sense, a system for becoming aware of your body, for releasing unbalancing tension, for flushing tendons and joints with nutrients, and more. The centering, relaxing, and meditative benefits can be transferred to other arenas easily through breathing.

ﾠ

If stress does not become strain, the body and mind adapt, becoming more capable. As you master one level of your life, the next presents itself, creating a road of growth that eventually becomes spiritual--IF you actually deal with the emotional wounds and survival needs.

ﾠ

PLEASE ask questions if anything seems unclear here. But this is a decent take on my understanding of hatha yoga's relationship to fitness, health, and life itself.

In the name of fair play...

Let me take the other side of the "If Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be where he is" argument. In other words, can I see a way that it could be true?

Hmmm. O.K. The following factors converging could make the entire thing realistic.

ﾠ

1) Let's say the 400 years of oppresssion is true. But post 1967 or so the number of virulent racists has dropped every year, especially considering birthrates and death rates. At some point comes a "tipping point" where the number of racists no longer really affects the outcome of an election (for instance). I suppose it's conceivable that that tipping point might have come by, say, 2000.

2) There are folks who would like to vote for a black president to prove some kind of social point.

3) There are white folks who think voting for Obama would be a "get out of hell free" card. In other words, proving once and for all that they are not bigots.

4) There are black people who would vote for Obama just because he's black. These would have to outnumber the whites who would votes AGAINST him simply because he is black.

5) Perhaps for fear of being thought prejudiced, some whites might under-criticize Obama. Another motivation might be wish to promote a social agenda.

6) If the damage of the slave system and Jim Crow affected Obama less than most black Americans due to his African parentage or Hawaiian/Indonesian upbringing, this might also enable him to move through a perceptual/philosophical "loophole" with greater facility than otherwise possible.

ﾠ

##

There may be other factors I could reckon in as well. But IF much of the above was true at the same time, then perhaps the 21st Century opened a hole, and Obama was the first person capable of moving through it.

ﾠ

So...if someone were to present an argument containing those elements, while simultaneously acknowledging the very real problems that blacks have faced and still confront, I might disagree with their conclusions, but admit they had an interesting and plausible argument. On the other hand, if they DON'T acknowledge the social hammering blacks have received, I would suspect that their argument was actually another version of the "white men don't have a chance in America" "Affirmative Action Candidate" bullshit.

ﾠ

And if someone formulates their argument as "Hillary has it harder because she's a woman, Obama has it easier because he's black" I find that offensive, stupid, and purely political. I feel it is glaringly obvious that if you changed either Hillary's race OR gender, she wouldn't be where she is. IIn fact, you couldn't change the race OR gender of any president or presidential candidate in American history without completely trashing their entire career. No matter which way I slice it, the entire question is a non-issue, and utter nonsense.

Should Smart People Worry?

Buzzword has just revealed another fun trick. When I output Final Draft to RTF and then upload that to Buzzword, the formatting doesn't hold. But if I output Final Draft to RTF, then open and save that document with Word, then upload the Word document with Buzzword, the formatting holds almost perfectly. REALLY cool.
##
Should smart people be worried about not having as many kids as "dumb" people? The problem, from my point of view, is that the smart people I've met who worry about this believe more in Nature over Nurture--in other words, they don't believe that the context affects the content. In many, many cases, I see this combined with genteel racism: "well, they don't have it, but it's our responsibility to take care of them..." and I find that casually vile.

ﾠ

To me, this is what rankles with the suggestion that

1) Hillary has had it tougher because she is a woman and

2) Obama has had it easier because he is black.

ﾠ

I find the first contention to be reasonable. And the second to be either blissfully ignorant or politically dishonest. And it carries with it that "genteel racism" quality. If he's gotten further than any black person EVER, and there are ADVANTAGES to being black, but Obama still "doesn't have it" (his being an affirmative action candidacy) I fail to see how this doesn't lead, in the majority of agreeing minds, to the conclusion that black people just aren't up to snuff. All right--people are free to believe what they want, but I think they are hiding that belief behind layers of polite, PC obfuscation.

Watching three or four movies/movie previews over the last days where minority women are presented as swooning for white guy, while minority males apparently have no sex drive at all, I think that this attitude of "we're different, and the difference is an improvement" is pretty close to universal among human beings--it just gets hidden behind polite smiles, courtesy, and double-speak.

ﾠ

Back to reproduction: the "I'm wonderful! The world needs more of me!" attitude is interesting. While absence of an educated class seems to be damaging to a society, I'm not sure where the evidence of the "smart class underbreeding is a tragedy" comes from. And frankly, a disproportunate proportion of those who have suggested this also, in my mind, harbor racial attitudes I find unfortunate and self-serving, if not actually bigoted.

##

Another thought experiment that cropped up again is the idea of all politicians being dishonest (I do think dishonesty can be a survival value for politicos, however) but if government's functions were just handed over to private industry...

ﾠ

I just don't buy it. I think that this appeals to people who earn above average, and therefore believe that they could purchase, on the open market, better serviced than those currently provided by taxes. Not to mention the fact that their taxes would go down thereby.

ﾠ

But the gap between the social/governmental services available to the rich and the poor is not as wide as the gap between the commercial services available to the two groups. The gap between an inner-city grocery store (uh...what grocery stores?) and one in Beverly Hills is WAY wider than the gap between an inner-city Post Office or police department. If all of the companies providing formerly public services were Non-Profit, I would consider the two to be in closer competition. But a commercial venture has as primary responsibility the production of profits--NOT providing a service. That means that they HAVE to widen the gap between what it costs them to supply a service and how much they can charge for it. Nothing immoral or wrong in that, but I see the poor get screwed worse by the private companies than the governmental agencies. And YES, I see tons of problems with the governmental agencies.

ﾠ

But I consider this a perfect example of a thought experiment ungrounded in basic reality of huan existence--just as bad as Communism, which also ignored what I consider to be basic aspects of human nature. You have to factor greed and fear into the equations, or they get away from you.

##

The most important thing about Yoga is the word itself. From a sanskrit term meaning "to yoke, to unite, to join" it concentrates on the BOND between mind and body. Looking at yoga as the balancing or stretching or strengthening exercises is looking at the grass bending and thinking you are looking at the wind.

ﾠ

You have to slow down, get quiet, calm your mind. This is the LAST thing that the ego ever wants to do, and it will fight you like crazy. It would ABSOLUTELY rather you spend, say, ten minutes a day than seventy minutes once a week (although there actually are some advantages to the short-workout approach).

ﾠ

But if you treat yoga as a meditation, the first 15 minutes or so are just the beginning entry to the inner world. Following your breathing down into the depths of your being you will burrow past layers of excuses, intellectualisms, and more. What you search for is the sense of flow, of surfing on the process of self-examination. To get there, you CAN'T overdo your poses. You have to stay just disconnected enough to maintain perspective. After 15-20 minutes, you should experience the same sense of Flow that you reach when writing, making love, driving a familiar route, playing a favorite game.

ﾠ

It is THIS quality of subject-object melting together that you seek. It is the doorway to a deeper world.

##

The question of the day is: where in your life do you experience flow states?

Bad Habits are good?

ﾠ

If I believe (and I do) that the single most important measurement of potential disaster on this planet is the expanding population, and the single most powerful means of controlling population is the political and social equality of women (which seems to be true) then a reasonable case can be made that Women's issues are an incredibly important pressure-point for change, world-wide.

ﾠ

That argument could be broadened into a support for Hillary on the basis of the symbol it sends around the world...change and hope for oppressed women--and their families--on a massive scale. I can see a 100% reasonable and rational argument there that does not get into the "we've been hurt worse than you" nonsense that is just preaching to the choir on whichever side.

ﾠ

The more comments I read from middle-aged (and older) women who have been waiting all their lives for a female President, the more empathy I feel. I really wish these two particular candidates hadn't come along at the same time. Perhaps it was an eerie inevitability. But I wish that the national dialog was at a higher level--it swoops toward race and gender so damned fast.

##

I wonder what kind of Ageist stuff will come out in the General? Certainly concerns about mental competence, as well as health and generational attitudes, will make this discussion relevant. It almost would have been fun to have all three candidates throwing mud at each other on the basis of race, gender, and age...if the three situations were equivalent. Of course, we know that men get MORE powerful as they get older...which makes it interesting to "attack" McCain on an issue which, on the one hand, confronts pain fear and mortality...and on the other "attacks" him for being at the peak of his life power.

