Murdockinations

Our Strange Culture and the Patriot Act

2012-01-23T04:20:00.000-08:00

Before I get started, allow me a moment to wish you all a Happy Chinese New Year of the Dragon. Gong Xi Fa Cai (Mandarin) and Gong Hey Fat Choy (Cantonese)! I hope this new year becomes a happy event for all.

恭禧發財

Now to get started. We do have a rather "Strange Culture" anymore, from what I know of it, anyway. First, let me just say outright that we need to repeal the so very unpatriotic (and so called), "Patriot Act".

I see nothing Patriotic in it. In fact, it strikes me as a rather cowardly, fear mongering act of a bunch of "cowboys" who were in office at the time (cough, cough, Bush, Bush....).

We do not now have a culture like we did when that act was being discussed, nor like when it was passed, nor even afterward. IF there are "terrorists" out there trying to get us, I have two things to say about that. One, we have laws covering this already. Two, if there is a culture in the world where people want to kill us, we need to be adult about it, intellectual about it, figure out what the problem is, and fix it. Or simply draw faster then they do.

Also, this is what we have "intelligence" agencies for. If you cut their resources so they have no money to do their job, as they started doing in the 80s, then this is the situation you will find yourself in. But you don't throw out the constitution because this is hard on us. That, is what I find "cowardly".

Otherwise, the Patriot Act is simply yet another American easy way out method of "fixing" our troubles.

I just watched a documentary called, "Strange Culture". What a strange thing it was. Strange, scary, irritating. Remember when the government used to fun the Arts? Why did things go so wrong, that this is a no go any longer? Who was mismanaging our Government so that we cannot afford to move forward on the path to more leisure for our citizens, and more arts and sciences? And not sciences solely for the benefit of the corporations.

Hope Kurtz

The "Strange Culture" documentary is about an art Professor and professional artist woke to find his wife had died in bed. She was young in her forties, attractive, and fully supportive of her husband and the art collective he was involved in. When the paramedics came to their home, they saw part of the new art project he was working on and called someone. Soon, the FBI got involved.

It's a cause and a situation that had brought in the likes of actress Tilda Swinton as Hope, Jay Ryan as Steve, along with Peter Coyote and Wallace Shawn Thomas.

From Wikipedia:

Steve Kurtz - Really, this guy is a Terrorist?

"Steve Kurtz is a professor of art at the SUNY Buffalo, former professor of art history at Carnegie Mellon University and a founding member of the performance art group, Critical Art Ensemble. He is known for his work in BioArt, and Electronic Civil Disobedience, and because of his arrest by the FBI in May 2004. His work often deals with social criticism."

Rather than simply first listening to what the artist had to say and checking it out, they became proactive and rather than check out intellectually, using "intelligence" (in the information gathering sense, as well as in the use your damn head, sense) to discern what he had actually been doing, which would also have saved the US citizen millions I'm sure, they instead treated the Professor like he was a "terrorist".

This man, who was distraught over the death of his wife, was harangued, harassed, indicted, and put on trial. A process that lasted several years and cost him his money, time, energy, and nearly his sanity and his health and could have ended him up in prison. For having done, nothing, illegal.

Is this the kind of America we want? Because it seems to me that if it is, then we aren't any longer the tough, self-assured kinds of American I've always known us to be. Rather we have somehow morphed into a bunch of school girls, fearful of the playground bullies.

Steve's friends started a petition when all this started up. Some of his art students signed it. But some were afraid to. Why? Why, were US citizens, of the "greatest country in the history of the world", afraid of their own government, of speaking out under the First Amendment, of standing up to say they believed someone was innocent? Innocent until proven guilty. Unless someone labels you as a "terrorist".

And what is a terrorist? Is it someone you "think" might be one, or do something that makes them one, or is it someone who has done a terrorist act? Yes, it would be nice to catch terrorists before they act. But look at what it's gotten us. People afraid to speak out when they know someone is innocent.

Why?

The "Patriot Act".

Special Ed. - Update on 1/18 from Fight for the Future

2012-01-19T04:20:00.000-08:00

I received this in an email yesterday about the 1/18 blackout:

[Yesterday] was nuts, right?

Google launched a petition. Wikipedia voted to shut itself off. Senators' websites went down just from the sheer surge of voters trying to write them. NYC and SF geeks had protests that packed city blocks.

You made history today: nothing like this has ever happened before. Tech companies and users teamed up. Tens of millions of people who make the internet what it is joined together to defend their freedoms. The free network defended itself. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is clear: from today forward, it will be much harder to mess up the internet.

The really crazy part? We might even win.

Approaching Monday's crucial Senate vote there are now 35 Senators publicly opposing PIPA. Last week there were 5. And it just takes just 41 solid "no" votes to permanently stall PIPA (and SOPA) in the Senate. What seemed like miles away a few weeks ago is now within reach.

But don't trust predictions. The forces behind SOPA & PIPA (mostly movie companies) can make small changes to these bills until they know they have the votes to pass. Members of Congress know SOPA & PIPA are unpopular, but they don't understand why--so they're easily duped by superficial changes. The Senate returns next week, and the next few days are critical. Here are two things to think about:

1. Plan on calling your Senator every day next week. Pick up the phone each morning and call your Senators' offices, until they vote "no" on cloture. If your site participated today, consider running a "Call the Senate" link all next week.

2. Tomorrow, drop in at your Senators' district offices. We don't have a cool map widget to show you the offices nearest you (we're too exhausted! any takers?). So do it the old fashioned way: use Google, or the phonebook to find the address, and just walk in, say you oppose PIPA, and urge the Senator to vote "no" on cloture. These drop-in visits make our spectacular online protests more tangible and credible.

That's it for now. Be proud and stay on it!

--Holmes, Tiffiniy, and the whole Fight for the Future team.

___

P.S. Huge credit goes to participants in the 11/16 American Censorship Day protest: Mozilla, 4chan, BoingBoing, Tumblr, TGWTG, and thousands of others. That's what got this ball rolling! Reddit, both the community and the team behind it, you're amazing. And of course, thanks to the Wikimedians whose patient and inexorable pursuit of the right answer brought them to take world-changing action. Thanks to David S, David K, Cory D, and E Stark for bold action at critical times.

P.P.S. If you haven't already, show this video to as many people as you can. It works! http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/

Special Ed. - SOPA and PIPA Protest

2012-01-18T04:20:00.000-08:00

January 18th, 2012 is the largest online protest in history, to stop theinternet censorship bills, SOPA & PIPA. Join in by blacking out your siteand urging everyone you can reach to contact Congress now.

SOPA Strike

I was actually against the internet becoming money based way back in the 80s when we thought it (information) should be free. We were right, we were wrong. We had no idea it would turn into what it has, back then. Good things have happened on the web, I have to admit. But there is still plenty of room for it to remain free and open. Yes, we have to protect intellectual properties. But not to the exclusion of what we thought was its original purpose: to serve the people; to protect the people from their own government and that of others; to make the arts, information and knowledge free to all (or at least that in the public domain, and thanks wikipedia); to bring Humankind closer together; to make that which is hidden from us, more transparent. It has now also, and was starting to be apparent back then, been made obvious that the biggest threat to the people is from corporations in capitalistic countries and the government leaders in communist and dictatorial countries. So far so good (Arab Spring). So let's not let it slide into the dark any further than it has already.

SOPA Strike

Original screenplay, or adaptation?

2012-01-16T04:20:00.000-08:00

I'm going through some changes as I've explained in my page on this blog. So from now on, I'll be shooting for only Monday morning blogs. There may be others now and again but I plan to maintain my Monday blog as my main one.

Now, to the point.

Someone asked the other day if you should write a novel before a screenplay, or just write the screenplay. The question was also asked whether the novel adaptation didn't give you more copyright protections.

Frankly, about copyright, I'm just not that concerned for various reasons. Register your screenplay with the US Library of Congress, and/or, the Writers Guild. Now, move on. There is however, in the book field, more of concern now a days about having a platform. Those who are buying would be more interested in your work if you already have followers. If you have a novel, you'll need readers; better yet, followers of your novels, then it's going to be easier to get attention to sell your screenplay.

Writing an original screenplay is fun, hard work and has great amount of freedom. But it can be daunting, especially for a new screenwriter; there are simply too many options to choose from. Adapting a novel however, even your own, supplies you with a ready made road map so you can possibly move faster. Adapting someone else's novel, has it's own built in issues.

For one, it's not the best thing to send in to a screenplay contest, send in one that is original and fully yours. They will want to know you for what you can do, not how you can write someone else's work, transliterating it into screenplay format.

If you are adapting your own novel, it's much easier. If it is someone else's that brings up other issues, including the obvious interpersonal ones. Adapting a novel eliminates some of the need for building and planning. But that brings up issues since what works in a book, won't always work on the screen. You could almost say it seldom works on the screen.

If you've ever seen a film adapted from a book and you didn't like their choices, it can either be lack of skill on the part of the screenwriter, or simply that most books just don't lend themselves easily to screen, unless you tear them apart and rebuild them. At which point you lose some of the readers. But then, if a good movie comes of it, it may be worth it.

After adapting two novels in a row last year, by two different authors, I found it a great pleasure to get back to writing my own original screenplay. It can be pretty frustrating at times adapting a novel because you may find you have to change a single element that can change the entire dynamic of the story, requiring you to go back to the very beginning, to start over. You may at that point want to, or have to, abandon it. On the other hand, that just makes it more of a challenge.

When I got to the end of the screenplay of the second novel I adapted, I realized the story was fundamentally flawed and at that point I had to drop it. Since I had too much other work that I had to get to, I got it to a complete, cleaned up point and laid it down. I may go back to it later, since I put so much work into it, but for now I don't have the time to restructure it. Because it's another author's novel, I felt an obligation to them to try to maintain the original story line as much as I could. The changes I did make, I felt were warranted and actually made the story better. I did what I could to make it work in the time I had to work on it.

Since I need their permission to use their novel before I could sell it, that can run into issues. You certainly can get the paperwork drawn up first so that you can do what you want, but I hadn't done that as I wanted us both happy with the final product. If I was getting paid up front for it, then the paperwork becomes much more important.

I have yet to adapt my own novel but I'm finishing one now that I will later build into a screenplay. As I am the author it will be so much easier to argue with myself over how I'm ruining the book. Hopefully in the end, it will be worth it. Also with it being my own adaptation, I can clearly see the entire thing in depth, unlike with another author's novel.

As to the question, writing a novel first gives you a great back story, depth of story and character; of course, same with another author's work. You can also of course, write the screenplay and later write the novelization of it. I suppose it can work either way and both have benefits.

I like the freedom I have in writing an original screenplay without a novel first. But I see value in both. I don't think I would ever always write a novel first and then adapt it. It only takes doing it once to see why. But neither would I never adapt a novel. But then I'm kind of like that. I enjoy the variety and the challenge.

What I've found however is that by writing in one format and adapting to the other, you flesh out elements you wouldn't normally notice in only a single format. Then adding that, if it's useful, to the other format, you will have a more complete story. And story is what it's all about.

As an example, I have a short story "Sarah". I originally wrote it as a short story but I've written it to screenplay format. I've since gone back and forth between formats updating it as it developed from within one format to the other. After all that, last night I found an ending that was perfect and I wouldn't have found that, I'm pretty sure, if I had not been going back and forth like that.

In the end, it's all good. Try many different things. The more you do, the more you learn. That goes in any field. That's why liberal arts degrees give you a more rounded background in the end. But eventually you will need to settle on what is going to get you the furthest. Consider you only have so much time and energy. Put it into what will push you along in your efforts the furthest.

Basically, write. Write a lot.Write all the time. And send it out. No manuscript or screenplay ever got sold sitting in a dusty closet being forgotten.

"Did you exchange, a walk-on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?"

2012-01-13T04:20:00.000-08:00

One of the seminal lines in my young life, while in my twenties, was this line:

"Did you exchange, a walk-on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?"

That line in Pink Floyd's 1975 album and title song, "Wish you were here" was a banner that my friends and I followed through the late 70s.

Pink Floyd are probably more well known for their "Dark Side of the Moon" album and their songs, "Time" and "Money". Or their later work on "The Wall" album and film. But "Wish you were here", was a magical album for some of us. It was no "Dark Side of the Moon", to be sure, but it had it's own kind of charm.

I was in the Air Force at the time, what we called, "The War". Compared to my previous life, just being in the military felt like "War". But it was peacetime; still it felt like a war to us. Mostly a way between us younger people and the Sergeants and Officers. But, we had what we felt was a "walk-on part in the War", there was no war, so it wasn't active; rather it was an easy, "walk-on" role. We wondered, what would a "lead role in a cage" be?

It was all cerebral, no one was shooting at us. The "enemy" was the establishment, the administration, the government, our superiors (though we didn't really think most of them were very much superior to us).

Certainly you cannot now compare our experience with that of soldiers in Vietnam, or more recently, the Middle East wars. But we didn't have that to contend with.

I remember in Basic Training, we were lead into a classroom and given our "72 hour briefing". By that time, actually by the first fifteen minutes after arriving, many of us had realized we had made a big mistake. At the briefing, we were told that "up to this point, any of you, could have, at any time, walked away with no ramifications whatsoever. You were free to leave. But as of this briefing, you no longer have that right. You are not Airmen in the United States Air Force and if you now try to leave, you will be considered AWOL, Away Without Official Leave, and you will be brought back, and you will be prosecuted."

I remember, everyone looking around at one another and the looks on their faces. Because the only reason some of us hadn't already left, was because we thought we were already able to be prosecuted, or given an other than honorable discharge, something you don't want following you around all your life. So we were pretty bummed. There were a few acknowledgements of cursing in the seats and a few smiles from our Technical Instructors (TIs). That was our first real beat down. We had been yelled at and given a hard time and we thought that was our beat downs, but we had just learned that we were way out of our league here.

The TI then told us that for anyone in the Flight (a group of fifty guys) who had thought that they would join the Air Force to get away from their mommies and daddies, they had just made the worst mistake of their young lives. Because by time they got done with us, they will be wishing to God they were dealing with only mom and dad. This was not the place to run off to if you want to get away from being told what to do, and when and how to do it. More worried looks from the seats.

Oddly enough I went in Law Enforcement, a Cop, then ended up in Survival Equipment

By time I got to my main base, after Lackland BMTS and after Chunute AFB training school, I was pretty indoctrinated. I swore along with others of my acquaintance, not to let them beat us down, break us, or make us drones. It became very important to us to remain individuals. We realized the need for teamwork, for being able to follow to group in order to complete our mission and survive in a war situation; but we wanted to hold on to our belief that we were individuals, we were in control of our destinies and we were not "own" by the government.

I can remember whenever two or more of us would be walking down the street, we'd quickly realize that we were walking in locked step. We would do everything we could to walk out of step, but within a minute, we would be marching along together once again. That was extremely frustrating and concerning to us at the time.

After days and weeks and months and eventually years of doing the same damn job day in and day out, dealing with orders to do what we were told time and again, some of these things banal and ridiculous, after a long time of being frustrated at the military lifestyle, it became even more important to us to maintain our individuality. We would grow our hair long, wear our olive drab fatigues in a way to get away with it hopefully but wear them in some way, differently than everyone else. Few got away with that.

We'd try to wear our hats differently. That didn't work. If you're hair was long, you got a $50 ticket from the Law Enforcement guys, and even more demoralizing, you then had to pay for your own haircut, even thought you didn't want one, and had to already pay a $50 ticket.

I can remember one day, "California" Dan, came into the back shop and was upset about yet again, something like this happening to him, some burden our being in the military had put upon him once again. He was from California and was a tall, lanky, kind of odd character, but intereting, passionate (too much so for our or his own good, at times) and was one of my best friends. I had grown up in Washington state, just north of him in Tacoma. We had grown up in very different lifestyles but were both pretty much rebels.

However, I was a little older than him and had figured out how work the system. He was pissed off yet again about something. Angry at the powers that be and I remember him reminding me about the line, saying that he didn't want to be one who sold out, and he was worried that they would win, and his personliaty (which like mine, was bigger than life, but his was out on his sleeve for everyone to see and poke at):

"Did you exchange, a walk-on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?"

That was when I realized just how much of an impact Pink Floyd had had on my, on our, lives. We hung tenaciously on to that concept of maintaining our individuality. We were not going to be "Lifers". There were two types of individual who went on beyond an initial six year service, the "Career" guys who could be guys like us, who wanted to retire at thirty-eight with twenty years in; and the "Lifers" who were generally complete assholes, hard, possibly redneck, macho types. We avoided them like the plague.

We did our work, biding our time, waiting to hit that day at which you become a "two digit midget" and have less than 99 days left in service; then the glory of almost, that penultimate, "one digit midget", and finally, you're out. It was a time we thought would never arrive. Four years active service, then a fearful two years out of uniform of inactive service, waiting to be called back, for a war to happen, for them to find something you did wrong and pull you back in, possibly to go to jail. I saw that happen, too.

Getting out, seemed a far fetch dream and until then we had exchanged a "walk on part in the 'war' for a lead role in a 'cage'." In this case, the "war" was Life and the "cage" was the military. We felt like we were in prison. We used to say that our situation was worse than being in prison because there, you had people forcing you to return to your situation. But in the service, we got off work, got to go home off base, but then in the morning, of our own recognizance, we had to force ourselves to return, as much as we didn't want to.

It meant to us that we had sold out in a way. All we had to do, not to return, was not return. But then we did.

Sucks being antisocial, a rebel, in the underground, or the "Brotherhood" as some termed it; those who led a life not sanctioned by the powers that be. We called work, "The Farm" and the barracks, for any sad enough to be single and unable to officially move off base, it was called, "The Zoo", because of something the guys that lived there and did weird things.

It was a strange time for us young guys. It was hard to get through and required drink and partying from time to time. Trying to act and feel normal while not being a part of it (the military). I probably had the longest hair on base, and never once got a ticket. Which was weird for my friends, some of whom had gotten several. Because I learned the rules, the regs, the tech manuals, and became very good at my work, I became "The Chosen" for my shop.

I made my boss look good, earned days off from passing tests I was tasked to do when traveling inspectors showed up.I kept my appearance perfect. I used Dippity Doo on my hair and wore my hat whenever possible. One time downtown, a civilian clerk at a store wouldn't believe I was in the Air Force until I showed him my ID card with my photo on it. Everyday, as soon as I got home, I showered that hardened gel out of my hair and suddenly, I was transformed into a, Civilian! Amazing. We had to do little things like that to maintain our sanity.

And music, was one of those things that really helped. Being basically rock type guys, we loved listening to rock and roll when we were working in the shop. But our Shop Supervisor was from Texas. So he listened to Country music all the time and back in the late 70s, it sucked. To us anyway. It wasn't what Country is now. So when I took over as Shop Supervisor, life was good.

Finally the day came when I got out. And life was really good. Until I tried to find a job. After being responsible for people's lives, for millions of dollars of equipment, I couldn't get hired at McDonald's. It was pretty sad. After a year of no work, living at my brother's, he talked me into going to college. And I did. And the rest is history. My college years were the best years of my life and led to a lot of great things.

But if it wasn't for some of the music out there, I really don't know how some of us could have made it. And some of us didn't. Even in peacetime, some people don't make it out of their military days alive. But then I had to come back to that question, too. I've been working in IT for years, and I had to work in a cubicle, in an office. I've had friends tell me, who worked out of doors, that they could never work in a cubicle. And again, I had to consider that question, only now, it had a somewhat different meaning; one that I realized, after my services years, changes from time to time throughout life:

"Did you exchange, a walk-on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?"

Well, now that my kids have grown up and moved out, I've been able to do my job from home. No more cubicle, though I'm still tied to that corporate life. I've also been working very hard now for a few years to be able to make a living through more artistic pursuits, through my writings, and things are progressing well. Not fast enough to be sure, but I'm seeing progress.

One of these days I have high hopes that finally, I will abandon that lead role in a cage, and move on out into greener pastures. It's only a matter of time.

Pink Floyd

Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here (1975)

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

Words are our greatest magic

2012-01-12T04:20:00.000-08:00

Speak out. Speak intelligently. Think of others, not just yourself. Our government now seems to be run by only the fearful, the greedy (yes, possibly you), the selfish, those of limited vision even when they think they are looking to the future. What future? It is their future. Not our future.

Police beating on the elderly, on women and children, on educators and the spiritual in public demonstrations (what are you so afraid of?).

Arresting people for "public dancing" (really?).

In the final Harry Potter movie (Yes, I'm invoking HP), Prof. Dumbledore say (and how would he feel about all this):

"Words are in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it."'

When we as Humans first developed the use of language, it was the most potent magic we had. One word wrongly used, could get you killed; in many ways, for many reasons.

As we've evolved, we have formed new ways to deliver words, some divorced from us in time and space (recordings, writings, etc.). We have infused our language, we have created multiple languages, and learned more than one. We have created lexicons pertaining only to one thing. In a word, we have diluted the magic of our words to the point that the odd example only seems to be truly effective unless you are a wordsmith and can turn an effective phrase at will.

But there is a good chance that what we have done, has again evolved and that we are in the middle, between the old and the new; perchance one day, words will again have magic, and more than we could ever have concieved of. Physics even supports this.

In rotating certain elements that exist in pairs, by rotating one, it forces its mate, that could be anywhere, any distance away in the universe, to replicate its actions at the same, the very same moment. That includes elements in the brain. It's, "magic" and lends itself to the possibility that true magic is possible. There is even a contention in physics that in all possible dimensions of this one, in another, somewhere else, physics there could be very different than what we know. Perhaps, "magic" is possible in one of them. The old monkey and a typewriter hyposthesis.

It is a consideration that could drive the Role Playing Gamers a little mad with desire, or frustration.

When you consider how one can merely say a few words, or a single word and evoke a response, it;s a kind of magic all of its own. It really is kind of amazing. When you read a really well crafted novel, or a news article, or watch a movie, or a documentary; when you consider the response it can evoke, it really is pretty amazing, don't you think? That without touching something, you can make something happen.

We all have our consciousness raised, hopefully, and thankfully, from one point in our lives to another. Words need to be our magic, we need to share those words. We need all the magic we can get.

Look around the country at the nonsense that is happening. Look who has taken over our government: the ignorant, the cowardly, those fearful of immigrants, losing their money, fear of what? Where are the heroes and the free and brave?

Why does this always degenerate into politics? Hmmm.....

But to not speak out? That is to hide the magic we have at our disposal.

I think we all need to speak out, and the more the better. Hiding in the dark is what those who want to abuse power are hoping for. The Dark Lords, if you will. The Mitt Romney's, the Newt Gingrich's. Possibly, the Barack's.

Remember, the more you hide, well, the more you hide.

Remember about how the governement should fear the people, not the people fear their government. That doesn't happen by hiding. It doesn't mean you have to march in the streets (but please, feel free to do so). It means you have to speak out, change opinion, enlighten, educate, open minds.

Sometimes, grassroots thoughts, just telling what you believe, makes another feel stronger, so that they then tell someone else and, the more who share their thoughts, the better. It's what Hollywood did in the 50's in speaking out through film so that the idiots and conservatives, the fear mongerers, who were too damn stupid to understand, who couldn't see what was right before them, let it pass; and so it shaped the 60s, allowed it to happen. The more you constrict, the more you set up the next expanse. So, in a way, I'm not too panicked. But to see what is happening around us, is scary.

So don't, NOT speak out. Conversely, speak out as much as possible and in ways that are both clever and decisive. Abandoning the country (you ex pats), hiding your beliefs (let them be the fearful, not you, not us), isn't the bravest way to go about things; it's just the most comfortable. We have been comfortable. Look where it's gotten us. And if you think this, is good, that you've achieved something positive, then you are part of the problem.

Look how well speaking out has worked for those ignorant people, those conservatives, religious types who have subverted our government into the morass of problems we now have. It worked for them. Didn't it?
Years ago, someone in the Christian right realized, "Hey, if we band together, our tiny foolish voices can have an impact, we can change our nation, we can subvert how things are going. Even though we're the minority, we can be thne vocal minority and people will start to think we're the majority, even though we know, we're not."

And they were right, to the decimation of our freedoms. To the propagation of the George W's, the Newts, the flora and fauna of the demise of a great nation.

They meant well, surely they did, in their tiny minds. But they have nearly destroyed a great nation. But not yet. In doing what they have done they have not only achieved their goals in limiting the freedoms of the liberals, the libertines, the progressives, but as always happens, which they didn't seem to get, they are limiting their own freedoms. And it will (and is) coming back to bite them. Foolish, short sited people. Stupid fat little hobbitses.
Religion does as it always does, it holds us to the past, to the limitations, to the small thinking, to the desires of a God understood or created back during a time when eveything really was fearful and limited.

And what do we have now?

A limited bully country, steeped in fear, conservatisim. Is conservatism bad? No, of course not. Not unless it is taking blinding ourselves to its extremes, as we have done. Conservatism doesn't mean, closed mindedness. But it has however, become that.

"Our goal, at all costs". It is fundementalism in its worst form. We might as well become the old Communists of the Soviet Union. Have we bceome, are we becoming, what we have destroyed? And in destroying them, taken on what we have had to learn to be rid of?

Sometimes, it feels like it.

But there is magic in our words. Evoke the magic. Big things come in small ways. Share your thoughts. Allow intelligence to rule. Speak your mind but speak intelligently, use words in an intelligent manner, for the best possible future for all Humankind.

Think, then speak. But speak. The more you think first, the more power your words will have. For therein lay the magic.

Ronnie Butler Jr. video

2012-01-11T04:20:00.000-08:00

Talent Alert! On the lighter side of things... well sort of, I mean, what Ronnie is singing about, hmmm, I suppose it's kind of got a dark side to it, but in a very cool, very interesting and entertaining way. What am I talking about?
Okay, Courtney (Zito) had recently said, "Check this guy out, he's a friend of mine, Ronnie Butler."

I trust her opinion. So, I did. I checked him out.

Is that sexy cute, or what?

Courtney is a film actress who also produces the very funny and entertaining, "Hollywood Girl." I've talked about her and that project before, producing her own web series much in the vein of Felicia Day with "The Guild" web series that she produces. One stop shopping kinds of ladies: writer, actor, producer. I like them. Attractive, artistic, funny, interesting... there are some very talented people out there on the web.

So I was pleased to find another talent I had yet to hear of. Granted, he doesn't really have that really good looking girl thing going for him, so he'd better have something special. Oooo, I think he does.

So, who?

Ronnie Butler Jr. Courtney had said to check out his video so I did. I told him I really liked it and he said thanks. Seemed like a very likeable, interesting, clever guy.

It's a very well done, entertining video. I liked it, I liked this guy and his attitude. The song is: "The Photographs of Your Junk (will be publicized!)". Funny, accurate, true, to the point.

He takes the word "junk" and squeezes all the meaning he can out of it, turning it into something very poignant and aware. Our life really has morphed into something beyond, perhaps out of, our control and his music video exemplifies this eloquently and with humor. So, check it out and see if I'm not right about this.

And if you liked that one, try this one: Obama! A Modern U.S. President (Musical Spoof). The byline says: "What happens when the President is accused of not living up to the country's expectations? He breaks into song!!"

That is really well done. It made me smile. We need more of this kind of thing, if you ask me. Enjoy. Let Ronnie know, too, that you liked it (if you did, and how could you not?).

Horror film standards

2012-01-10T04:20:00.000-08:00

Why or why, in horror movies and slasher flicks, does the "good" guy always hit the "bad" guy just enough to break free, and then simply run off?

As a rule of thumb, if you ever have a chance to smack an attacker and it gets him off of you, spend the next couple of minutes or so as your one and only goal in life, to finish the damn job. Think Pres. Bush in the first Gulf war. He could have finished off Sadman Insane, but no, like any virgin in a college slasher flick, he kicked ass, then ran away.

Yes, of course it's a plot device to allow the story to continue, but I also think it's simply bad writing and the writer admitting they aren't good enough to do any better. I think it also says about the character that they really don't deserve to live. Is the compulsion to escape really stronger than the compulsion to live? I can accept certain things, like a slashed throat means the actor pulls his head back to display the appliances and F/X, when in reality you would lower your head in a vain attempt to stop the blood flow. But it gets out of control.