##

I wonder if it is possible to use bad habits in a positive way. Let's say you have high goals in three different arenas. All will demand overcoming bad habits. Let's say you make a deliberate choice to engage in one bad habit for a week while you maintain a perfect record in the other two. I wonder what would happen if you rotated between them? Or just found an indulgence and engaged in it selectively while pushing to the max in your other areas?

In the name of balance, this clearly couldn't be maintained for very long...a week perhaps, or a month. But it was just a thought this morning...I was wondering if anyone out there has ever used a bad habit for a positive purpose?

Buzzword

Hold the presses. I may have found the online word processor I was looking for. After going through Ajaxwriter, Zoho, Google Documents, and Microsoft Office Online. All were interesting in their own way. All fell short. Lack of pagination, platform stability, program compatibility, lack of margins, funky RTF output...ow. Even the best of them (Google Documents is pretty cool, especially when you factor in the rest of the suite functionality. Calendar is excellent) but the maximum document length is about 25,000 words.

ﾠ

Well, after a massive amount of on-line research, I found BUZZWORD. Created by a company called Virtual Ubiquity, it seems to have been debuted last September, then acquired by their major investor, Adobe, in December. It's built on a Flash engine apparently, and therefore has excellent control of the presentation. It's "What You See Is What You Print " with only seven fonts, but imports and exports MSWord just fine, so you could easily export a finished file and use any damned font you want.

ﾠ

The most important things I wanted have been handled

1) Looks and feels like a desk-top program.

2) Faster than Word in most functions!

3) Available from any Internet connection.

4) The automatic back-up potential is obvious. Just output your files at Word or RTF at the end of every workday. Between Adobe's secure servers and my desktop and/or laptop...wow. I think my needs are handled.

5) Collaboration is potentially a dream. We've only been playing with the concept a few weeks, and only had Buzzword a few days. But this thing seems to save every five minutes or so. If two people are working on it at the same time, it seems to rank them, and let one at a time actually make changes, until that person saves. Then the other person can edit. That's how it feels. But both people can add notes at the same time, So it is actually possible t create a Supermind. Cool, cool, cool! The "Mastermind" concept applied to writing, in real time, from opposite sides of the world.

ﾠ

##

I see a model for collaboration that is mind-blowing. You put the notes and outlines into a file. Process this stuff any way that is comfortable for either collaborator. Things are added and subtracted, and the material is manipulated variously. At some point scenes will begin to be written. They will be polished and added to.

ﾠ

In one mood, a collaborator can be linear...simply adding text. In others, one might go through the material tweaking and pruning to the heart's content. Every time you return to the file, there will be changes.

ﾠ

If the collaborators are really in sync, and trust each other, a book will simply appear, based on all of the "playing around."

ﾠ

My mind is blown. I ask readers who are technically savvy to peek at buzzword.com and let me know what you think. If there is any major problem you know of, PLEASE tell me now...Tananarive and I are starting to play.

##

Saw "Street Kings" with Keanu Reeves and Forest Whitaker yesterday. It's not "L.A. Confidential," but it's not bad, either. A role Clint Eastwood would have pulled off, back in the day. Reeves just doesn't scare me, and the role needs someone who can be convincing as an uber-lethal borderline sociopathic cop. It's one of those "he's a bad guy, but he's OUR bad guy" movies. It would get a bid fat "Sambo Alert" in the sense it's one of those Super-White Boy movies, but casting Forest Whitaker as the Chief and the general fantasy badassery of Reeves would make me feel petty. It doesn't portray race well because it doesn't represent HUMANITY well (this is similar to my answer to people who find Bond a misogynist. Nonsense. He's a misanthrope, if anything.) But I thought Reeves' performance was pretty good, given the fact I don't find him intimidating. Russel Crowe could have pulled it off. Oh, that's right. He already did.

Fiddy's Windfall

I hope, I really hope that if the shoe was on the other foot, I wouldn't insist that Michigan and Florida's votes be counted. If Hillary's name wasn't on the ballot, I would think it bullshit...and would be ashamed of Obama supporters who tried to pretend that that doesn't matter. At least I HOPE I would. That is clearly a ploy someone uses because they want to win, not because it's fair.
#
Chelsea Clinton keeps being asked about Monica Lewinski. Yeah, it's kinda rude, but not totally off base. I wouldn't ask such a question, but I can see why someone might. Several interesting questions are raised:
1) Does the character of a husband reflect on the wife? After all, she chose him, right? The bottom line is her judgement and values.
2) Is it relevant that this was going on "right under her nose"? If she DIDN'T know, that suggests that Hillary's judgement and observational skills and priorities might be questioned.
3) And if she did know? This is in some ways even more interesting. My personal theory is that she knew about Bill's dalliances perfectly well, and that the deal was that he wouldn't embarrass her, and wouldn't get caught. The reason this is interesting is that if she accepted an open marriage, this is a mis-match for the family values of many of the people whose votes she is currently courting. Do they deserve to know this? Personally, I think people should negotiate the relationships they want. However, I would NEVER want my own daughter in such a relationship, and so cannot approve. But it wouldn't motivate me to vote against her.
##
My family is getting very fond of the PS2 Game "Rock Band." Just bought a wireless guitar, and while I was in the store, was browsing a gaming magazine. It seems that rapper 50 Cent is doing a video game. This guy is kind of amazing. He cannot sing, he cannot dance, he can't act, and he isn't even much of a rapper. (BTW--if you want to check out a really obvious case of the difference with which black and white actors are treated in movies, see "Get Rich or Die Trying" as compared to Eminem's "8 Mile". The difference in sexual content is glaring, as are other expressions of humanity. Gee. It must be nice to be white...) Any way, "Fiddy" does have one observable skill: investing. He bought into Vitamin Water, which recently got bought out by Coca-Cola. Know how much Gangsta got? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. The mind boggles.
It is important to remember: there is a ton of money out there. The trick is in learning to position yourself to tap into it.
Good lord.
##
There is a huge yoga poster in the local Bikram school. It illustrates hundreds and hundreds of poses, performed perfectly. All are given sanskrit names. Most are beyond the dreams of most adult practitioners. It is easy to get hypnotized by their profusion. But the real key lies in the lower right corner of the poster. You could easily miss it. It is just two sentences, printed in relatively small type. They say: "This is not my body. This is not my mind."

The entire nature of the practice changes if you let these ideas play in your mind as you engage with the flesh. The physical practice becomes an investigation of the nature of reality, utilizing your body as dowsing rod.
##
Racism and Sexism

I'm confused. On the radio this morning, I heard someone saying that Chris Matthews was making Sexist comments when he said that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a Senator if her husband hadn't fooled around. And again, when he commented that actress Kerry Washington was "a knockout." I always considered that racism is when you think one group is better than another. Sexism would then be when you think one gender is better than another. I think that if pointing out what is almost universally considered positive aspect of a group is either sexism or racism, we'd have to widen the net considerably when thinking about the things that have been said about Obama. Any comment referencing his race or ethnicity, even if neutral or positive, would have to be considered "racism," which is way beyond anything I ever considered. One part of us would like no notice of things like physical differences. The reality is that all of us do it, all the time. The male-female thing had BETTER not go away, or we're in real trouble. (Hmm...wouldn't there be an interesting SF story there? A world in which there was so much PC that the male-female charge died down...)

Of course, none of that should interfere with Nicki being able to aspire to any job or life position she has the stuff to handle. But I hear an assumption of mysogyny that troubles me: much of it seems to be a negative reaction to the woman herself, or residual antagonism toward her husband. On the other hand, if I was a woman, I might be much less convinced of that. No way I can completely shed my filters.

Yoga and "ethnic-baiting"

"I didn't pass rules for seduction to my daughter--I have to
be honest and admit that I love the line from EdTV: 'Men are the gas. Women are the brakes.'"
#
OTOH, people can have more control over their lives and ensure their happiness better when they
don't rely on someone else to be the brakes to their gas. Even if they're male. :)
##
True. But a guy without a certain drive to get laid in his youthful days would worry me a bit. The art of control requires time to gather wisdom.