And that is the idea, right? To feel out of control? That circumstances have gone beyond your ability to handle them, and yet, in the end, you succeed? Unless it is the type of film where everyone dies in the end. Which I kind of prefer, actually. But it depends, on whether I was looking for horror, or slasher flick. I think in a slasher flick, someone needs to survive. In a horror film, anything goes.

I wrote a short story once where the protagonist dies in the end, by his own hand, because he couldn't take his reality. That, was horror, it left you with a horrible feeling in the end. The first time I saw Cronenberg's, The Fly, I felt like I needed a shower after that. He turned out a great horror film.

Horror, is either to have a roller coaster ride to Hell, then a catharsis in the end, so you can have that, "I survived Hell, and walked away from it in the end." But there is that other kind, where you don't feel you survived anything but you have experienced the worst things possible, and after the end of the titles, you are free to go back to your life, safe, secure, but maybe not feeling fully secure; maybe a nightmare that night; maybe the film sticks with you for a day or two. "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" was like that for me. Very disturbing.

Slasher flicks are like a roller coaster ride, with a puzzle, something to intellectually keep you going. So when it is a cheap thrill, as I mentioned before, where someone takes out the killer, then simply runs away, so the killer can come back to get them again, and again; or when the killer is killed, but comes back to life, again and again, it just feels like a cheap thrill, a video game with a reset.

I suppose I prefer a horror film with a thriller element, something that is visceral with an intellectual component. When you do that, you can't have those cheap thrills. You have to supply a solid scenario. If one of the "good" good guys or girls takes out the killer, even momentarily, rather than have them simply run away, have something happen so they can't kill the killer off completely. If you have them fall through the floor, have a set up ahead of time about how the building is very unstable, or there was a good reason for the floor to be weak.

So, you need the killer to get taken down a few times in the film, but you also need him to get back up, but reasonably so. Hidden set ups and interrelated components, reasonable interruptions, all need to be peppered through the storyline.

Also, hindsight needs to show proper foresight was possible. You can't just have the killer know what the people will be doing, so he can set things up ahead of time, when it is unreasonable for him to know certain things.

I've been watching a lot of horror films the past two weeks, trying to get a handle on them. I've found some very good low production films, and some very bad, high production films. It's pretty hit and miss. But I find it really upsetting when I watch a high production value film and they have fallen down on something as simply as having used a quality script. Because, one good script, well thought out, and even poor production values can't kill the feeling that you have had a good time.

So, I don't know, do studios just think the kids are stupid? Because it is my understanding that we are getting smarter, not dumber. Just because academic grades are falling, does not mean that kids don't still pay a great amount of attention to their favorite entertainment forms.

So wise up studios. And for you screenwriters, plot well, plan well, and don't take conceptual shortcuts. Let's raise the bar, not lower it.

Senator Michele Bachmann

2012-01-09T04:20:00.000-08:00

This started as a weekend blog. But it got kind of unweekend like so, here we are today.

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

This weekend, I give you the antithesis of being smart and brilliant. This is more of an editorial that simple quotes (sorry about that), but I find these people so despicable, well, I don't know what else to say other than let her speak for herself.

Since Michelle Bachmann dropped out of the race for President (and I'm not a theist, but "Thank God"), I thought a few unhumble words of hers from my favorite past news reports about her was called for. What we should be concerned with here, is that there are actually Americans who support and have similar beliefs with her, that someone who thinks this way can even make it to any position of power in the United States of America. I don't know what happened, but this isn't my America of education, acceptance, and support.

People like this are a backlash against what America is all about. They are American Spirit killers, another product of fundamental religious beliefs which are most functional for holding Humanity back from evolving, advancing to the higher nature we are obviously predisposed to and religion is built mainly to retard. To be clear about where I stand on people like this, I find her views disgusting.

She belongs in some other backward country, maybe a nice homophobic communist country would be best for her and her throwback types. They want to treat American citizens like defectives, people who for all intents and purposes are productive, caring individuals. If communism was the horror of the old days, this type of person is the horror of the present. I fear for us on who may be the horror of the future, if we don't find a way to educate these people into the real world.

I give you, Senator Michele Bachmann:

I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter. –Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), on the HPV vaccine, Fox News interview, Sept. 12, 2011

Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

If we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." -Michele Bachmann, Jan. 2005

[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she has even said she is trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that 2,000 years ago.

''I think there is a point where you say enough is enough to government intrusion. …Does the federal government really need to know our phone numbers? [I haven't been a Bachmann supporter but I do think it's really cool she is apparently all for legalizing Cannabis and same-sex marriages, at least according to the above comments.]

And what a bizarre time we're in, when a judge will say to little children that you can't say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.

One. That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office." – Comment to a conservative conference in Iowa in March.
THE FACTS: The Obama administration issued more than 200 new drilling permits before the Gulf oil spill alone. Over the past year, since new safety standards were imposed, the administration has issued more than 60 shallow-water drilling permits. Since the deep water moratorium was lifted in October, nine new wells have been approved. - From Huffington Post

The farm is my father-in-law's farm. It's not my husband and my farm. It's my father-in-law's farm. And my husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm. – On "Fox News Sunday."
THE FACTS: In personal financial disclosure reports required annually from members of Congress, Bachmann reported that she holds an interest in a family farm in Independence, Wis., with her share worth between $100,000 and $250,000. - From Huffington Post

This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children. — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement. — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

Well, let's hope this is the last we hear of her. But I don't have high hopes. Even if she leaves, some other ignorant fool will find their way into the limelight as they have in the past, Palin, Gingrich, Perry, there's always room for more ignorance at the top. I can only hope that at some point, America will find enough education that they stop supporting the sad, pathetic, the closed minded, and the fearful.

Weekend Wise Words

2012-01-07T04:20:00.000-08:00

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

This is my second attempt at a weekend blog of quotes. My first one, I changed out as Monday's blog because it was about Michell Bachmann and quickly got pretty negative. I prefer to have a more positive blog for the weekends. But I also like reality. Democracy, it's better than most, but not exactly what we need.

What that is, I have no idea. So in the meantime, it will have to do, as it has had to do since the time of Aristotle and Plato. Thinking, however, never hurts. Here are a few things to consider, the next time you, or someone you knows, think they like someone like Michelle Bachmann, Sarah (I can't finish my term as Governor) Palin, Newt Gingrich, and so on and on and on....

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Winston Churchill

Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization.
Winston Churchill [on this one, think about that law Obama signed off on last New Year's Eve that allows detention of American Citizens (AMERICANS!) for an indefinite period of time.]

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mohandas Gandhi

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.
John F. Kennedy [now think of all those ignorant people (strangely, mostly Republicans) running for the highest office in the history of the world]

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
Aristotle

Democracy passes into despotism.
Plato
[Despotism is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group]

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy.
Plato
[Haven't we been seeing that lately? Not tyranny as a dictator, but tyranny as a process of our government. Not bad like in the Soviet Union, or as it has been elsewhere, but we are headed down a path that people should be very concerned with. Kind of downbeat, right? Well then, I will offer you one more positive quote.]

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

And that's what I've been saying all along. But education alone doesn't work, you have to educate yourself with the right education, and the bible, ain't it. Now is the Quaran, or the Book of Mormon, or other such things. Critical thinking alone kills those all off as any kind of rational basis for thought.

The Wackness - Living Life Without Foresight

2012-01-06T04:20:00.000-08:00

I was just sitting here watching "The Wackness". Great name right?

A pot dealer was listening to those graduating. They were at a party and they were talking about how they were going on with their life and he was still going to just deal drugs. He was looking himself, at his graduating High School soon.

It got me thinking. When I was just about to graduate High School, there was no talk, among anyone that I knew, about who was going where to do what. I ended up working full time at an Insurance company that my sister had worked at before she went to work as a model, then a Flight Attendant, which she is still doing.

I had applied at a bunch of places and the one hit I really got, that worked out, was the insurance company my sister had worked at. Well, it was a first job out of High School, after all. She had said, tell them I'm your sister and you will have a good chance there. They told me later that once I mentioned my sister's name, I had a job, they were so impressed with her.

To be fair, I only failed on one thing they put me up to and the simply gave me another job. They had wanted me to resetup their warehouse. It was full of legal insurance forms. I walked around there for a couple of hours and then, sadly, went to my boss and admitted a loss of what to do with them. He was very nice about it and said that the last guy they gave the job to couldn't figure it out either. Now were they to give me that job now, I could do it in my sleep. But that has little to do with being a seventeen year old.

Getting that job was kind of my academic history all my young life. I'd hit a new grade level at school, my sister having been there several years prior, and they'd take one look at me, and you could see it in their eyes: "They're related?" they would think. Several people even mentioned it outward: "Are you really related to your sister? By blood? DNA? Etc.?" Yes. We were related. She was the pretty straight "A" student, I was the solid straight "C" student with ADD.

Point being, I did get a job. Kept it for a couple of years too, until I decided to quit and travel before going into the Air Force. Plus, my little brother was busy dying and I helped out there off and on.

But no one from High School, as I remembered it, talked about or expected to get anywhere. I had been told in fact, that at our school, we had the highest incidence of rapists, robbers, burglars, and criminals in general, in the entire city. Twice the Puget Sound Bank across the street from our school had been robbed by one of our students. One guy, they pulled right out of gym class, his gun and the money both in his gym locker along with his civvies.

Lucky us. A banner group of students at that school. Now to be fair, there were plenty of students that didn't know that culture at school and probably went to college after that. But I didn't know any of those kids.

Anyway, watching this film pointed out to me that in this world of today, kids now talk about where they are going, what they will do, where life is leading them. In my world, when I left High School, I guess I did pretty good in the end, but then, I know now there was an upper middle class group that I suspect most of the school didn't talk to. I suspect my sister knew that group and was surely in it.

Something similar happened when I was in college. About three months before I graduated, I went into the "Career Center". I said that I was about to graduate and wasn't sure what to do about getting a job, using my new, soon to be, four year degree. They just looked at me and said, "Why weren't you in here back in September?" I said, no one told me to, I had no idea I needed to be. And they replied that most of the kids had been searching for a job since the beginning of their Senior year in college.

News to me. My girlfriend too, who had lived with me since we started college. After graduation, we both went back to our old jobs, well, career fields anyway. She was a veterinarian technician. She had started volunteering before I met her, when she was younger. I went back to Tower Records. This was after I got out of the Air Force, after the Insurance company.

After I started college, I got a Veterans Administration check once a month to pay for my school and board. But it wasn't much so I got a part time job at Tower. Then when I moved to the University after getting a two year degree, I coasted for two years, really not needing a job. At least, needing study time more than job time. So when I graduated, they said to come back if I needed to, until I found a job more based upon my degree (Psychology).

But I never wanted a job as a Psychologist. I only had wanted to learn about people, so I could write. I immediately found that a job as a Psychologist paid the same as I got at Tower. Great, all that time, money and effort, for what? So I looked elsewhere and ended up with a job in the computer field which I eventually excelled at and have made good money at for many years now, raised a family or two and now the kids are out and I'm on my own.

But, I kind of stumbled through things. Foresight would have been awesome. But then again, I have always been pretty good at "surfing" or "dancing" through life. When a waves shifts, you have to be able to stand on that board and keep surfing; or when life shifts on you like music or a dance partner, you need to be able to keep dancing along.

That's all great and everything, but really, it's not a bad idea to learn about what is coming up. To be forewarned about what to expect next, to be prepared to jump on the next train, or answer that door when opportunity when it knocks. In a way, I didn't have that in my life. But that didn't mean that others didn't have it, or that I can't have it now.

I'm sure there are others out there who also have had this experience. Sometimes, all it takes to counteract that, is to have someone to tell you to look up, look around, go ask people. Find out, what you need next, what the next step will be in the direction you are headed. Ask those who have been there, ask them far enough ahead of time so that when it is your turn to do something, you have either already done it, or you are prepared to do it.

The wackness of life doesn't need to bring you down. Rather than it wacking the Hell out of you, you should be wacking the Hell out of it.


I had this happen in Canada once when I was 17, she said she was 13 and I politely found another new friend.

Just remember Look Before You Leap, sometimes, way before. The next time you have that thought (or no thought at all) about a big change in your life, seek professional help from therapists, career advisers, doctors, lawyers, whomever know what you will be encountering. If you are going to get married, seek counseling about it, now, beforehand. If you are thinking about divorce, same thing. If you are about to graduate college (and don't tell me you are most of the way through your final year), seek counseling. Set yourself up. Let the world know what you want and that you are ready for them.

One other thing. We should be raising our kids to look ahead, too. We should be raising our kids to believe they need to retire by fifty. It may be the only way we get this society to actually start to look at that. In case you haven't noticed, we are retiring older and older. We need to be retiring younger and younger. We need to be thinking ahead, in many different ways.

Simply consider, that any change you are going to be going through, that a year ahead of time, you have already started full speed to set yourself up for success. Yes, you may be able to dance your way through anything, if you find at the last minute, that you need to have already done this, or that. But consider how much further down the line you will be, how much richer your life will be, if you are already to go, when the time comes.

Don't seek to ride the wave. Be the wave.

Childrearing in Christianity without denying evolution

2012-01-05T04:20:00.000-08:00

In a forum, this question was posited:

"How would you teach a child about Christianity without denying evolution?"

"I have a friend who wants to raise his son Christian but doesn't know how to get thru the evolution cliche that the bible and science have. Any Ideas"

My response to that First, and no offense, but I wouldn't raise a child Christian, or with religious expression as any form of intelligent consideration or paradigm by which to live one's life by. I would teach them about it, but not raise them in it as a viable way by which to live one's life by.

But if I were, there need be no disparity between evolution and a God concept. The issue is religion and how it was diluted with misinformation (See Mormonism, Scientology, they both prove you can create any nonsense and turn out good people, as you can with atheism, or Shintoism (ancestor worship) for that matter).

You can, in Christianity, separate out the old and new testaments, the new with what Jesus said and with what was said about him, although it all is hearsay anyway. I would agree that it would be better to teach them what the desired end result is, how we treat one another, than following specific and adulterated indications by using a book that was compromised any amount of times throughout two thousand years.

Christianity, and religion in general is rampant with picking and choosing what you want to believe. So pick the best, and teach that. When your child comes up to you pointing out the disparities in the teachings (and they will if they are intelligent or have been shaped to use critical thought), just skip to saying, don't worry about the specifics, what is important is who you are as a person.

After all, there will always be people pointing out how you are going about it all wrong anyway. You have to, when you delve into such questionable philosophies, close your mind's eye and bully onward, get through life, die, and hope that those whom you left behind you, those whom you have touched with your model of how you live your life, and what you have stated as truth, have gotten the best you had to offer; and that it helped them make it through their life until they die and those whom they have touched have similarly been affected.

Religions are not created on a large scale to encompass all and every. They are created small, as a kernel, for a specific people in a specific place at a specific time. They then try to evolve as they grow, though some fundamentalists try to keep that healthy thing from happening. Still, they immediately begin to devolve as they grow because as you can easily go wrong, when at the beginning of a boat journey across an ocean, you make on minor miscalculation, and you end up on another continent altogether, so to with a religion created without foresight or a sense of what is out there that it will encounter, eventually it goes awry.

You can teach a child to grow up with critical thought inherent in their being, then introduce them to religion, and allow them to find the good in it, but you cannot learn and grow appropriately from the inside of religion, rather you have to experience it from the outside, otherwise you become contaminated and the lack of insight about the real world all around you; especially those parts of the world you, and the religion (created by geoethnocentric individuals who are most likely uneducated in other areas as well), have no knowledge of and will eventually incorrectly interact with and adversely affect.

You can raise a child with a religion like Christianity, but only if you avoid all the facts, only if you teach only some of it. For to divulge all, as has been known for centuries, you destroy the religious elements, because even a child can see at some point, how it all makes little or no sense, and doesn't function well in the real world.

You cannot "prove" God, by using the Bible as the proof. Sorry. But if a text is called into question, you cannot use that text to prove it isn't false by quoting from it. The initial step off point by theocrats is always to start with the assumption that to deny their beliefs is where to start the argument, from that point forward. "God exists, now prove that false." But it lies the other direction. "God does not exist" isn't an argument either.

See? The starting point really starts before a "God" concept, which is how atheists always fail in their arguing the point with theists. It's like arguing a point of logic, by switching types of logic, yes, you can win an argument that way, but only if you are arguing with someone who has no knowledge of logic. And logic isn't really that necessary. So atheists, always get stuck with "prove God does not exist" when really it is, "prove God does exist." End of argument.

But the question was about children. I think my previously stated points are still relevant. Raising a child Christian, should be easy. Simply deny what doesn't make sense. The entire religion is set up that way, right? So, if you are going to immerse yourself in such a format, why should it be a problem? Do not worry about making it logical, that is the wrong way to go.

You just say, as we've heard so many times before, "you just have to have Faith", which is actually a way to point out a defect in oneself and saying that you cannot handle many challenges in life so you choose to ignore them. Giving your fears over to an outside force, real or unreal, has been proven to be effective for humans and can allow them to achieve great things. Thinking beyond oneself is after all, noble.

That, is a viable choice in one's life. This is America. We are loosing freedoms one after the other. So I will defend your right to believe in whatever crazy beliefs you want, as long as you are that way with others who believe what you may choose to think is crazy to you (atheism, perhaps). Although, I believe we would have a better world with a realistic belief system worldwide.

But if you choose to go that direction, then be proud of you choice of believing in a structured (albeit poorly) ethereal belief system. Just don't try to make it sound otherwise. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. We just need, from here forward, to be sure it doesn't have anything to do with harming other people as too much has been made about God and killing as we have seen for some time now. And there are Christian elements starting to think, around the world, that maybe Muslims are right and that has to be watched for, and put down.

"Regarding my Christian theistic belief, I have said more than once in previous posts that I do not, and cannot offer scientific "proof" for my position ... that is not a burden I need to carry."

Seriously? Okayyyy... that leaves me somewhat speechless and leaves one thinking that way, with a belief based upon shifting sands. It is good to ask theists to take on the burden of proof, as all though history they have pushed the burden onto the few rational ones who tried to stand up to them, and typically were murdered, by the way.

I also do not consider myself an atheist. To me that presupposes I am against a condition that did not exist to begin with, as we start with there being no God, then the addition of a belief in God comes after the beginning. Theists have chosen the non-theist argument all through history since this argument began, a very productive method used by theists to obfuscate things. The Bible, after all, is only a few years old in comparison to the entirety of time, even historical (recorded) time.

Again, I suppose if one wishes to have a belief based not in scientific or rational thought which is based upon something more solid, that is one's choice. Still, it is curious to desire to believe in things which are based all upon hearsay, and edited over time by those with a vested interest in control of those uneducated masses, as they saw it, beneath them.

But they are your kids. I leave you with a video from Hitch.

9/11 conspiracy

2012-01-04T04:20:00.000-08:00

I'm watching a film on Netflix. I'm busy editing a novel I'm finishing up. I like to watch movies while I do that. If I hit an especially difficult passage of the book, I pause the movie.

So I saw this film, rated four out of five stars. It is called, "The Reflecting Pool", from 2008.

Directed by the star, Jarek Kupsc. The production values aren't "A" level but the story is solid and engaging. The write up on Netflix says "A journalist teams up with a man who's daughter died in 9/11 to investigate the U.S. government's possible involvement in the destruction." Okay, this is a movie. You make a drama, you make it work, it is not a documentary. But the web site for the film has an interesting research page available for people to look things up for themselves. And they have an intriguing story, because it asks reasonable questions.

I have watched the twin towers go down in replays, since it happened, over and over again. I listened to the explanations. I heard all about the Pentagon, the plane that crashed in the field because of heroic efforts of the passengers. It all sounded to me like Bin Laden did it, from the information we heard over the months and years afterward. But every since I first got the news that it was happening, I've had questions.

I've had friends talk to me about conspiracy, over the years. I first heard of conspiracies over Vietnam, decades ago. They are fun, interesting, intriguing. But then I looked into the phenomenon of conspiracies, how they work, the psychological process, etc. They are easy to build in hindsight, even when there is nothing there, we tend to find patterns. Many things that look like a conspiracy, just aren't. So I wasn't really interested in hearing 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Now, that being said....

This film brings up some good points. Some that bothered me too, right from the beginning. For instance, building seven at the World Trade Center, goes down pretty symmetrically. Why and how? The twin towers drop straight down. Now, the explanation was that the jet fuel burns hotter than what the buildings were designed for, so when one floor drops, it brings down all the rest beneath it.

The pentagon was just being rebuilt to protect against just that kind of attack that happened, so the terrorists struck a part of the building that had few people in it and had been reworked to prevent a really devastating event. How convenient. There were cameras pointing at the pentagon, the film of which we were never shown, with only five frames made public that showed nothing but an explosion. We saw no plane, before, during or after. There were no pieces of a plane at the crash site that we saw. The flight pattern was too sophisticated for bad pilots to have pulled off. On and on.

Now all this may be explained by the explanations given. But that would have taken a "perfect storm" of events to have all happened together. Occam's Razor states that from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false. Unless, an event, or events have been designed so that it appears one way, when it is actually, something else. A kind of Rube Goldberg event, if you will. An event that makes no sense, unless Occam's Razor makes the most sense, but would be totally incorrect.

Typically, this falls through, as it requires incredible planning, high caliber individuals to pull it off and secrecy the likes of which government's don't seem to be able to pull off. Not in democracies anyway, unless there is a controller behind the controllers; a government inside the government, a rogue element the size of which requires secrecy beyond the point of believability. Sounds like Churchill's vision of the old Russia, doesn't it: "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."

Anyway, I assume that the pilots on 9/11 were Bin Laden's. I can assume luck had some part to play in it. I assume most of what we've heard about 9/11 is true. But that is how to build a good conspiracy theory so that people will discount it. Sometimes you can see what is there by looking at what is not there. Make it mostly true but manipulate things behind the scenes so they point away from the truth. What about all the peripheral elements? The film does a good job of pointing these things out, of building a plausible scenario with previous incidents that allowed a country to go to war by faking attacks against itself. This has been done in the past, as the film also points out. A scene, that is a little bit chilling, to say the least.

I have to assume that this is in a way, the same situation as with the Kennedy assassination. We may never know what happened; at least, not until no one is alive any longer who really cares. If we ever find out what happened, and it was our people attacking our country, then those people should be put to death over it. If the president did it, it would send a good precedent and bolster our claims of what a great country we truly are. Those responsible should either be brought to justice, or a future president should sign off on their demise. I would say, maybe Guantanamo, for life would be a choice appointment.

Now, let's change gears a little.

Ron Paul recently made a statement about the demise of our country: “I fear there will be eroding civil liberties, a Soviet Union-style economic collapse, violence in the streets, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria!” Then he said: “If you really think about it, there have been multiple warning signs – possible government shutdowns, natural disasters, the Kardashians…”

Obviously, the man has seen "Ghostbusters" and has a sense of humor. But if you think about it, what is going on here? Yes, it's going on all over the world. We seem to be going through the death throes of the old ways. Something, is changing anyway. But what? The question is, is it what is best for "We, the People?"

Doubtful.

I had the same questions that the film I've discussed brings up. What took so long to respond to the 9/11 attacks? If you stand back and look at the overall picture, it does make you wonder. Bush wanted to hit Saddam Hussein (so did I); it would seem, he wanted to clean up the mess his father left in Iraq when he was in office and took on the Nut in Bagdad. Saddam had to go. I agreed. But I was offended when Big Bush had the guts to take on Saddam, got him out of Kuwait, but then didn't kick him out of his (life) office in Iraq. I felt offended for the Iraqi people.

But we sent in the CIA with Special Ops troops to take out the Taliban from power in Afghanistan within weeks of 9/11, as they were supporting Bin Laden. We pretty much took them out in short order and got Bin Laden on the run to Pakistan. Now, Ole' Bin is done. That should have been the end of it. So, why'd we hit Iraq again, after getting Bin on the run?

Even if Bin Laden sent in those pilots to take out a few locations in the US, some of the peripheral events leading up to, and after the fact, are very peculiar. When you put that all in context with how things are going now in the US, it's really very strange. If you then look at the "Arab Spring", it throws more dust in the eyes of history. Are these all simply disconnected events? Is anything anymore, disconnected, in the world stage?

We helped the Soviet Union to fail by scaring them so bad militarily, that they ran themselves into bankruptcy over their military industrial complex, among other things, including their own bad management and greed. Have we done that here now, too? Manipulated change? We've seen bad management, and greed. Obviously, but does it include 9/11? And does it include what else is going on? Or did the banking and home mortgage bubble bursting throw dust in the eyes of those with plans, against us? I say against us, because I find it hard to believe, with what I've seen, that they, whoever they are, are doing this for us, for the majority of Americans, for the guy or gal in the street.

Who is it, and why are we making changes in the US that are so questionable? Why do our civil liberties keep eroding? I'm not really seeing any changes myself; life for me seems to be pretty normal, but then, I still have my job, I'm one of the lucky ones. But is that all part of the plan? That we don't notice because we are looking in the wrong directions? We've long known when large events are about to happen, the government will do something big to distract the people. Mostly, not a big deal, but sometimes, sometimes, it gets out of hand. In some cases, millions have lost there lives over it.

But not to worry, that could never happen, here.

If someone keeps changing the laws so that they can one day, "if necessary", take all your money, and then one day, they deem it necessary and all your money disappears from your bank account, isn't it then, too late for you to do anything about it? Won't they just say then, that they are "only following the law"? Sounds pretty reasonable, right? Following the law. Wouldn't you then feel that you should have done something about it, ahead of time?

We are asleep. All this protesting makes us think we are awake, alive, but we're not. Changes are continuing to be put into place, right under our noses and we're not doing a thing about it. And who do we have speaking out? No one, no one who can do us any good. Only crackpots and people who never have a chance of getting into power. No one who is really playing in the game, will speak up. Why? Because then they will no longer be playing in the game.

We need to keep our eyes open, and start asking questions. All the time. Be annoying. Question authority.

It's been said that Thomas Jefferson said that "A government afraid of it's citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!"

I'm not sure if I'm afraid of my government, yet, but I'm not feeling real secure about it anymore.

Anyway, as I said, I don't typically believe in conspiracy theories. Because they are so easy to pick out, in hindsight. But when you have so many elements that don't make sense, you have to stop and ask yourself, "what's going on here"? Because obviously, something is going on here. I just don't know what.No one seems to. Now there, is a conspiracy theory.

Yes, I am concerned. We should all be concerned.

Becoming a Screenwriter

2012-01-03T04:20:00.000-08:00

To become something like a screenwriter, one needs to read how to do it, learn the format, and do it, right?
There is a little more to it than that. Yes, you need to know how to do it, and you need to be able to do it well. But you also have to survive. Allow me to explain.

In May of 2012 it will be three years since I decided to put all my energy outside of my day job into writing, in the effort (and not hope) that I can change my career into something I love doing. I have been working in information technologies for a couple of decades or so, back since about 1986 and I'm ready for a change. I stuck with it, even though I wanted to write for a living, because of the steady paychecks. I made attempts to change over the years, but never could get it to click. It's hard to do raising a family and being the only breadwinner.

Some of this will be rehash to some.

I started out as a mainframe computer operator and worked my way into being a Technical Writer. I eventually tired of that and moved in to web development, network administration, server administration and platform administration. I am now being cross trained in many other technologies. But, I simply want to be a writer, full time, and make a living at it. But not just any kind of writing, fiction writing in particular: short story, novels, screenplays.

Years ago I had read Isaac Asimov's first autobiography, "In Memory, Yet Green", which affected me so much, that the first short story I ever got published, "In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear", was in tribute to his writings, and his attitude toward things like writing, life and being a forward thinker. Yes, I've heard the stories about Isaac's penchant for the ladies and partying.

A friend of mine said she was at a convention once and ended up on an elevator alone with him. She called him a "leech" to me, meaning that he thought she was cute and she didn't appreciate his advances. To be fair, she was in costume. And he was probably drinking. Not that this is any excuse. Other women who knew him have basically said, "That was Isaac and we loved him."