##
"OTOH, does masturbation count as "messing with sexual energy" too? Should a kid wait until moving out for *that*?"

Nope. Self-pleasuring is one of the great good things in life. I feel very sorry for anyone who is too guilty or ashamed to explore their own bodies.
####
Zoho.com's word processor actually looks pretty good. Microsoft is still lagging behind, and overall Google documents interests me most...although they have a
ways to go. Can't WAIT until I can create a collaborative novel in such a venue.
###
The question of Barack Obama's middle name "Hussein" came up again. Is it race baiting to use it? Maybe...but "ethnic baiting" or "religious baiting" (if such a term exists) yes. And it is definitely a play to trigger negative responses from racists, which is just as bad. Here's how it works: Imagine 1950, ahalf half Japanese-American was running for office. His name is James Asako Powell. His opponents continually refer to him as "J.A.P." Then they roll their eye innocently and say: "what's the problem? Those are his initials, aren't they..?" This is a very similar game to what I see here.
##
Yoga. Dan and others are experimenting with it. Here are a few thoughts:
1) Yoga isn't a "fitness" activity. It is a HEALTH activity, of greater primacy. Consider it recovery work. In other words, work out HARD and then go to a yoga class to re-align the joints, sweat out the toxins, etc.
2) Yoga is not a stretching exercise. However, flexibility is the first challenge faced by most who practice, just because the flexibility of the typical American is in the crapper. It is, however, an exercise in relaxation and focus--the qualities necessary to produce the result called "stretching."
3) The most important thing to focus on is your BREATHING. More important than everything else, combined. Begin your class by centering your breathing (imagine your breath coming to a point just below the navel). Then...as you begin moving, treat the entire class as if you are practicing cursive writing: stretch out the breath, twist it, invert it, squeeze it: BUT NEVER BREAK THE THREAD OF YOUR BREATH. If you ever went a 90 minute class without once breaking your "thread" you would have a quality of concentration rare in the human species.
4) Five times a day, at every hour divisible by three, stop and breathe for sixty seconds. As you do, relax.
5) The single most important pose is the last pose, Savasana..."corpse" or "resting" pose. Everything else is designed to teach you to go deeply into this space, utterly relaxed, but still aware. It is the doorway to the "Yoga Nidra," the yogic sleep state, where your body is asleep but your mind is awake. This is STRANGE, dudes and dudettes. Until you have laid there listening to your body snore, you don't know what weird really is.
6)Every pose has a slightly different "tone." An inner "sound" which, if you find it, makes an apparently difficult pose far easier. Search for it. There is an "easy" way to do each pose. You will only find it through experimentation.
7) Keep the lower abdominal muscles slightly tensed, and the same with the anal sphincter.
8) Bikram "hot room" yoga adds another level--heat/humidity. Relax deeply and you won't feel the heat at all. The experience of heat is a measure of your resistance to it.
9) Remember: stress does not hurt you. It is STRAIN that hurts you: stress warping your body and mind. Use the yoga as a chance to move into "stressful" experiences without experiencing "strain." It is a fabulous working metaphor.
10) Kareem Abdul Jabbar once told me that yoga was the perfect foundation for sports, and had given him extra years in his career. If you can't trust Kareem, who can you trust?
##
Always go to a yoga class seeking to learn something. It is not "exercise" in the western sense (making your body "do" something.) It is exploring the CONNECTION between mind and body. Eventually, you will begin to glimpse the illusion of physicality. Move beyond the twitches and itches. Go deeper, deeper, piercing skin, muscle, and finally bone, until there is nothing but breath.

Even if we were nothing but meat, this process is insanely productive. But if we are more than this (which I deeply hold), in the moments of greatest concentration and surrender, out of the corner of your eye, you will glimpse Truth.

Dan's Bi-(racial) Curious...

Dan said:

"I'm curious -- has becoming a father again (of a son, and being aware of how hard it's been for black males in our society) made you more aware of racial issues?"
##
STEVE: Yes, but in most ways I'm happy with what I see. Being married to Tananarive has been more of a focusing influence racially/politically.

##

"We're at a point today where the only publicly acceptable form of discrimination at this point is against white men -- and since the advantages of being a white man have much outweighed the very modest disadvantages of being a white man, I'd have to be a pretty whiny bastard to focus on the downside instead of the upside...."
Hah! Well said. I definitely see discrimination against the obese, however.

As the country swings toward brown, expect some static. The worst static will be anticipated by closet bigots: you know, the ones who think that whites have treated non-whites better than non-whites would treat whites, based upon some intrinsic superiority. The reality I see is that as people are lifted up from the lower levels of Maslow's Heirarchy, they automatically begin to seek spiritual connection, and to believe in treating others with dignity and love. It is my belief in this that motivates some of my sense that the social safety net should be stronger. If one believes that human beings are, for instance, basically lazy and evil, it would make sense to have the maximum amount of pain anchored to "non-performance." Trust me, the exact same social situations can be interpreted in opposite ways depending on the initial filter, leaving either those who believe in "nature" or "nurture" wondering how in the hell anyone could fail to agree with their position. It's pitiful, really.

But if you look at the slavery, segregation, and Jim Crowe--which are merely the most visible aspects of the phenomenon of human tribalism as it relates to racism in America...and then look at the MASSIVE denial as to the existence of these tendencies (Northerners can believe Southerners are bigoted. Liberals can believe Conservatives are bigoted. People today can believe that folks "back then" were bigoted. Women can believe that men are bigoted. Blacks can believe whites are bigoted. Etc.) and you have a recipe for pain. Hispanics will, rather predictably andunderstandably, do everything in their power to gather all the power to themselves..while pretending not to. Blacks, as they gain more power, will from time to time enjoy twisting the knife and being "HNIC" (ask a black friend if you don't know what that means). It's been interesting noting one of the differences between blacks and Women, power-wise. Both groups have large contingents supporting a Presidential candidate largely on the basis of gender/race identification. However, women have been more able to actually talk about it, to openly demand that women vote along gender lines, or be considered traitors. There is definitely pressure in the black community, but so far I've not heard a single responsible black spokesman suggest it would be a "betrayal" for blacks to vote for Hillary, as I've heard numerous women suggest it would be for women to vote for Obama. Because I assume equal levels of integrity and honesty on both sides, I would assume that this difference exists because in one instance it is a winning game, and in the other, a losing game. In other words, if the election became genderically polarized, and 100% of women voted for Hillary while 100% of men voted for Obama...Hillary wins. On the other hand, if it became ethnically polarized and 100% of blacks voted for Obama while 100% of non-blacks voted for HIllary? Obama loses massively. So it behooves Obama NOT to mention race, if he can, while it is an effective tactic for Hillary's surrogates to bring it up every chance they can.

This is one of the reasons I sneer at people who think Obama is playing "the race card." For Obama, the "Race Card" is a deuce. For Hillary, the Gender Card is a Queen. No comparison.

What this means as the population shifts is that the EXACT same kinds of nasty, lying, back-stabbing, manipulative power-grabbing games will continue, as they have since the beginning of time. And for the first time in this country's history, white children will be on the losing end of a statistically significant part of it. But it will never, ever be as bad for them as it was for Non-Whites unless the direction of progress reverses. Race means less than it did, just as Nationality means less. The effective death of the concept of "Nation" (which I'll put at maybe two generations out) is accompanied by a Trans-or-Post Racial awareness, an international tribe that cares more about your Internet Avatar than your skin color at birth. The kids will work this stuff out. Race just isn't a survival factor in the same way it was for previous generations. Yes, there will be bullshit, but there won't be slavery or Jim Crow or extermination, and I'll settle for that.

Ending a 4x7, and a Student's excellent concerns

I may have finally completed designing my workout program. Hell, I've only been working at it for twenty years. But a couple of pieces fell into place last week...and I really like what happened. But I'm also at the end of a 4x7 cycle, bordering "Overtrained", and need to take four days off before beginning the next cycle. So...I'll talk more about what I'm doing in a few weeks. In general, though, I push one day and recover the next. I use Yoga for recovery, and like that just fine.
##
One of my students wrote me this morning. She is about to enter the PhD program at a major university, but is dealing with some emotional issues that could taint the experience. I chose to remove her identifying comments and address the concerns publicly. Here goes...