To the point, Isaac had said in his book that all the great original sci fi writers started as tech writers for the military during WWII. It taught you perseverance, extreme attention to detail, finishing what you start and, producing, typically large uninteresting products like manuals for things you probably know or care nothing about. In my experience as a tech writer for some big companies, I found in the end that a lot of it was being a psychologist, a journalist, and a scribe. You sometimes had to pull information from Subject Matter Experts, with a mental pair of pliers.

I finally got tired of it, as I only wanted to write, not interact with people who really weren't interested in talking to me at all and to whom I was only a burden. I wanted to write what entertained me, intrigued me, and entertained others. As I once said (as I was almost blowing a job interview), "there is just no story development in tech writing, and no character development with no fun punch at the end. You had to get all the information out there up front, there was no tension allowed."

There was some research done a few years ago, where they tried to teach children how to play piano. One group were taught traditionally. Another group were taught by teaching the melodies with mistakes in them. These mistakes were obvious, as there would be one note off. The kids would pick up on it and it bothered them. In the end, the researchers found that the children they taught in this defective way, learned the melodies better and faster than those taught in the traditional ways.

And so I feel I have learned fiction writing to a much higher degree, which I had actually already gotten down pat pretty good according to feedback I had in college. But after years of tech writing, I think I had learned so much more.

When I started this process a few years ago of getting back into writing, this time, to actually switch careers, I bought a box full of carefully chosen books on writing. Some specifically on screenwriting, some on peripherals, such as comedy writing, novel writing, even the poetics by Aristotle, a must have book for any writer. I felt that by the time I finished reading all these books, I'd be ready for an agent. So the last books I had purchased were for getting an agent. I've now read all these books, and even picked up some new ones.

The last book I finished just today was Karl Iglesias' "The 101 Habits of Highly Successful Screenwriters - Insider secrets from Hollywood's Top Writers." I found it very enjoyable, enlightening, delusion breaking, and in the end, it gives great hope to a struggling writer. I suggest this book to anyone who is writing their first screenplay, or thinking about it.

One of those books I have bought since, I had found one day browsing through an antique store. It is Lee Server's book, "Screenwriter - Words Become Pictures - Interviews with twelve screenwriters from the golden age of American movies." I'm looking forward to reading this.

My point in all of this is that you need to practice to write, whatever you have decided to write. But you also need to practice writing a wide scope of things. You need to read, a writer, reads. You need to read about the craft, specifically, and examples thereof. So, screenwriters need to read books on screenwriting, but also screenplays (specs, not shooting scripts which are typically sold to the market). You not only need to read books on the technical side of screenwriting, you should also read books about the screenwriters themselves.

The skill is all important. A poorly formatted screenplay won't get you very far. But you have an emotional side to this, too. You need to keep up your energy levels, your emotions, your passion for what you are doing. You also have to love doing it, love the process. Love writing, and love rewriting. Writing is rewriting. Few can write a single draft and be done. They do exist, but mostly with short story writing.

You have to write for the right reasons. Otherwise, you may not maintain the level of dedication you will need to survive. There are lots of barriers to getting anywhere with writing but the biggest is not having a catalog of works. The larger the better. That being said, you shouldn't just write and never get them out there, but try to get a catalog built up and after you have five or so, completed screenplays, start getting them out there. And keep writing new ones.

Also find other writers who you can talk to. Join a group, either in person, or online. To finally get somewhere, you will need to persevere through the years, through multiple drafts, through ten, twenty, even thirty screenplays before you sell one. You will need to pitch, to talk to people in order to sell it. You will need to deal with rejection, repeatedly.

It can be done. Just know that many get into it for the wrong reasons. Or with delusions of grandeur. It's hard work and requires a lot of it, for years. There are a lot of people out there trying to make it as a screenwriter, so there is a lot of competition. In order to make it, you will need to be the best you can be, and then some. But it is possible.

For those who think they can write a single screenplay and make it, yes, it's been done. Just don't expect that to be you without first putting in the work.

All that being said, best of luck. Go out and kick some Hollywood butt!

HearthTales - a screenplay

2012-01-02T04:20:00.000-08:00

Okay, this is just funny, I guess. I set this blog to post today, but in 2011, forgetting to increment one year, forgetting it's no longer 2011. As you can see, I've now corrected this. It happens to me every year, until I write the new year date for the very first time. Usually I catch it, but I was tired last night when I had realized I hadn't set up a blog for today.

So, obviously, we're off to a bang up New Year here! Anyway, all the best to you and yours, and may your new year start off better for you.

I have been working on a kind of portmanteaux screenplay called, "HearthTales". It was a concept I came up with in the late 90s and put away. Just submitted this to InkTips. I put it online for their week trial, and submitted to a ProdCo who was looking for pretty much that type of script. Again, maybe nothing will come of it, but it's either scary or exhilarating. I'm going with the latter. :)

The original thought was to build a screenplay around three short stories I had and wanted to do something with. So I threw them into a quickly drawn up screenplay. I thought it had potential and needed a lot more work. So I put it away as I was getting ready to move with my family and then I forgot about it. About a year ago I was looking through my old writings and found it again. So I brought it back out and started working on it. I found it was pretty entertaining to play with and then I had to put it away again.

I had come across Producer, Writer, Actor Chris Soth and spent a few months working with him on another script called, "America". I had to stop that for a while and went back to my novel. Then I got a reader review from WILDSound on HearthTales and they liked it but found some problems. I decided to fix those. So I fixed the easy ones.

Some others were harder to fix and one or two were structural. Not big changes, just changes, but still at a structural level. So I put it away and went back to the novel. But then something came up where I might have to show it to someone and I was back on the screenplay and have been ever since. Because I think I can finish up pretty quickly, and have a decent draft available if I need it and then go back to the novel. But also because I'm enjoying working on it.

A few things evolved since then in the screenplay that have come off quite well.

Initially, I liked the image of friends sitting around a warm fire on a cold, rainy Seattle night, eating snacks, drinking something tasty and a little inebriating, and telling stories, entertaining one another. I liked the idea of two of them being old friends, and one of them being a new friend. Romance in the air, is always nice. Add to that a touch of scary stories and a clock ticking with doom on its way.

To add to that, while this is going on, the wife down in Beverly Hills has her own much darker, threesome (of a kind) going on. Bryce's den is styled in antique Middle Eastern. Franks living room is styled with some antique Japanese.

HearthTales is the story of Bryce, a world class Horror writer, a cross between Stephen King and Clive Barker. An Irish ex-patriot who had fought along with Frank, in the Irish unit of the UK Special Services in Iraq and Afghanistan, his heroics had been honored in his saving his men and his friend Frank.

The story revolves around a trip he makes to Seattle for business. He takes his assistant, Eva, an attractive and faithful individual who crosses that line between perfect manager and good friend. H leaves behind his wife, Dawn, a sexy, attractive, manipulative woman who will walk over anyone to get what she wants and takes whatever she wants, whenever she wants. His home life is unsatisfactory, even to that of his friends. For a good friend, he must travel. Bryce is at the end of his rope with his unfaithful, conniving wife, but having been raised Catholic, he has difficulty in getting divorced... again.

He figures if he can just stop by his friend, Frank's house, to blow off some steam and have a mini vacation, maybe he can go back home and face his life again. Maybe he hopes she will leave him. But he is also approaching the point of no return with his spouse, and avoiding that as much as possible. Eva would like nothing better than for Dawn to be out of the picture and Frank feels the same way.

Connolly in Boondock Saints

Frank is an old Scottish warrior and another ex-patriot who is based on comedian and actor, Billy Connolly. The character of Frank has much of that same humorous view on life and a bit of the acerbic. And he can't stand Dawn.

Bryce has recently received a book of the occult from his and Frank's old friend from Afghanistan, Saleel. But this book cannot be given away unless someone accepts it or there will literally be Hell to Pay. There is danger in the transfer for both the giver and the receiver. Because of this book now being in his protection, Bryce has made two major mistakes. One, he unknowingly let his wife find out the combination to his safe; and two, he told her too much about what the book can do. Worse, she believes it.

Thinking she can use it to kill her husband (or, use it as a ruse for the guy she hires to perform the ritual to simply have him killed), she hires through an intermediary, Jacques, a Voodoo Priest, to perform a conjuring ceremony. A demon conjuring ceremony. A demon to find and kill Bryce. She also figures that even if the ceremony doesn't work, she will at very least have an interesting experience in the dark arts, one including including sex with a random anonymous model type.

She had a damaged childhood, what can I say?

pictured, Geoffrey Holder

Jacques is nothing like she expected when he arrives and she finds herself attracted to him. But he isn't all she thinks he is. Assuming he is just some sleazy witch doctor for hire. But, he puts in a call, in order to protect those for whom he really is going to set a demon upon with murderous intent. Those to whom he assigns this task, are the Steampunk duo of Gray and Lover.

The other night I was on a Vokle video chat with the truly warm and lovely, Felicia Day (Eureka, The Guild, Dragon Age: Redemption, Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog, etc.) and her crew and fans. Vokle is an interesting platform. Everyone was enjoying it quite a lot.

During the two hours and ten minutes, someone asked Felicia if she would consider doing anything with the SteamPunk motif. She said yes, but she hadn't come across a good concept as yet. I was quite enjoying the interaction between the Dragon Age production crew and fans, including myself. Then it occured to me. I was working on a screenplay with two women in it who are Steampunk. So I've been trying to contact her so she can take a read and see if she might want to extract and use them.

Back to HearthTales....

Dawn invites Jacques in, little realizing he has a hidden agenda. He sees the book, meets the duo, the anonymous model type needed as a sacrifice to conjure the demon and once satisfied, calls his protection team of demon fighting steampunk warrior girls: Gray and Lover. Up in Seattle, they are partying at the bar of their friend and fellow ("heavyweight") demon fighter, Patrick. See, Patrick takes on the really tough cases. Getting the call from Jacques, they are now on assignment and just wait for Jacques "Go" call, once the demon is in town.

Eventually, the demon appears and happens by the bar the girls are at. As Jacques has programmed in that the demon will pass by their bar before taking off after Bryce, the girls sit tight. Once Gray sees the demon through the window, they are off.

However, because of Dawn's interference in the ceremony, the demon has been incorrectly conjured to no fault of Jacques and a smooth situation evades rapid resolution and the girls have trouble tracking down the demon, just as the demon is having trouble tracking down Bryce. This is dangerous for Jacques, more so for Bryce however, as well as the city of Seattle. But this also leads to rather humorous situations with the demon as his powers are slightly off and so is he. Or, it.

After a few encounters with Seattle citizens and the Space Needle, the demon finally tracks Bryce down. But his trail has been easy for the girls to follow and hopefully, they can arrive in time for Bryce to survive.

What is unclear is, what is Jacques alternative agenda? Will the girls make it in time? What will happen to Dawn, no matter what happens? Will Frank and Eva survive? How many people will die before the demon finds its prey? And once found, then what? After all, the ceremony was defective and can the girls take down a demon like this alone? Or will they need Patrick, too? Who is Jacques working for and why does he want the book? What happened to Saleel?

We also see the demon's dimension that he lives in, the horrors it has to live with and its mortal enemies.

Then there is the burning question, just what does Osama Bin Laden have to do with all of this? That is something you find out in the opening just after, FADE IN.

Wrapped by all this are the three stories the friends tell around the hearth at Frank's house. Can Eva hold her own in telling stories around a fire with two of the greatest Horror writers in the world today? Do they try to "out Horror" one another, or just mess with each other's minds?

The screenplay has been well received so far and I've made some very good changes since then and blended in some good advice I've received.. Now all I need to do, is sell it. Wish me luck!

You know in writing this article, I really didn't give away any of the good stuff that happens and I leave out a lot of the twists and turns, but I discovered two elements I need to fix, one of which I hadn't seen until I wrote this summary up. So, thanks guys!

Weekend Wise Words

2011-12-31T04:20:00.000-08:00

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

Happy New Year's!

I don't know why my blog has been so heavy this past week. Maybe because it was the first time I've had Christmas without my kids as they've now grown up and moved out. My son is in Portland, living the life and I'm so happy for him. My daughter, slightly younger, is backpacking through the world, literally, and living the life, as she sees it. And I'm so happy she is enjoying what this world has to offer. Even though she's scaring the hell out of Dad. Maybe it's because I have a couple of weeks off from my intense day job so I can write day and night and kick out at least the end of my novel and a screenplay I have worked on through most this past year. So I've had time to watch in the background, quite a few good movies and documentaries.

But this is the New Year's weekend and a new year is dawning. A chance for a fresh start. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's a good kind of arbitrary. The Catholics were onto something with their Confession. Confess your sins and transgressions, and move on, to try to be a better person. Reevaluation and reexamination are good, but then you have to go and try to do better.

So, go for it. Make 2012 a far better year than any previous one. Go ahead, give it a shot, what have you got to lose. Make changes for the better, even if they hurt a little. Stop relying on credit if you are. Stop eating wrong, or so much. Understand that if you are overweight, EXERCISE enough on a daily basis, so it doesn't much matter how much you eat. Educate yourself. Read. Watch documentaries, and not just ones that already agree with how you think. Evoke change. Occupy you life, occupy your country. Demand better conditions.

And now, as it is the weekend, and with all that having been said, I offer some positive quotes on a new year.

A very Happy New Year's to you, your loved ones, the citizens of our once and hopefully again, Great Nation and the citizens of the world!

An optimist stays up until midnight to see the new year in. A pessimist stays up to make sure the old year leaves. ~Bill Vaughan

"Be at war with your vices; at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man." -- Benjamin Franklin

Year's end is neither an end nor a beginning but a going on, with all the wisdom that experience can instill in us. Hal Borland

People are so worried about what they eat between Christmas and the New Year, but they really should be worried about what they eat between the New Year and Christmas. Author Unknown

I made no resolutions for the New Year. The habit of making plans, of criticizing, sanctioning and molding my life, is too much of a daily event for me. Anaïs Nin

Good resolutions are simply checks that men draw on a bank where they have no account. Oscar Wilde

New Year's Resolution: To tolerate fools more gladly, provided this does not encourage them to take up more of my time. James Agate

It goes Christmas, New Year's Eve, and Valentine's Day. Is that fair to anyone who's alone? If you didn't get around to killing yourself on Christmas or New Year's, boom, there's Valentine's Day for you. There should be a holiday after Valentine's Day called 'Are you still here?' Laura Kightlinger [I can most definitely relate to this one]

"Now there are more overweight people in America than average-weight people. So overweight people are now average, which means you've already met your New Year's resolution." Jay Leno

"Every New Year is the direct descendant, isn't it, of a long line of proven criminals?" Ogden Nash

The Ground Truth - a documentary on war

2011-12-30T04:20:00.000-08:00

I just watched a documentary titled, "The Ground Truth". I'm not going to accost you with images of the horrors of war here. I think the words are bad enough. But we need to take care of people when we send them in harm's way. And we have always fallen down on that account.