###
(From the Student)

I'm writing because I realize that unless I create and become whatever I aspire or vision, then my life/world in XX will be much the same here: constant depression (in spite of all the accolades and presentations and blessings I receive), loneliness, despair, and abysmally low self concept and image. In fact, I imagine leaving the cold comfort familiarity and being around people who at the very least LOOK like me may exacerbate my struggle... whew. Yeah, this whole PhD is MORE than a notion.

That being said, I have 2 questions for you:

1) How do I make/hold myself accountable for my own progress ?

I have started innumerable "self help" therapies and regiments...but i rarely stick with them for more than a week. maybe 2. I begin to see the sunshine and I head for the hills...invariably the storm clouds come again...

Because i've become so isolated from EVERYONE, I realize that I can't depend on anyone to help me through this process. There's no one who's going to call on me and see if I'm following through. The responsibility falls completely and squarely on ME to monitor and check my progress....

2) What does forgive and forget LOOK like?

my mother, who i've been estranged from for my entire adult life and even before lives in XX (near the school). She learned third hand that I'd be attending XX, a 10 minute walk from her apartment. Although we rarely if ever speak, she emailed and expressed her anger and hurt (which I understood) that I hadn't told her. She's a wonderful woman, but a severely addicted alcoholic. This does nothing to help us repair our relationship, but a part of me feels that maybe i should just show up and kidnap her, forcing or staging an intervention and get her into treatment. The reason we don't talk is because she is a monstrously guilty (and guilt inducing) and self-deprecating person when she drinks, which is whenever she's not at work. I keep saying I've forgiven everything, yet I have no desire to be around her or to talk to her, even though i KNOW it must hurt her.... She says that when she's ready to stop drinking she will... I don't know.

Well, I know this was a lot...any suggestions as far as readings, web sites, or just advice would be great. I think i'll also peruse Dar Kush, I bet I can find some relevant wisdom and suggestions there...

best,

s
##
STEVE'S ANSWER
S.--First let me express my respect for your honesty and insight. I will answer to the best of my abilities. Remember that Dar Kush is, in general, a venting of my own conscious or unconscious "stuff" and an examination of the interaction of the Chakras and the Hero's Journey. I speak from that perspective, and as long as you agree to accept my limitations as a given, I will comment on what I see in your situation.
1) How do you make yourself accountable for your progress? First, BY SAYING SO. Start with the declaration, said out loud and perhaps written on a banner and placed in your bedroom or office: "If it's to be, it's up to me." Other strong statements are "I'll do WHATEVER IT TAKES" or "1% a Week". Such statements, written, spoken, and considered daily, help to balance the negative voices in our heads.
2) Aim at health in all three aspects: body, mind, spirit. What does this look like? An energizing physical regimen, something that gets you sweating and re-aligns the spine and joints. A combination of hill walking and yoga could work fine. Intensity and recovery. That's the cycle you're looking for. Weight workout one day, stretch the next. Push, and check in to see how you feel. In terms of mind, a daily examination of your goals, and the benefits you will gain by reaching them. In terms of spirit, I strongly suggest a meditation/prayer program.
3) The Hero's Journey suggests that the Dark Night of the Soul is an absolutely unavoidable part of the process of moving from one level of life to another. In other words, it is COMPLETELY predictable that you will get distracted, depressed, angry, sad, whatever. The way through this is either
a) belief in yourself
b) trusted friends
c) prayer

I would suggest working on all three. If you are isolated, drop us a line here at Dar Kush, or over on the message board. We care, sweetie.
How can you check your progress? If you miss meditation or exercise sessions, you can bet that your demons are creeping on you. Watch yourself get too "busy" or "tired" or "distracted" to take care of yourself. Remember, the process starts with as little as Five Minutes a Day...five 60-second breathing/meditation breaks. ANYONE who says they don't have time for this is just lying. It's utter bullshit. This is one of the ways you can tell if your distractions are real: if you do the Five Minutes, but not more...MAYBE you're just really busy. But if you miss the Five Minutes...YOUR DEMONS ARE WINNING. It is time to ask for help.

Self-Image is a tough one, and it is best peeled back a layer at a time. Maxwell Maltz's wonderful "Psycho-Cybernetics" deals with the difficulty of change when your self-image is negative. Visualization exercises can help here. I like to sit upright, first thing in the morning, and feel my heartbeat. When I have that anchored strongly, I visualize the RESULTS I desire in all three major areas of life. Then I see myself where I currently am in all three arenas, and visualize a path of light leading from where I am to where I want to go. If the thread of light is strong and bright, cool! If it is dark and cloudy...I need more work.
##
2) What does "Forgive and Forget" look like? It looks like bullshit. Forgive, yes. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. To understand and love yourself is to understand and love all other beings. To go beyond the Self is to see that we all arise from the same ocean of life. But to Forget is very different. If someone is sick, they can sneeze on you and infect you. Nothing personal...but you're still dead. Your mother is damaged, sweetie. Alcohol creates literal changes in brain structure. Imagine that your Mom is still her original pure and loving spirit. But "the flesh" filters her message, creates static, so that she is like a radio station broadcasting on bad equipment. The lady in the studio is trying to communicate, but her microphone, amplifier, antenna, etc. are screwed up. Worse, there is a storm creating interference. Even worse, your own equipment has some bugs. Small wonder that communication is difficult.

She loves you, but cannot help hurting you. She is stuck in a dark and frightening place: if she could do better, she would.
The MOST important thing you can do for her is HAVE A GOOD LIFE. Excel. Contribute to the world. REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING SHE EVER SAYS, she loves you more than life itself, and if she believes that her own weaknesses have harmed you, she will HATE herself. She needs to see you succeed, to know that she created something good in the world, that she was able, in even the smallest way, to shelter you from the demons that chew at her. If you can do this, walk in your beauty and power, you are giving her the greatest gift possible: HOPE.

Do not try to save her. Save yourself, and love yourself...and then love your mom. Without question. Without compromise. If she screams and yells and says terrible things, it's all a jumbled version of the following six words: "I love you, and I'm terrified." EVERYTHING negative she says is some translation of these six words. Never take it personally, any more than a cancer victim vomiting on your shoes. She's sick, not evil, and not "right."

You are a loving, brilliant, lovely young lady: I know, I had the honor of having you in the Path workshop. You are dedicated to making the world a better place, and to fighting with the demons within. That makes you a fellow traveler, darling. I love you, I really do. Because I love myself, and I see you in me, and myself in you. Our struggles are the same.

So, to close this:
1) Declare yourself an adult. You are responsible for your life. Write and re-write this, or find other ways of expressing it. Write it on a 3x5 card and carry it with you. Look at it every morning. Think about it during meditation.
2) Spend 5 minutes a day MINIMUM breathing and thinking about your goals in all three arenas. One minute every three hours.
3) Work your way up to a "Golden Hour" of planning, meditation, exercise, visualization. But NEVER fall below five minutes.
4) Accept that you will fail and fall on your face, and that despair will rise to gnash at you. This is totally normal, and is actually a sign that you're heading in the right direction. Want to never fail? Play tic-tac-toe with a three year old: you'll win or draw every time. Want to play in the big leagues? Better put on your shoulder pads. Line up your resources. Get ready for bruises. That's just the way life is. If you can make contact with the part of yourself that enjoys a good, tough game...you can get through life with a sense of humor and perspective. If there is any part of yourself that thinks that life is supposed to be "easy" or "fair"...you're in trouble. Life isn't fair. It isn't unfair. It just is. Life doesn't give a shit about your hopes and dreams--and that's the GOOD news. That means that the world will not go out of its way to stop you from being happy.
5) Heartbeat meditation can be a great way of making contact with the pure and loving spirit within you. Because the heartbeat is autonomic, you can nurture a sense of wonder at the little machine beating away millions of times a year to keep you alive. It is a little miracle. And when you relax enough, you can feel it from your scalp to your toes. The rhythm of life, hammering away.
6) Address change at the rate of about 1% per week. Just find one little way to be happier, healthier, more forgiving, more loving, more efficient...every week. It adds up fast.
7) Don't forget that we're here. The community at Dar Kush has been excellent at discussing volatile, intimate, and difficult subjects with compassion, open eyes, and humanity. Never hesitate to bring your concerns to us. You'll never be turned away.