First let me say, I when I was younger, I was ready to go to war. I wanted to kick ass and take names. Then I got to work in the military with many of the vets who were there in Vietnam, which would have been my war and I only missed going to by a hair's breadth. And I started to understand reality, aside from nationalistic pride and youthful exuberance, foolishness. From that time on I opened my mind and started to see war from the other side.

Every American, should watch this documentary. And every one should be angry at the treatment of our veterans.

I'm not going to tell you all that was in this film, you should check it out yourself. I will say something, however. And if I seem like I'm being "heavy handed", after watching that film, I guarantee you, I'm being rather light handed, compared to how I'm feeling at this time. I'm sure some may have gone to war and come out unchanged, though I don't see how. But that is beside the point, they are not our vanguard in the realm of those damaged by war; those damaged by it are. If you feel what I'm saying is nonsense after reading this, then watch the documentary, or go to a modern day war. Then reread this, especially if you've had a limb blown off, or had to live through these nightmares.

We seem to run on a credit card mentality for every little thing in our life. We go to war, for oil? And claim it is for something else, when we should have finished the war we started over a decade earlier. So ironic that Bush started the Gulf War, and his son, ended it, so much later. We send troops to fight and die but we send them in with second class equipment with the hope of catching up later and if some die, tough beans. We let their families send them protective equipment, and we should be ashamed as a nation. We kill and maim innocent people in the cause of fighting terrorism, when we were in the wrong country. We watch as our young are maimed and die. We do not watch as our "Heroes" return from battles, broken in spirit and body. We do not accept that war and what they have seen and lived through, can cause PTSD, can give them mental problems; we try to dodge the expense that accepting that would cause us because, those soldiers, should just cope, right? Because war is no different than normal life back home. Right? When they return, we expect them to blend into normal civilian life, after giving them license to kill, maim, see horrible things, watch the enemy who are other human beings, die before them; watch women and children die before them, sometimes at their own hands, sometimes accidentally, sometimes on purpose, which is the most damaging.

We do those things. We avoid dealing with those things. We don't want to know we do those things.

I could almost handle that, I suppose. But to then turn a blind eye, and not take care of those who were damaged, sent at our beck and call, those who answered that call with courage and pride in their mind's eye, only to later be disillusioned by the reality of war and our foolish mismanagement; is all far worse than what the terrorists have done in provoking us in the first place.

But we are the "good people". We are absolved of wrong doing, because we are the good guys.

Get on Netflix, watch "The Ground Truth". Watch it with your eyes and mind open. Feel bad for a little while, but don't worry, you will forget it shortly. After all, isn't it the job of those damaged in our wars to remember these things? Because they are the ones who have to hobble around, feel depressed, scare their spouses and children with their duress and outbursts; then perhaps, commit suicide.

But we don't have to worry about it. Apparently, it's not our problem.

When you leave the theater of war (yes, they call it a theater, they don't like to use the word "kill", either), they ask if you have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). If you say yes, they don't let you have the one thing you want more than any other, to go home. They keep you in the country, where the war is on. To get you "healthy" again, before sending you home where you could infect the civilians with what? Reality? Truth? Information about what is going on? If you answer no, then you don't have PTSD, even though it can easily takes a while to sink in and returning home, seeing what is normal once again, would have to trigger that.

One veteran in the documentary mentions how he has seen vets in wheelchairs, rolling from one department, one building, after another, around and around all day just trying to straighten out a paycheck issue. But we take care of our war heroes, our veterans. Right?

Such is our mentality.

It reminds me of our issue with school teachers. Those lowly paid, poorly trained individuals who teach those who will one day run our country and our retired lives. We can't afford to pay them properly, so we just don't think about it. But our children come first. Our veterans come first. We are the good guys.

Or, perhaps we're simply deluding ourselves?

Perhaps, our priorities are messed up. Perhaps. I mean, is that even possible? Have we grown to devalue life so much that we can't see beyond the expense? If we can afford to go to war, why can't we afford to clean up after it? Why does the government try to ignore, devalue, our veteran's claims when they need help? But if we simply disagree that they need help, then we don't have to help them. How economical for us.

If only....

How is it we don't accept PTSD as being as prevalent as it obvious is? How is it, you can think that a normal Human being, can enter into a war zone to see some of those things, close up, where their life is also on the line, and they do not come out of it with a traumatized spirit, with nightmares, paranoia? And their life being on the line is paramount, because watching these horrors is hard enough, but when you are there, experiencing that you may be next, or just almost were, it is an entirely different thing.

Perhaps, if we calculate in the costs of the after war along with the war prep and deployment, perhaps we would go to war less? Surely, when there is genocide happening, every country in the world should send in troops to end it. Immediately. Surely Israel would be first in line when genocide is happening, anywhere in the world? Perhaps if it was generally accepted, I don't know, that genocide is wrong(?), it would be necessary far less than it is? Then those who commit genocide, would think twice if they knew, once they start, the entire world will immediately crush them. After those types of conflicts, wounded vets could return home and even though they are knowingly defective for the rest of their life, they would know what they were doing and why. That can make a great deal of difference in one's attitude. Was that the same for the Middle East recently? Then why do so many vets wonder now, what they are doing there, or why they were there?

Steel sculpture

Above: 70,000 steel ball bearings, representing the projectiles we use to kill each other, were welded together over two years to create the life-size sculpture by Marcus Eriksen. About the motivation for this sculpture, he says:

"On Feb. 24, 1991 a truck filled with a dozen marines making a steady B-line for Kuwait City stopped the convoy when I yelled, “Hey look a body!” The paralyzed figure of an Iraqi soldier lay 50 feet from the incinerated jeep he was blown from. His knees were bent, eyes and mouth open,and his intestines poured out from under his shirt. We were both covered with specks of oil from the fires nearby, and soaked by the rains that made me miserable, yet washed his face clean. Before he died he must have waved his arms, like the way kids make snow angels. He made wings in the sand. My angel in the desert."

How can one not be moved by that experience? And as these experiences go, this is a rather light one.

I would say that we should never go to war, but that I know, is unreasonable. There are bad people out there. There are always, seemingly, new people who want to abuse those under their care. I would ask however, that we only go to war when absolutely necessary. Not when a president or a political party needs a boost in ratings. And that when our citizens, our soldiers are damaged, physically, AND emotionally (CAN you be damaged physically and not emotionally in a war?), that we do something for them, everything we can. And acknowledge their issues and see that they have the help they require. And follow up with them, possibly for the rest of their lives, or at least for the next ten to twenty years. Sounds expensive, right? Tell me, did you actually just have that thought pop into your head?

Maybe if the cost after the war exceeds the cost of going to war, we will start to be smarter about our actions and more circumspect.

I would like to believe that the world is in the throes of the end of adolescence and these wars are fits of growth into adulthood, our possible, only the end of childhood and terrifyingly moving only into adolescence. Either way, I would like to believe that we are closing in on a time when we will no longer have to have wars.

But whether we will continue to have them or not, we still must pay attention when our veterans say in documentaries like, "The Ground Truth", that many still aren't getting the help they need.

Our new God, Status Quo

2011-12-29T04:20:00.000-08:00

Recently I wrote a blog about how energy is the big evil. And that may be true in the ways I delineated. But that is the physical side of things. The emotive side I believe, is status quo. Two small words. They sound rather innocuous, don't they? I always thought of the status quo as a good and proper thing.

How many things have been done under the paradigm of maintaining, or increasing, the status quo? How many unethical transactions have been perpetrated? How many people ruined or imprisoned? How many murders, how many wars?

When I look at our current crises, I find the same thing. Greed. But greed isn't so much gluttony, as it is fear and laziness. And an addiction to comfort. We all have it, to some degree. And it's a good thing, to some degree. But the degree to which it has become the standard operating procedure, is pathetic, and scary.

Strike that, it's terrifying.

I have seen Congressmen/women making decisions that include our country continuing on as we are, with the consideration of murdering thousands of people, or maintaining dictators, thugs, murderers, all in the sacred name of, status quo.

We find there are secret, behind closed door type meetings. Secret, because the moral of us might object to abusing people in other countries whom we may never get to meet personally. I know I have no desire to abuse people I have nothing against. But then, I don't like to abuse anyone, unless it is to get them to stop abusing me, or others. Yet we have paid people to do this kind of thing, for us. For... us.

How we have practiced all our lives through religion for one, to turn a blind eye, to turn the other cheek, to hypocritically ignore what strictures we have dedicated ourselves to believing and following. I have heard person after person say they believe in the bible and all it says, until I pointed out many, many things in it that they said they would not follow because they were contra-indicative, illegal, simply wrong as they know it in their "gut", or because they contradict the same stricture elsewhere in the bible.

And we have grown up with that from childhood. I asked my parents about something I read in the bible and their answer? Just ignore that. Shut up. Or you can't understand God's mysterious ways. Etc., etc., etc.

But this isn't about religion. It's about status quo.

It's about how we have ignored what our leaders have been doing, or not doing, for decades. For forever maybe. How did we get in this situation? Who allowed it? Who, is responsible?

In the end, we are. We all are. But then, we hire people do do what is right, to find out what is right, then make a proper and ethical decision and carry it out, and be responsible for their actions. But, do we? No, we let them make the wrong decisions, then get away with it, as they point to us and say to us that it's OUR Fault.

Uh, I don't think so. Sounds like obfuscation to me. Shirking their duty. And their responsibilities. Again.

We really need to start holding people responsible and having laws that allow us to do so. That latter part, is kind of important. Our laws are pretty screwed up. Our concept of Law is good, we just need to do something we seldom do, but it interrupts the status quo and it's expensive. We need to adjust once in a while and we need to wipe some laws off the books occasionally.

That's the small picture. The big picture has to do with nations, and people who are not American citizens. We need to go into their countries, we need to negotiate, we need to not abuse them. Make a good deal? Certainly. But rip people off? No. Because that in the end, as we've seen with the Middle East, is against our long term interests. And oh, it's wrong, too.

Yes, we need energy. But that isn't necessarily oil, okay? We may need to make some drastic changes. But the funny thing is, we should have done this a long time ago. Who didn't do it? Our leaders. Gee, we keep coming back to that.

If and when you have a CEO who does a bad job, runs the company into the ground, what do you do? You fire them. What do we do now a days? We give them $10 million and send them on their way.Is that right?

Now tell me, does that really make any sense to you? I could go into how much more a CEO makes than a more lowly person at the bottom of the company, or the majority of the employees there, but let's not get off the track here.

We also need to not abuse our own Citizens. Something we're losing track of when it comes to fear and terrorism. We have been building our way around our constitution and the laws that protect us all for a while now.

How, I have no idea, but that seems to be the way of things lately. Why? To maintain the status quo, to continue to have safety everywhere in America. Well, I'm all for that, but then again, America stands for something and we need to stick up for that too, even when it causes us some grief, or pain.

If a bully beats you up, you fight back. If you don't, they keep doing it. When they stop, you don't keep beating them up. You don't keep harassing them every minute of the rest of their lives. You use reasonable responses. But you don't put up armed guards at the entrance to everywhere, just because one place has had problems. If there are problems there, you evaluate them, find out why they happened, ask if that can spread, what behavior is causing it to occur, are there socioeconomic elements that need to be addressed, and so on.

This isn't touchy-feely egg head stuff, it's cause and effect. And the fix, is hard to do and expensive sometimes, but we either do it correctly, or we do it wrong. And we've gotten into we either do it cheaply, or we do it wrong, also? What kind of thinking is that?

There is no answer here to give. We simply need to talk more about these kinds of things. When you find things in your life that are nonsense, speak up about it. People will look at you like you're nuts sometimes, but the more people talk about it, the more odd it will start to sound and the more people will want to make things right. Just pick a word, repeat it aloud or in your mind until it starts to sound, odd. Understand? The more we bring up these problems, sooner or later it will sink in, people will get the point, and start to wonder, to ask questions, to feel there is something wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi. Native American Hopi tribe for "Life out of balance". It certainly is.

What we need here isn't to suddenly make everything right. Frankly, I think that is impossible.

What we need to do is change our paradigm for how we make decisions. We need to change our way of thinking about things. We need to apply critical thinking against nearly everything. I agree that we need some fantasy in life, it is a basic Human survival skill and to lose that would be ludicrous.

But we need to start getting used to becoming adults in the modern world. We need to shuck off our childhood and deal with things in a critical fashion. If we run out of water, we die. If we pollute our environment, our social environments, if we don't start thinking world wide about everything, we're going to be in some tough ways; very possibly, far sooner than we think.

The days of just doing what is expedient and worry about the costs later, or let our children or grandchildren deal with it, are over. Very soon we will be making decisions on what will affect us within a few years. For many things, we are there now.

So the next time you hear someone in charge say they have done something very creative to maintain your statu quo, ask them what they mean by that. Question authority. Question too, the little guy, the "dumb" guy, because even the village idiot has his story to tell; question the guy who has nothing to do with it, but might himself have a creative idea, maybe one that spreads a positive influence rather than negative ones. Think outside the box. Think. Challenge.

But be ready. In the end, yes, it's all our responsibility. But someone has to be in charge, to push the buttons, give the orders, make the decisions, take the responsibility. That has got to mean something. And remember, we do not apply the status quo to everything.

When someone breaks the law, or breaks a corporation, or a country, they don't get a golden parachute and retire to Martha's Vineyard. They go to jail, they lose money; they do not make money, they stop doing what they are doing; others stop doing what they were doing. They get punished for their bad behaviors.

Does maintaining the status quo sound now like the cool thing is used to be? This wasn't meant to be an ad for the Occupy movement, but they certainly have a point and I think I've just supported it in a way that has nothing to do with them. It just makes sense.

I suspect that statu quo was always this way. We just didn't see it all until we were better educated and the world continued to shrink for us until now, along with instantaneous communications, we have woken up from our intellectual slumber and have come to see reality as it really is. And it's pretty scary.

Status quo, sure, if you like; but it's at your, and all our our peril.

My ex wife and that Life Decision

2011-12-28T04:20:00.000-08:00

I was just sitting here, watching a movie on TV that gave me a thought. The film was titled, "The Good Heart". A strange little film that DirecTV gave 2.5 stars. But there was something gritty about it that I was attracted to.

Suddenly while watching it, it hit me. I had a thought that brought me back to my ex wife and I realized something about her. About us. I realized the moment, the defining moment at which our life together began to decline. Until finally, after ten years together, we divorced.

I usually put in some interesting photos in these blogs, but I'm not going to this time. This is not one of those kinds of articles. This is a pure and important few words and one of the hardest to write pieces I've ever done here. So, I think I'm just going to state the facts, and see how it goes.

I wish you the best of luck in your life and I'll say that again, later. I've made my decision, regardless how much I may not now regret it. I want to, but I can't. And maybe I shouldn't regret it. Maybe we both made the right decision those, now many years ago. Maybe it doesn't feel like it, because I don't want it to have been right. Either way....

If you ever have a situation with a loved one, where you feel you have to make a decision between the two of you going on with your lives together, or making a major change between you that could end things, then you should read the rest of this. It will meander a little but I need to give enough background so it really sinks in.

I've been divorced now since about September 2002. We were married about 1994. When I met my lovely ex-wife, she was twenty-two, thin, in incredible shape and very attractive. She was living at a horse farm. A sixty-five stall horse farm, modern, with offices in the front of the barn containing the stalls, with two modern apartments above the offices; inside, a round pen next to the sizable arena.

You could feed the horses from upstairs, walking along with a wheelbarrow and dumping grain and/or alfalfa or timothy, or whatever, down a chute; all according to the card on each chute, for what each horse required individually. I ended up moving in with her once we realized that I was spending the night more often than not. It was a drive back to my own apartment, so I would stay over and go to work in the morning from there. It was just easier, and we truly enjoyed one another. It was a very good love affair.

She worked hard, herself, got up before dawn, working till late into the night.

Since she would get off so late, I got used to cooking her dinner. She would drag her cute butt in the door and I would let her wash up, then hand her a plate and she would watch a TV show with me while she ate. That was hard for me, because I had sworn off TV for some years and was pretty antiTV. If I could, I would wait and eat with her. Then she would eat a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream.

Even then, she was in incredible condition. She rode horses pregnant, up almost until she delivered. Then delivery was pretty fast and painless, much of it I'm sure, because of all the exercise. She would be so tired, that within the hour or so of getting off work, coming upstairs, eating dinner and okay, only half a pint of Ben and Jerry's because she loved feeding me half. Of course, then I had to try hard to burn it off at the UW Huskies' gym the next day, during my lunch time at work.

I worked at the UW at the time and she lived and worked in what was to me, the middle of nowhere. After the ice cream, she would inevitably fall asleep, so I would inevitably have to pick her up and carry her to bed. What was no big deal, she was light, I was strong, but the way into the bedroom was tight and I'd have to be very careful not to crack her head, or my elbows and get her to bed without either waking her, or the baby in the next room over.

Her female friends "hated" her for her being able to eat ice cream every night of the week and stay so thin and attractive. Isn't that always the way of it? But honestly, everyone loved her. Women were just envious that she could eat ice cream and get away with it. But she got away with nothing. She rode and worked the horses sixteen hours a day, five, six days a week sometimes, seven. I used to warn her she needed to have less ice cream and coffee, it just wasn't healthy. But she had that "cowgirl up" attitude which gets a lot done but can be rather destructive, especially for a workaholic. She lived on the caffeine and sugar in her multiple mocha a day habit.

On Sundays, I would get up on my day off, and before the sun came up feed all of the horses in the barn for her. Even in the dead cold of Winter, in only my bathrobe and slippers (so cold too), I would get the wheelbarrow and feed the horses, then climb back into bed, frozen. She would wake enough to realize what I'd done, and move over to warm me (which I always felt was amazing as I was so cold), and we'd fall back asleep for another couple of hours.

When I first started going out to visit her at work, before I moved in with her, her clients would bring her an extra large Orange Mocha, with pentuple (5) shots. They just wanted to do something nice for her. So did I, so I would stop on the way in, and bring her one when I went to see her. It was a twenty mile drive from Seattle for me which was why I ended up spending the night sometimes, and then when we realized I was there all the time, I just moved officially in. Since the owner was Catholic, we finally broached the subject with her and she had me pay rent, but at $250 / mo. it wasn't bad, more a token payment. What was irritating though was that after we got married, she never told me I could stop paying that.

The first day that I got her that orange mocha, I stopped in the small town at the coffee cart that she frequented, the one just before exiting the town to go up the dead end road, at the end of which, was the farm. When I ordered the drink the woman looked at me and said, "I know who this is for." I said, "How? She said, "Only one girl orders this in this town. No one orders an orange mocha, just her." She laughed. I laughed, but was a little confused.

When I got into the arena inside the barn, she was very closely watching a young girl riding around her in circles as she shouted corrections and constructive advice to the her. She was giving a riding lesson. That's what she did, gave riding lessons, and trained Arabian horses for horse shows. She had been working with horses since she was about four. She had earned or won enough money when she was younger, to afford to go to a live-in at riding and boarding school in England for a year to get certified for teaching equitation (English style riding) and jumping (up to five feet).

She laughed a little when she saw me standing there, off to the side, with the drink. I said, "What's so funny." She nodded with her head and there off to the side of the arena, were three other drinks her clients had brought her that she had yet to get to, and probably wouldn't; and those were along with the giant ugly black and pink thermal container she always had full of her special mocha. She got through the day, drinking that damn cold drink all day long.

I felt at first a bit dejected, having gone through all that trouble and money. I was incredibly broke at this point in my life, having recently been divorced and paying child support; it had taken me nine months to move out from where I was renting a room in a house, to a studio apartment and driving out to her farm was eating up my extra money. But then I realized that she was someone special and that people saw that in her.

I have always seemed to be rather good at finding women for long term relationships, who are very special individuals, typically reflected in the attitudes of all who have known them. And she too was someone very special. She was one of those people whom you only wanted to bask in the warmth of her attention. Something I later found, after our divorce, was wonderful when you were in her good graces, but a nightmare when you weren't, or worse, in her bad graces.

After I'd been living there with her for a while, she came to me one day and said she had been given the opportunity to do horse shows with the main trainer who lived next door to us. It was an opportunity to do what she had been building up to all her life. She said she told them she didn't think she could, having an infant to raise. But she'd think about it. In asking my opinion, I thought about it for a moment, then said, "Of course, do it. This is your chance." She told me that I didn't know what I was getting into (people kept saying that to me about her, and about the horse show industry, it wasn't till a few years later, that I realized how correct they were).

So, I told her that if that were the case, then I would support her all I could, and when I couldn't deal with it anymore, I would continue to try to support her, but when I really couldn't do it any longer, I would tell her. But that was my issue. And if that was who she was, I wasn't going to stop her from living and being who she was. On the other hand, I needed to be allowed to be who I was too. So, if I really got to a point where I couldn't take it anymore, I could tell her, and leave, if I had to at that time.

What I hadn't counted on, was that it wasn't so much myself who couldn't handle it, though I did find it nearly impossibly miserable at times; but, it was her who couldn't emotionally maintain that lifestyle. Though honestly, that was mostly because their clients weren't rich. If she'd had well off clients, rather than clients who wanted to feel like they were really well off, things would have gone much better. At some point, you simply have to recognize that you have to pull the plug if you can't make enough money, or you can't get the quality of client you need, or you are destroying yourself, or your family. Here is where that "cowgirl up' attitude was destructive to her, and us. She simply couldn't recognize failure and the biggest gift in business is to recognize that and make appropriate adjustments, or when to end things.

She went on her first out of town horse show. Four days into her being gone, I started to have my doubts.

Did I forget to mention that when I met her she had an eight month old baby? To be fair, I had a five year old boy myself. But he lived with his mother most the time. That was interesting in itself.

My dating history had been rough since I had gotten divorced. I got divorced because I found my wife having a secret lover, which made the institution of marriage a little crowded for me. I had decided years before, I wouldn't hide things from potential dating partners. And that decision had come back to bite me on several occasions.

Let me explain that. I met the most beautiful girl in the world, just after I broke up with my girlfriend after college; we'd been together for six years, four of those years during our university life. After college, we moved back to our home town, and went to an apartment finding company together. Then we broke up. We still had our subscription available to me. She used it and quickly found a place. Then once our lease was up on our house, I needed to use it to find myself a place to live. I got to talking to the secretary who I had gotten to know there and asked her out. She asked what happened to my girlfriend, being a little leery of my invitation, and so I told her what had happened. So we went out.

I told her the truth while we were having drinks at a bar that night. I wanted this girl something fierce. But I was honest. She was honest back and told me, that considering I had no money, no real job (I had a job but not a good one yet), some bills to pay off (but not a college loan, my G.I. bill paid for my college), and she had guys who were giving her free cars and jewelry. She said she liked me a lot but....

Later I met a girl that worked at Elaine Powers aerobics, a business next door to where I worked. She was very cute, very tall and thin. We had drinks and I found that she was ex military, had several houses and was building something for herself. I was honest with her about my financial status. Again, it just wasn't right. It was right for me, but not for her.

Years later, after getting divorced, I had trouble dating again because of this type of thing. Women were quite interested, but once I said I had a young child, they were not so interested. Which I didn't understand, because I thought women found that endearing. Uh, no. Even though he wasn't living with me full time. In fact, one night, I was dancing on the dance floor at a bar with this very cute girl I had just met, actually, she came up to me. We were talking as we danced. I don't remember what she said, but the natural response was to admit I had a young son. I thought about it, thinking, I could easily be sleeping with her in short order, but I should get it all out in the open. So I did. She stopped, looked up at me. And simply walked away. End of story.

So when I met my ex, and she said she had a child, I a bit got excited about that. I said that I too had a child. She got excited about it. From that point on, everything seemed to click.

Eventually, we got married. We bought a house and moved out from the farm. She kept doing horse shows and training horses and riders, although she switched affiliations a few times. I'm getting to the point now.

Doing horse shows was tough. It was tough on her. It was tough on me. It was tough on the kids. She had to be away from home, and worked very hard. But being a workaholic, she loved hard work, working till you were exhausted, then hitting the bed and passing out. I had to take care of both kids, go to bed alone every night, missing my wife, wondering how faithful she really was being (I never had a girl break up with me until I was thirty, then two major relationships in a row had affairs on me, so give me a break here), and I had to deal with our daughter crying herself to sleep asking where mommy was and why she wasn't there. I had to lie and tell her reasons I didn't really believe in, but I did my best to put on a good face, until I got out of her bedroom. Then I had to go to sleep wondering the same things.

After a few years of that, my wife got home from yet another horse show that had left her distraught, stressed out, not very happy. This had been an ongoing cycle with her. Something obviously wasn't working out. It was the guy she worked with, in my opinion. He was the boss, the farm / brand owner. A pompous kind of guy I wasn't very fond of. Anyway, it seems her clients had not been paying for her room and board as they were supposed to as part of the training package they were buying. She was bouncing checks sometimes just to eat. For her to have dinner, it was the cost of the meal, plus a $25 bank fee for not enough money in the bank account, one or two of those a day, for a week long horse show, well, it adds up. And she's only eat maybe one meal a day. When you work that physically hard, you need three square a day.

I told her she needed to tell her clients to pay the hell up. Pay what you agreed to. But she was just too sweet, too nice. It melted my heart. She was disintegrating. I could see this "career" was ripping her apart. What she had lived her whole life working toward, was disintegrating all around her, and her right along with it. And she was bringing us down with her.

But I had told her that I would support her, as long as I could.

So I had to tell her, "You have to tell your clients to do what is right." I told her she had to make them pay up. But she was too immature, business-wise. She actually had a two year business degree, but putting it into practice, well, that just isn't something they teach you in college. So finally, I told her that either she needed to quit her career, or she needed to grow a thicker skin.

This was the moment. This was the defining event that became the turning point in our marriage.

Because after this, she had to either quit, or get toughened up. I wanted her to quit. But I said, I would support her. And I did. She tried, she really tried to handle things. She did grow a "thicker skin". She grew up more. But eventually, it just wasn't enough.

For one trip, she went away to her longest show. Three weeks long, in the southwest US. Albuquerque, I think. When she returned, it was obvious to me she was very near a nervous breakdown. I could feel it, the air in the room felt tense even. She was trying hard to make it, but it was an unwinnable situation for her. She simply had the wrong clients. It is a hard career field and few can really make it. So finally I realized that there was only one thing left for me to do. I put it off for a few days, but finally I had to say something, regardless how it made me look. This wasn't any longer about me, it was about her.

So I did. I told her, she either had to quit her "career" or, I was leaving. Of course, I wasn't leaving, but I had to make my point. It was me or horses. I tried to tell her it was because she was very near a nervous breakdown, it couldn't be more obvious to me. My degree was in psychology and I knew what I was talking about. So I made the decision, I would either ruin my life, end our marriage, but I would save the one I loved, from herself, if that were the case. I knew I might end up with her hating me, even, but this was literally killing her.

So, in the end, one night she went to dinner with the guy that owned the "Farm" brand that they worked under. At that dinner, she told him she was quitting. His response, which neither of us saw coming, was that if she was quitting, then he was quitting. What the hell did that mean? Well, that kind of told me, it really wasn't working for either of them. But from that day forward, she blamed me for ending her "career", just as I knew might happen. Now I say "career" and not career, because a "career" is more a hobby and doesn't make you money. And she wasn't making money, in fact I was subsidizing things for her. And we needed more money coming into the family, not my paying out so she could have a job.

So I suppose both of them owe me for their moving on in life. He went on to become a network engineer or something, making more money than he ever had and within a few months, was making as much as I was in the IT industry, and I had been doing it by that time, for some years. She went on to turn her attention to raising the kids and volunteering at the school. She became the Guardian Angel of teachers at whatever school the kids were going to. She tried a few jobs but even with her two year business degree, she wasn't really, or didn't think she was really, trained to do much other than horses.