Steve

Charlton Heston dead at 84

http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html
##
Was that my imagination, or a deliberate affectation, but was Christopher Walken really fixated on the cue cards on SNL last night? Odd.
##
All right. Yes, I think SNL is in the tank for Clinton. Their former head writer, Tiny Fey, is obviously strongly for Hillary, and she is close to Lorne Michels. The fact that SNL is notorious for weak minority casts (how long has it been since they had a strong black cast member? Even Tim Meadows was just "o.k.") and that now they have a white guy playing Obama (Kenan Thompson is an embarassment). Does anyone think that this show is going to go even vaguely beneath the surface?
In this instance, the "Color-blind casting" does no discredit to the actor playing Obama. It does play into the Clinton camp's narrative that Obama was given advantage during the debate (I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying I disagree with some of their arguments. Even IF Hillary was asked questions first, couldn't she just as easily have complained if she were consistently chosen second?) The fact that they don't have a black or mixed-race cast member talented and capable enough to play Obama says something about the weakness of their cast, and the blindness Lorne Michels has to black talent. Listen to Chris Rock talking about his difficulties getting anything through their writing staff, and you'll know what I mean. Oh, you didn't remember that Rock was on the show? That was because he could never get anything past their head writers. Disgusting.

To get a feel for how I find this problematic, imagine if there was only one female member of the SNL cast, who was obese. When Hillary began running, instead of finding a good female cast member, they put one of the guys in drag. That's an approximation of the problem here: no matter how the drag queen struggles to bring some internal consistency to the role, the fact that he is in a context where they groomed no actual women for the role suggests a grotesque lack of sensitivity.
#
From the beginning with Garrett Morris, Lorne has the habit of choosing weak minority players. Eddie Murphy is the only one who ever broke out, and that was LOOOONG ago. Twenty years? Considering that SNL grew out of the National Lampoon, and the Lampoon, which I subscribed to, so far as I know NEVER had a black person in the magazine without making a specific, and generally derogatiory, reference to his race. (There were plenty of sexist comments in Lampoon as well, but also plenty of female figures without specific references to gender or sex--just background or characters being human beings). MAD magazine, during the same era, would have black characters without pointing out their race or making a specific racial joke, so I know the difference.

On SNL, the episode where Obama actually appeared was a Halloween party, where Hillary was, if I remember, dressed like a witch, and Darryl Hammond as Bill pretty much called her a bitch. Funny-but wouldn't have been had they repeated the same pattern later.

But since that time, there have been numerous references and sketches, and I've noticed a real pattern. Obama is presented as being pleasant but completely ineffectual (the debate sketch, the "3am" sketch) while Hillary is presented as being a hyper-competent bitch. But as Tina Fey said "Bitches get things done!" and more specifically, taking a crack at the race-gender controversy in some strange way, "Bitch is the new Black!" I'm not even sure what that means, but it was clearly some kind of attempt to boost Hillary. The sketch last night about her money was a laid-back "Wow we're incredibly smart" when SNL also mused about "what would be wrong with having two really smart people running the White House?" I other words, in terms of the election, Hillary has flaws but they actually make her a better potential president. Obama is pleasant but empty.
#
There is nothing wrong with SNL taking a favorite. They're only human. But I think they should be honest about it. The fact that I smell a pattern over the 30 years I've watched the show is unfortunate. But it's not their pattern, or Hollywood's pattern, or Washington's pattern. It is America's pattern. It is a human pattern. And it pisses me off when I see women with the power to hire, fire and put words into the mouths of black men suggesting that those black men have some kind of advantage.
#
My honest sense is that women in America experience more statistical problem at the higher levels of accomplishment than at the lower levels of survival. But it is natural for people to discount their advantages and pay attention only to the work remaining to be done as they reach for the stars. I would bet that Fey and Michels consider themselves good liberals, and therefore above such things as racial discomfort. They're wrong. There is good research that women tend to be LESS bigoted than men, but that doesn't mean there is no problem at all. And it is my position that I've seen FEWER bigots and LESS bigotry among liberals, but that doesn't mean it isn't there, as well.

But when someone suggests that Obama is winning because he's male, Hillary losing because she is female, they are reducing human characteristics to two dimensions. When Hillary was slaughtering the field, was it because she was a woman? if Obama had been crushed, would it have been because he's black? Really? Where is individual responsibility or characteristic in all of this?
If the press likes Obama better, this is supposedly because...they don't like women? Really?Couldn't it be because they like HIM better? As an individual, separate from gender or race? I see the Clintons and their surrogates raising the issue of race as often as they can, knowing that Obama's game plan involved keeping people's attention on the future we can build together and OFF his race as much as he could.

In Hollywood, I've noticed that if I can keep an executive's attention on the project, I've got a chance. If race comes into the discussion IN ANY WAY I can almost guarantee that I won't get the job. A good tactic on her part. Smart.
#
Anyway, I'm wandering, still waking up this morning. The point is that SNL seems to back Clinton (fine), they won't cop to it (not so fine), and that they have a history of racial issues. These two things don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. But that "Bitch is the new Black" is an interesting line. Maybe it means that women who demand they be given their due are often called "bitches" by insecure men. And the term "black" supplanted "negro" as those of darker hue began to demand their due as well...Ah...I'm reading too much into it, I'm sure.
##
Charlton Heston died at 84. I met him once at a movie theater on the West Side. The Nuart, I believe. He was tall, and elegant, and regal. He could be a bit of a ham, but also had an unforced power that was fascinating to watch. A staunch Conservative, he marched with King in the '60's, something a lot of Hollywood types did at that time. I hated Micheal Moore ambushing Heston in his old age in that docu-thingie about gun control. That was inappropriate, and taking advantage of infirmity. A genuine, old-fashioned movie star, and a patriot, and so far as I know, a good man. I wish him swift passage.

Color blind casting

"If I get your basic position, and correct me if I don't, whites playing non-white roles is a kind of lying, but non-whites playing white roles isn't. Is that it, put bluntly?"

"But Dan makes a good point. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it's not okay to send in the white guy to sub for the black guy 'cause it's historically inaccurate, then that blade cuts both ways."


Let me address both of these comments. Whites playing non-whites and non-whites playing whites, on the surface, are completely the same. I would defend a position that says that they are equivalent, in general. The differential numbers creates some oddness, but we could leave that out.

There are some characters who could easily be changed racially, without impact ("Kingpin" in Daredevil has no real ethnic identity. On the other hand, shouldn't "Thor's" alter-ego be plausibly Nordic?) Tennyson Hardwick is more molded by his sexual past than his race. I could see a scenario in which he was cast white. "Easy" Rawlins COULDN'T be changed to white without destroying his character. Angelina Jolie playing a mixed-race woman? O.K., if regrettable. Danny Glover playing Marlowe? I found it absurd. There was simply not enough reaction to his race for the time period. This was a vanity project, and an oddity I couldn't take seriously at all.
##
Note something: NONE of these cases is a case of a black or Asian actor being made up to play another race (yeah, Eddie Murphy does it--as a joke). There is no equivalency to Chuin, Moto, Chan, Fu Manchu, etc. Or of white actors in blackface ("Check and Double Check", the Amos'n'Andy movie). As I've noted, as soon as white actors could not play these Asian roles, the roles disappeared altogether. So there is a bit of historical stuff here.
Still, I'd be happy for equal treatment--anything else could be considered unfair. My attitude here is the same as it is for Affirmative Action. Do I think it works? Hell, yes. Do I think there are some whites who were hurt by it? Yes, I do. Do I think that the levels of pain and pleasure are equal across the communities? Hell, no: a pinch on one side, a crippling on the other.

However, that doesn't change the fact that there are what I consider to be short-sighted historically myopic people who really don't get it. And then there are plenty of racists who hide behind the rhetoric of "fair play." So I'm not in favor of racially-based Affirmative Action, not because I don't believe it works, but because I don't pick battles I don't think I can win.

The same thing is true in film. No, I don't want James Bond cast black. It does mortify me that the last time there was a black character vaugely comparable to Bond was almost FORTY years ago ("Shaft In Africa"--good with his fists, got laid, spoke foreign languages, conversant with technology). If I really believed that roles would be cast color-blind, I wouldn't care. But they NEVER have been. Do it for real, and sure. Otherwise, I just have to haul up my rant about sexual apartheid in film for the umpteenth time, and eventually that's gonna piss me off.

So...either don't do it at all, or do it for real. Picking and choosing just gives the illusion of progress while preserving the real social boundaries.

MLK Day

I don't celebrate the day of King's death. That would seem to be celebrating the work of his killer. I find myself annoyed that McCain, who originally voted against the establishment of MLK's birthday, seems perfectly happy to celebrate the day he got shot in the throat.
##
My favorite show "24" (although if their next season is as bad as their last, I"m changin' my vote) won't be back until next year, with the exception of a 2-hour movie in the fall to bridge the gap between seasons. I am disturbed that so many people seem to have gotten their ideas about the efficacy of torture from watching this nonsense, which is about as realistic as "The Man From UNCLE" when it comes right down to it. That suggests that the artist must be even more cautious of his effects on the culture than I had previously thought. I've defended much violence in media on the basis that
1) Parents should control their children's viewing
2) violent images can be purgative--I know how my own tension levels drop after watching hapless teenagers slaughtered in the woods.
#
But recently, I came across some info that makes me wonder if I've been too naive. Apparently, some video-games are so good at simulating violent experiences that they actually improve a player's capacity for real-world violence. Police reports of a recent school shooter indicate that he entered rooms, swept the corners and double-tapped the victims with the efficiency of a SWAT officer. That...is disturbing. If these games can be used as training for military and police, and it is known that simulations help officers and soldiers overcome psychological prohibitions against killing...then it would stand to reason that we may have a problem here. I'm not at all sure how to balance the need for public security against the need for freedom of expression. I really don't. But this info genuinely disturbed me.
##
What is your opinion about violence in the media, and its effects upon or relationship to violence in society?

Is Randi out of her #@$*ing mind?

Randi Rhodes has been suspended from Air America for calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro "Fucking Whores" at an affiliates meeting. I am
so sorry to hear that she said that, and frankly agree with Air America's action. They can't maintain a position of impartiality or fairness
when their most popular host says things like that. It is unprofessional, and coarsens the public discourse. Considering some of the venom between the
Obama and Clinton camps, this was just pouring gasoline on the fire. I do think that the Clinton campaign has been more negative, but I don't think that level of negativity
has been out of line with politics as usual. As I've said, I don't blame Hillary for playing the old boy's game better than most of the old boys. If I
think Obama's is closer to my own approach to life, that's just a personal preference. Nothing excuses Rhodes' public remarks, and I'm not sure what the right response
is.
##
Another movie I won't see is "Run Fatboy Run" where Simon Pegg and Hank Azaria compete for Thandie Newton's hand. Sorry. If Will Smith can't even kiss Thandie in "Pursuit
of Happyness" I'll be damned if I'll subject myself to watching a couple of white guys slobbering over her. Too bad--I actually like Simon Pegg.
##
There are indeed movies where blacks or Asians play roles originally created for whites. They are certain types of roles--I've never seen what I'd consider color-blind
casting in films. Stage, yes. But films are too big, have to consider audiences too broad. And there was never, and will never be a time when white roles have become
scarce because blacks or Asians have grabbed them. In that very real sense of "can this family/community send its children to college?" there is simply a
difference. I've heard entirely too many white people complain about Affirmative Action disenfranchising whites, when the absolute worst case scenario by the most virulent
racist would be...what? 1% of white workers disempowered? Compare this to the fact that there have been periods where 99% of black or Asian actors were excluded
from the media, and the potential damage of having white actors play non-white roles is vastly greater than having non-white actors playing white roles.

On the other hand, I don't really expect whites to, on average, grasp the difference. It does not profit them to grasp it. If the shoe were on the other foot, I am
quite sure blacks would be equally disingenuous. I hope I wouldn't be one of them.
##
I doubtless miss the mark on some issues regarding sexism, size prejudice, homophobia, and so forth. Sometimes because I'm genuinely blind, and in other times because
anyone who is sensitized or radicalized to those issues tends to see them as more central and omnipresent than those unsensitized. The "sexism is worse than racism" meme
is still being debated out in the blogosphere and elsewhere, and is a piece of this. About 99% of those I've heard arguing this one is either a white female or married to
one. Doesn't make them wrong. Or right. Just suggests that it is very easy to believe the world revolves around you and your problems, and that it is hard for anyone
to really shed their conceptual skin and walk in another's shoes. Now, there's one way I think this position is defensible: even if women experience HALF as much pain and
unfairness as blacks, since there are about five times more women than black people in America, I suppose someone could make the case that this represents more misery, and
that therefore women are more disadvantaged. Taken further (as people always do when they're trying to win self-serving arguments), one could multiply this out across
the entire world's population, and make an even stronger case.

Viewed this way, you COULD make that case. But I would consider that particular debate tactic to deliver tainted spoils to the "winner."
##
I'm looking forward to seeing "The Ruins" today...sounds like a terrific horror movie, and I can't wait. What movie are you looking forward to this year?

Secret #6: Heartbeat Meditation

Some of you have heard the story about my meeting and falling in love with Tananarive. She fills my heart so completely that it is hard to think back on
my reaction prior. Now, if she got her legs cut off by a train, or her face blown off by a grenade, it would only make me love her more. But get real...
is anyone surprised that if I'd met her and those legs had been gone, or that beautiful face had been scar tissue, that I would have married her? The
chances are almost zero. And if her thyroid went whacko and she gained 100 pounds, I would be right there with her in the doctor's office, on any diet or exercise
program suggested right there with her, and if none of that would make any difference, I'd simply suck it up and love her.

But if you think I'm shallow because I probably wouldn't have been interested if she'd had that problem initially, go right ahead. People have the right
to judge me, and decide that I'm not to their liking on whatever grounds they desire, including (I hope) physical attractiveness. Hell, who doesn't want to
feel that the person they love finds them desirable not just "spiritually" or "emotionally" but also physically? When I am attracted to a woman emotionally or spiritually,
she becomes a friend or confidant. For her to become a lover, there had to be a physical component. I want to have a relationship with someone who can keep up with me
in every way. I HAVE THAT RIGHT. I want someone who has enough energy, intelligence and self-confidence that I'm not continually frightened of dominating her. I
get tired of being told I'm obsessive about working out, even if I spend 1/5th as much time doing it as they spend watching TV. I don't like to justify myself,
my actions, and my world-view every time I turn around. So if her face had been burned away? Man, unless we lived next door to each other for YEARS, the chances that
I would have developed a hind-brain reflex saying "Yowsa!" when I look at her wouldn't be great. I mean, I love guys too, but just don't get that reflexive sexual
reaction from them. No real control there. Wow, what a concept: I like to be attracted. What about if she'd been overweight? Depends on how much. If it was a health
issue, I might have admired her courage, but I have the same right to have someone in life who can share my interests as anyone else. I'm afraid I'd love her from a distance.
But again, if she gained it AFTER we fell in love, through no fault of her own physically, I would react to her almost exactly the same. If she changed as a result of
BEHAVIORAL changes, I'm afraid it would have an effect on my respect for her...which could well affect my emotions.

Ladies, to put this in perspective, how often does ardor cool if a man stops working and decides to lay on the couch?
##
So we have a real difference: what is attractive on the surface, what is attractive down deep, and what keeps a relationship together once the bond is made. They are three
different things, but I think that in the healthiest relationships, two people are displaying through their actions and dress values which actually reflect their
true natures. From across the room they broadcast their physical and intellectual and emotional nature. As you approach them, and get to know them, their deeper
structure echoes their original impression. Go deeper, and you find humanity in all its myriad positive and negative aspects, but no cruel surprises.

The trouble is when people feel that their outer shells or lives are tremendously different from their inner essence. While they are right: our inner selves ARE different
from our outer presentations--the more the inner and outer match, the better off you are.
##
Which leads us to #6 of the Seven Secrets: HEARTBEAT MEDITATION.

Not all meditations that are safe are effective. Not all effective meditations are safe. Heartbeat Meditation, learned as a student of Sri Chinmoy, is both. It is simplicity
itself: you sit quietly and listen to your heartbeat. This goes incredibly deep, if you follow it down, but here are some basic thoughts.
1) For the first 15 minutes or so, your mind will throw up every bit of garbage it can manage to try to get you to stop.
2) Think of it as peering into a pan of water with a mirror at the bottom. If the surface is roiled, you can't see your true reflection. As the surface calms, the true
reflection becomes clear.
3) Do this first thing in the morning. As you learn to pierce the outer levels of illusion, seek to bring this calmness and centeredness into your day.
4) Seek moments of flow in your life: driving, sex, painting, gardening, yoga, whatever. As you identify them, learn to bring that quality into your meditation.
5) Sit upright when you perform Heartbeat Meditation, to help keep yourself from falling asleep. Falling asleep is a perfectly normal ego defense mechanism--your
false self doesn't want you to contact your true self.
5) Touch the pulse point on your wrist or your throat to find your pulse if necessary. As you learn to relax and center, you will be able to hear/feel the pulse
anywhere in your body you choose.
6) Notice how your breathing deepens and slows as you connect with your heartbeat. Use this centered breathing when you have a need for calm.
7) Once you have done this for several months, you will reach a calm qualitatively and quantitatively different from what has come before. Seek to
enter into this place before you make important decisions.
8) Ask yourself which of your decisions in life is made from such a calm place, and which ones arise from the roiling above.
9) If you have a religious or spiritual tradition, seek within it to find techniques that will bring you to a similar place. This place is beyond
religion, philosophy or language. Beyond race and gender. Beyond nationality or time. Beyond life and death.
10) Expect to get few results for the first six weeks or so. The ego fights dirty...and one of its cruelest tricks is to make you afraid or
uncomfortable or dissatisfied with the precise actions and methods that would lead you to freedom.

Any thoughts? What would you need to know to make this more accessible?

Beauty and Power thoughts

My discussions of the "Beauty-Power Axis" and the way it relates to the Soulmate Process always kicks up dust, and that amuses me. What does NOT amuse me is the fact that it obviously triggers pain, anger, a sense of loss and powerlessness, and more. If I could push a button and change that, I would--if it didn't throw off serious evolutionary patterns. It is certainly not my intent for anyone to "feel like a loser"--unless, by THEIR definitions, they ARE a
loser, and that realization motivates them to take the kinds of actions to bring their life into greater alignment with their
values and beliefs. I wanted to address a few things in connection with this.

1) I'm not saying that I think this pattern of human behavior is good. Just that it is an observable truth that, by a given culture's definitions of "beauty" and "power" the groups of men and women possessing these things gravitate toward each other. This is like saying water runs downstream. Does that mean that you can't carry water upstream? Or swim against the tide? Or boil water into vapor or freeze it? No. But if you don't understand the simple physics of the situation, it's harder to figure out how to get the results you want. If you don't understand gravity, it is much harder to fly.

2) Do I think this is more unfair to women than to men? No, I don't. I'm perfectly aware that many women think it is, but frankly, I find their arguments illogical. Women by this measure are at their most powerful when they are young (of child-bearing age), while men are at their most powerful when they are old. Quite an irony THERE, eh? It would be just as fair to say that this is "unfair to older women" as it would be to say its "unfair to young men." But the power within the set called "Women" doesn't change because you shift power from one group of women to another--the amount of power remains constant within "Women" just as it does within "Men." I mean, remember that those older women used to BE younger women, so that if there is advantage conferred to said group, they got it years ago. And if they didn't, other women
did. So the power doesn't leave the group "women." And those young, cannon-fodder men grow older and
amass power...so the power in the group "old men" is still power in the group "Men." Note that when older women complain about men their age dating young women, I have NEVER, NOT ONCE heard those older women blaming the younger women for "stealing their men." No, what I hear is them blaming the older men for being attracted to younger women. Well, that would be honest...if women would give up their interest in wealthy, powerful men. Gee, when do you think that will happen? And do you really think it takes more time per day for a woman to preserve her beauty than for a man to preserve his power? Really? I've personally never known a woman who spent more than, say, 2-3 hours a day working on her beauty (and I considered that
pretty pathological) whereas men and women working 10-12 hour days to build wealth is relatively commonplace (if also pathological). Be fair: men and women beat the living hell out of each other in the mating game, and pointing fingers helps no one.

3) Am I saying these tendencies are universal and immutable? Hell, no. I say they are a tendency, sort of like "calories in/calories out" in weight control. Until you are sure that you've got this basic equation under control, don't search for fancy alternative reasons like allergies, gland problems, etc. If a man is attracted to women who, by cultural standards, is quite beautiful, while he, by the same cultural standards, has no power...he does himself no favor by ignoring this fact. Or in screaming that women are trivial and superficial.

4) Aren't these standards superficial? Yes and no. Wealth isn't superficial. Try being broke and homeless and see just how fast "trivial" money becomes a matter of life and death. Wealth is a hedge against destitution. A woman who mates with a man without considering if he brings resources to the table is doing her potential children no favors. Can't he at least have a stable job, one that he likes enough that he doesn't come home angry every day? Quite true that some chase wealth for its own sake, to the level of imbalance. That would be kinda like being an anoerexic, wouldn't it? Beauty standards around the world have as universal principles only two things that I know of: signs of fertility (body fat, hip-to-breast ratios, "youthful" appearance, etc.) and immune system health (clear skin, bright eyes, good posture, etc.). Most other signs of "beauty" are culturally bound...as are signs of "power" of course.

5) Why does this trigger so much anger? Well, I can only come from my own frame of reference, and from that frame of reference, "Anger is a mask over fear." What would the fear be for men? That they have no power, that they will never have access to the beautiful, smooth-skinned, shapely women they hold in their dreams. Or women who fear that their youthful beauty has flown, and that they can no longer compete with younger women for secure and stable men. God, do you expect me to mock that? Or mock a woman who dreams of a man who can support the household so she can stay home with her children? Or live with grace and luxury? There is nothing at all wrong with these dreams, so long as they
are approached with integrity, honesty, and a certain sense of humor. I remember very very clearly when the women in my high school let me know that I was not sufficiently powerful to attract the most "beautiful" of them. It was glaringly obvious that the most popular guys and girls gravitated toward each other. I could have done several things
a) ignored my own observations
b) resented women for being "shallow"
c) examined my own standards of "beauty."
d) decide to become powerful by my own standards, and trust that there would be women who agreed.

"c" was certainly my first approach. If I wanted people to overlook the fact that I wasn't "powerful" in a traditional sense, I had to be willing to find women attractive who were not "beautiful" in a traditional sense. Fair is fair. But if I DID crave women who were "beautiful" in the traditional sense, I saw the game I would have to play. And I decided to play it. Remember: I don't believe in talent. I believe in hard focused honest work over time.

I would say that the percentage of women who CAN NOT be beautiful (by cultural standards) and the percentage of men who CAN NOT be powerful (by cultural standards) is roughly equivilent. It is well known that women are, on average, attracted to men they consider more intelligent than themselves. Excuse me, but is anyone out there going to suggest that it's easier for a man to increase his intelligence than it is for a woman to lose weight or improve her makeup, hair, and mode of dress? We play these games with each other, and they are unfair to either side.

6) Am I saying beautiful, powerful people have the best relationships? Yes and absolutely no. Certainly, marriages fall apart over money issues faster than ANYTHING else. So lack of power certainly makes nothing better. I fail to see how a perception of "ugliness" helps anything. So it could easily be said that the best and most successful marriages are those in which the partners find one another beautiful and powerful, by their own standards. Those standards
need not match the external social standards at all. Beauty could be a quality of posture, voice, movement, conduct or spirit. And so can power.

7) But...and this is a BIG but...if you are in the mating dance, much of what we initially know about people we learn at a visual distance. Across a crowded room, we see a member of the opposite sex (as I've said, I don't have much idea how this maps over to gay relationships) and have to choose a dancing partner. Men will, on average, approach the most beautiful (by his own standards) woman that he has the nerve to approach. Women will check out a man's shoes and clothes (I have heard this countless times from women, all my life) to make a snap decision about whether she should invest more time in him. Now...AFTER the initial contact is made, they can be laughing, talking, getting to know each other. If you
work or go to school with someone, or live next door to them or are sitting next to them on a plane flight, you go more deeply. Begin to suss out personality characteristics, etc. And if you LIKE the person, you know what? They start looking more attractive to you. But in a world of snap decisions? Bet on making a good first impression from across the room.

If you honestly believe you do not have these external qualities? And do not believe you can acquire them (or the idea of cultivating them is distasteful) then position yourself somewhere where people have a chance to get to know you. Over time, as they enjoy your personality more, your external characteristics will mean less. Schools, churches, social clubs, etc...all have this potential. The internet has been a blessing for those insecure in this arena. You can meet people and bond before they ever see you or your circumstances. And if they connect? They will automatically find you more "attractive." I had a woman say: "well, that's all well and good, but what if you were a woman who had her face burned off in a fire? What in the hell does she do?"

I suggested that if I were that woman, I'd get a job at the Braille Institute. She was aghast.
Hey, I'm just sayin'.

8) I think that there are lots of reasons why this whole thing is considered upsetting. We would like to think that our hearts have infinite value. And so they do. And so do everyone else's. That kinda cancels itself out, and we're left with mundane and quantifiable characteristics. Like I've said--until women start apologizing for being attracted to money and intelligence, it's kind of hypocritical to be upset that men are attracted to fertility and secondary sexual characteristics. ITS NOT FAIR TO ANYONE. IT'S NOT UNFAIR TO ANYONE. It just "is." The gentleman who said that he felt like a loser--God, I'm really sorry about that. If by that you mean that you can't attract the women you are actually attracted to...ouch.

9) So what am I saying to men who cannot, or do not currently, attract the women they are REALLY attracted to? Or women who cannot, or do not currently, attract the men they are REALLY attracted to? Well...several choices.
a) Sit on your resentment. Get sour. Harbor a secret grudge toward the man or woman in your life, saying to yourself "I could have done better" or far worse, hating your life.
b) Go unconscious. Bury your real feelings that you "could have done better." c) Be alone, and increasingly bitter that no one sees "the real you" and that men/women are so superficial.
d) Change your definitions of beauty and power: if you believe someone should look past the externals to the "real you" you have the responsibility of being able to look past someone ELSE'S exterior to see "the real them." Learn to see past flesh to spirit, and laugh at the children still caught in the external aspects of the "mating game." After all...a man actually in love with a beautiful woman stays with her through Chemotherapy, even if she loses her "beauty." And a woman in love with a self-made millionaire stays with him through bankruptcy. We're talking about what attracts, not what
holds together.

What you MUST have to be happy in life is a life where your goals, beliefs, and values are in alignment with your actions. If you really think that the qualities of "beauty" and "power" are superficial, then you can laugh, or be saddened, by our cultural obsession with both. But if my words trigger anger or fear...that's different. That's not spiritual evolution on your part--that's denial.
e) My favorite choice. Get very, very clear on what constitutes beauty or power to you. For me, it is definitely "what did you do with what you were given?" rather than "did you win the genetic lottery?" A woman of spectacular genetic beauty is like a man married into a wealthy family. Both exist, but the majority of rich and beautiful people, I honestly believe, are that due to efforts of will. There are many, many ways to get rich or be considered powerful--as many as there are social fabrics and individuals with opinions. The same is true of beauty. There are many, many different ways to be beautiful. If you are beautiful in a non-traditional way, your easiest course is to find a man who is powerful in
a non-traditional way. Then, relish your lack of tradition and laugh at the plebes.
But if you like the traditional measures of beauty and power, then move in their direction. As you do, embrace your humanity, maturity, mortality, gifts and limitations. As you move toward your goal, you will develop enormous compassion for others along the same path. If you truly, deeply, love yourself despite the fact that you aren't the most "powerful" or "beautiful," if you get the joke, can laugh at life and still move forward...guess what? You will find someone who is moving forward at the same rate you are. Who is at the same place in his/her life that you are in yours. And if you really, honestly, see the beauty in your own heart despite your failings and imperfections, the beauty in your potential partner's soul will shine like a star. And the two of you will be able to walk together in life.

But don't ask others to see past more imperfections than you are willing to forgive. That is dishonest.

Forbidden Kingdom and racial images

Someone asked me what I thought of "Forbidden Kingdom" (the Jackie Chan/Jet Li movie) with its white star, in the light of "21". Or "A Mighty Heart."
Or that 9/11 movie, or any other film where the race of the character is changed to white supposedly due to "Color Blind Casting" or some other such
lie. Well, obviously, what it is is an attempt to reach the largest audience. Human beings are tribal (doesn't that sound so much better than
"racist"?). People are more inclined to see something if there are emotional anchor-points connecting the actors to the audience. Race is one of
those, don't you dare doubt it. No one wants to admit it, but it's the simple truth. That said, the white kid in "Kingdom" holds the role of the
clueless kid who is trained by the masters. Oh, what the heck...why not? I mean, we all know why we'll go see this movie...for the supposedly fabulous
fight scene between Jackie and Jet. All else is dross. Cast a cow, if they want to.
What WILL disgust me is if he has a romantic dalliance with a beautiful Asian girl. While, of course, Jackie and Jet are "above such things." The human hindbrain can be frustrating.
##
The subject of seduction came up. An interesting one, to be sure. Let's make it clear that we're not talking about courtship, which may or may
not include premarital bedroom shenanigans. Seduction is the art of making sexual contact with another human being--the question of the
ultimate relationship status isn't really relevant. Clearly, the "art" of seduction is different for males and females. Women can usually manage
to get sex whenever they want to...if they don't care about a relationship afterwards. Men are just that desperate. Guys often set out to dangle
the signs of "potential relationship" in front of a woman, complete with suggestions of his net worth and social mobility. I remember reading a
book applying some fairly sophisticated psychological theory to "making a man fall in love with you." To me, this is the same as those "Speed
Seduction" books and courses. Same ethical level.

The real question is: how can men and women satisfy their sexual needs (separate from a committed relationship) while remaining ethical? Most of
us have had encounters that we later regretted. Others have had missed opportunities where it only dawned on you after you left the party that
he/she was hitting on you. Learning to navigate these waters, being honest and compassionate, while still having fun, is a test of mind and heart.
Personally, looking back over my life from the safety of being well and truly married, I can think about the experiences I've had and extract rules
that seem to work, that I would be happy to pass on to my son, for instance. I didn't pass rules for seduction to my daughter--I have to
be honest and admit that I love the line from EdTV: "Men are the gas. Women are the brakes." What I gave Nicki was a caution that until she could
support herself legally and ethically, she had no business messing with sexual energy. It is simply too powerful.

What would I tell Jason? Well...considering that I thought for about three years to figure out what I was going to tell Nicki, I suppose it would be
a good idea to start thinking about it.
##
As strange as it may sound, my primary rule is to treat every woman the way I would want someone to treat my sister, my daughter, or my mother.
That is, if one can imagine one's sister, daughter, or mother having a lusty, healthy sexual life. I have no problem with such imaginings. This then
ties back to the idea of "Long term selfishness." That is, that there is nothing wrong with selfishness. The problem is SHORT TERM selfishness, where
people do things to cheat others. Long term selfishness demands that you protect the other party as well, because you want to come back and deal
with them again in days or years to come.

So long-term selfishness applied to seduction means that you have to
1) accurately perceive the values and needs of the other party.
2) determine if you can satisfy those needs ethically, without promising what you have no intention of delivering
3) honestly provoke, induce, or stimulate a sexual desire in the other party
4) project confidence that you can fulfill that desire
5) project the qualities that your object of desire finds intriguing and attractive.
6) provide a safe, comfortable space for the rendezvous
7) Deliver the goods. Remember--you want to handle yourself so that you could come back for seconds some day, right? That
means that you are honest, generous, caring, affectionate, respectful...and genuinely passionate and interested in HER, not just in someone to,
in the single most revolting phrase I've ever heard applied to sex, "dump a fuck in." Christ.
8) Provide mutual protection from STD, pregnancy, or emotional trauma.
##
Here's another rule that I had during my dating years: never have sex with anyone you wouldn't take a call from a year later, at 3:00am in the
morning. If you don't like her enough to care about her life and welfare, exactly, precisely why are you jumping in the sack with her..?

Just wanted to clear the air about basic rules before any discussion of strategy and tactics.
And the question of the day is: what basic rules have you guys set up to control the sexual aspect of the Mating Game?