In the end, I lost my marriage. I lost my one true love in my life. I know that, because when I look back now over my life, she is the one that really pulls at my heartstrings. She would argue with that, but she wouldn't go back to the point in time that I would, when it all began to crumble. Back to the day that I told her, "You need to either quit, or grow a thicker skin."

See, what I'm trying to get to here, is that we don't always see in time, we don't always see what it is, we don't always understand what is happening, in order to make that right decision, to save both people, to save the relationship. Too many relationships end in a split up or divorce.

In looking back on it now, I see two things. One, I needed to be more argumentative with her about things. She liked that. Some people need a solid wall to push off of. That wall can make it feel wrong, to feel it is abusive, to the one acting as the sounding board, the other person's outer voice, to give their inner voice a place to work things out. The one acting as the sounding board, needs to understand that it is not meant to be abusive to them. The other thing is, I needed to tell her that she needed to quit that destructive career path, sooner. Much sooner.

She was one of those types of people who do not know when it's good to stop, to quit, to give up. Give up, or fail, were not in her vocabulary, unless it was regarding a marriage, apparently. She lived her life with the "cowgirl up" attitude. Which is good and admirable, up to a point, from which it then becomes completely destructive. I needed to see that point, and say, "stop". To beg her not to grow that "thicker skin", perhaps. To no matter what, not grow that thick skin because that would kill who she was and all too possibly end whatever we had together.

There were other issues at hand, surely; she was the child of an alcoholic, she was herself a workaholic; having come from a family that found close personal relationships difficult to manage and so work and distance gave them the buffer they needed. I came from a more close family who tended to work things out openly (okay, my parents used to have horrible fights when I was a child, which is why I refuse to argue and bicker in a relationship; but remember, argumentation is good, bickering, is bad).

And then being quite human, I had my other, my own issues to deal with. Life just does that to us.

In the end, sometimes, instead of growing a thicker skin so that we can deal with life, we really just need to adjust our life, so that we can continue to be the beautiful person that we had been. So, when you come upon that moment in life, where you have to make that decision, or push it upon another, really think about it, first.

Don't get me wrong. You may hear regret and a touch of heartache in my "voice" here, but were she to walk back in my door right now, I wouldn't, well I won't say, "take her back", but I wouldn't try to go back. We've changed, she's not the same woman I was once in love with. And that is part of my point in all this. That lovely person began to disappear the day I told her she needed to grow a thicker skin. That was me, putting a nail in the coffin of that awesome person that I so dearly loved .

But don't get me wrong. I'm not so egoistic as to think what I told her that she needed to do, is what made her become an entirely different person, which she did. I know that she made the decision to do it herself. Yes, she heard what I said, but she knew already that was the case, it just took someone saying it for her to really pay attention and begin to do something about it. It took someone she cared deeply for, who she looked up to, not to let her down, but to give her the answer to help her make the right decision.

Now, whether we admit it or not, the other person in our life, frequently, is that person. Yes, we are adults and all, but also, we are vulnerable and that is in part, why we have relationships. So if you don't know that, wake up. This is most especially hard for macho, or independent types (which she was and always will be).

What I'm trying to make clear here, is that rather than say what needed to be done, to stop her destructive career, that it wasn't working and she needed to put an end to it; we should have just ended it. But I chickened out because of her reaction to quitting. She could throw a fit and make you want to back off. Beware that tactic and don't let it rule your life, whatever happens.

And so I just said the facts, "quit, or have a nervous breakdown". She simply couldn't hear the "have a nervous breakdown" part, to her, that wasn't an option, but to reality, it was possibly the only option. Either way, I would have been blamed for her career ending. But had she stopped right then, we would have still walked away with her as she was, before she got toughened up, perhaps bitter, frustrated, and pretty much angry at the world for her life not turning out how she had always imagined it. Yes, it's the princess syndrome all over again, but that is not the few and far between, many of us are raised with that nonsense. And it's even tougher on those who work hard, and don't expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter.

One final comment... you can pick apart what I'm saying here and try to attribute it to this or that thing, or me, for that matter, but if you do that, you'll simply miss the point I'm trying to make. This isn't about me. Or, my ex for that matter. This was simply a way to make a point in a way that is raw and personal to me. My point was my point that I hope I have made.

Simply put, if you may ever have to make a decision in your own life, such as I have shared here, understand that it may turn out to have ramifications that far exceeds whatever you think it will do. In the end, it may turn out to be the exact thing that you are trying not to do. I knew I could ruin how my ex saw me from that point on, but I had to ask myself, who is more important in this situation? Should I choose my desire for my wife to continue to see me as she always had and for our marriage to continue as it was; or, if I truly loved her, should I choose my desire to save her from literally killing herself? I knew that it was a lose/lose situation, for me. But I wasn't what was important at that time, as I was seeing it then.

Sometimes you may need to make or force a change in life. It's just that sometimes, you may need to make an even bigger change than you plan, or sooner than you think you need to. The change that you plan for, may appear to be "massive" to you at the time, but possibly, you simply cannot see it (yet) for what it really is. I guess the thing to do then is, when you are considering a big change, a painful change, certainly consider, as we all do, if you can make less of a change than you may think you need to. But also look the other direction. Try to see if you may not need to make an ever bigger change, one that may need to be such a big change, you simply cannot see it, or imagine it. Try, to imagine it.

Remember that sometimes, with only a little extra thought, you can find a far greater benefit. And with all that having been said now, I wish you all the best in life, my friend.

A tall blonde model crosses the street

2011-12-27T04:20:00.000-08:00

I had a dream. No, I mean, last night, I had a real dream.

It was a nice sunny, warm day. I was in Manhattan walking along, crossing a street on the crosswalk that was full of people going both directions. There was another guy with me, but we weren't talking, and two more guys I knew, behind us. In hindsight, I think we were headed to a street side cafe for lunch and drinks.

As I approached midway crossing the street, I noticed two women walking toward me, completely oblivious of me, of everyone, deep in a conversation.

The one closest to me, was carrying nothing but articulating with her hands, her companion, perhaps a sister, was carrying something I can no longer remember, what it was.

They were both tall, platinum blondes with very long beautifully cut, straight hair, both model-like in look and bearing, but the one closest to me was very much more so, thinner than her companion, strikingly beautiful. She was wearing all white, with a gossamer thin shirt, open to her diaphragm.

As we approached one another, the one closest to me was saying something passionately to her companion and as she was moving he hands a slight breeze caught her shirt and billowed it slightly, clearly displaying to me her right bra-less breast, her nipple floating, there for only me to see. As I passed by her, so near to me that we almost touched, it nearly took my breath away. I took a breath, and a word fel out of my mouth.

"Damn," I said, in revery and awe of how beautiful that girl was. Immediately, behind the two women, were two other women, wearing darker, more business like clothes, the mass of people continued to move to the sidewalk of their original intent. Suddenly, those two women, who were behind the model like women, lost their conversation and stopped there, mid-street.

The woman closest to me, looked me directly in the face, people crossing with us, simply made their way around us, like a stream of water in a river, flowing around a boulder or two, allowing nothing to impede progress. Her companion looked at her, annoyed by the hindrance. She gave her a look of, "Let it go!". But the women didn't let it go.

"What was that?" she asked, "Why did you say that?"

"Excuse me?" I said.

"That word, what did you say? Why did you say that?"

"What?" I said, thinking about what she could mean, pulling my mind away from the model and her incredible visual that had burned into my mind. My friends were no innocuously huddled nearby, wondering what the issue was. "I said, 'Damn'," I said to her, confused, then realizing what might be happening.

I had offended a woman, but remarking at the beauty of another woman, directly in front of her, on the streets of New York. I had a premonition, I was about to get berated. But instead, she looked at the woman next to her and shared a look of, "I told you so." She looked back at me, her companion slightly, just barely, rolled her eyes, then looked at me, like she was embarrassed.

"And why, did you say,'Damn'?" she asked. About now, I could feel my friends enjoying my wriggling under scrutiny.

"Why?" I said, "Well, her nipple just jumped right out at me, her breast was just there for me to see. And, and--" I stammered.

"See?" she said, looking disconcertedly at me, then at her companion. "I told you so." And with that, they walked off. I looked at my friends and we got out of the street before the light changed.

Then, I was sitting in a booth with them, having drinks along the sidewalk, where we could still see that crosswalk. I tried not to think about the woman who had spoken to me, and instead about the blondes. I looked across at two of my friends, all wearing business suits, ties loosened, looking comfortable.

"But, that wasn't right," I said, "The nipple, yeah, her entire right breast, her torso, an inside look at her form, beautiful, definitely beautiful. But that wasn't what actually sticks in my mind, you know?" I was seated on the outside, a step away from standing up, and my friend on the other side, nearest to the street, looked at me and spoke.

"Her hair," he said, "what I remember now mostly, is how striking her hair was."

"Exactly," I replied, "Me, too. I was about to say that, when those women walked off, thinking, I suppose, that I was being a douchebag."

"Well, you were, right? I mean, we were." The guy directly across from me said. Then the guy seated next to me spoke up.

"So, what we all remember, is the women's hair, not so much their body, their sexual organs."

"Right," someone said.

"So," I spoke up, "That woman, he thought she was so right, was wrong, but only we have the end of this story. What we were really focused on, and even we didn't realize it till later.

"Ex-actly." The guy next to me said. The guy across from me picked up his drink and toasted, we all lifted out drinks to toast, waiting to hear what he would say.

"F*ck her," he said, "To beautiful women." We all acknowledged his toast and knocked glasses, smiling, drinking and then... the phone rang.

I mean, in the real world, my phone in the bedroom rang, waking me up. It was my friend, John, calling to thank me for the Christmas card I had sent him. Waking me up on the first day off of my two weeks vacation, the morning after I had watched some Johnny Depp pirate movie, and drank a growler of Hood Canal Brewery ale. Good stuff, but my head throbbed slightly and my dog wanted to go out, as I had slept in. The world was conspiring against my sleeping in, in peace and comfort.

I sat up, and could still see that beautiful, striking, blonde woman, as she crossed the street. Again I saw her shirt billow out from her torso and again, I saw her in her rarest form, and I noticed her hair as she drifted past me, and that beautiful hair, reflecting the sunlight, slowly faded from my mind.

Merry Christmas! Okay? Well, deal with it!

2011-12-25T04:20:00.000-08:00

First, let me say, "Merry Christmas" to you and your loved ones! [And FYI, I'm on vacation and many people have Monday the 26th off, so I'm counting it as part of the holiday weekend and so, next new blog, tomorrow.]

"Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childhood days, recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth, and transport the traveler back to his own fireside and quiet home!"
- Charles Dicken

That, is so true, if, you grew up with Christmas as a tradition. For many in America now, that is not true, unless it is from seeing it from afar. But for myself, I grew up with it. Even though I have dropped my belief in Western religions, I still celebrate it and have a warm feeling in my heart every year as it rolls around.

There has been a lot of controversy in recent times about the Christian, or secular, versions of, Christmas.

They have tried to remove the religious element from it ("Happy Holidays!"), leading to scrubbing the name of "Christ". But everyone is so used to calling it, "Christmas" that they grew up with it and it's burned into our collective consciousness; no one really wants to change that. But America now has such a multicultural diaspora that I'm sure, it is noticeable to those people who aren't Christians, or didn't grow up here with this in their childhood, or if they did, found it to be in some way, distasteful, so that they now want it changed since there is an open discussion of it.

TV has cut it out, and this year, they seem to be bringing it back. When I now hear, "Merry Christmas!" I almost cringe. And I find that annoying. Because it has moved along past its religious origins into a secular holiday of good cheer, warmth, and gift giving. The gift giving can and does get out of hand, but the basic premise, to give someone you care about, a gift, a free, no holds barred, no recompense expected, gift, something you would like them to have, perhaps, that they would never buy for themselves, is an excellent idea. I love it.

But really, you know there is nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas. I know some hard cord religious types want to push the original purpose ("To celebrate our Savior's birth") and all that, but really? If you're not Christian? Why would you have to remember that? I mean, you don't have to celebrate that, or even remember or think about it. After all, it's only really going to offend Christians if you are celebrating for other reasons and if others want to take on that Holiday and make it something universal, I think even Jesus, the misnamed individual who's birthday it was originally (kind of) set up to celebrate. And that's okay.

If you aren't a Christian and want to celebrate it for a completely other reason, I do think Jesus would be good with that. I'm not so sure of his followers after he died. I mean, just look how they have cocked it all up for two thousand years. I could go into things about this, how Jesus wasn't necessarily, "The Christ" in the purest intent of the original meaning, so I tend to call him Jesus, not Christ.

If it helps, try to imagine Jesus how he would look if he lived in modern times, rather than in the sandled, robed ancient Galilee region. I'm not even sure, were he to pop up right here, right now, that he would even appreciate having been giving that title of, "The Christ" for all its meaning and historical significance in Jesus' time, which is different than how modern Christians see it. He kept sidestepping that kind of stuff his entire life, until they started torturing him, which will mess up anyone's mind, son of God or not. And December 25, is a pagan holiday, and has nothing to do with Jesus birth.

That is, I believe, his actual name was "Yeshua", and not "Jesus", anyway. But you know how it is, the more well known and popular one wins. Because that is what is most important, not actuality, what was, but reality, what we conceive it to be, right? And he wasn't blonde haired, and blue-eyed, by the way, that doesn't even make any sense if you even, slightly think about it. He must have been somewhat easy on the eyes (you never hear about a homunculus being a prophet), he must have had some knowledge, which begets his being raised in ignorance or low birth, and he must have had some charisma, otherwise, no one would listen to, or follow him.

So no, I really don't see the issue with Christmas being celebrated, just sans the Jesus motif. Santa, is a pretty good stand in, if you ask me, and again, I'm not so sure Jesus would object. I don't see it as any kind of competition between the two. And you really do have to consider that. They already did that, after Jesus died. That is, to allow others, out side of their religion of Judaism or what was later called, Christianity, to join in, be involved, even if from some outside form. And it was a long and ugly battle within the Following.

You see, to become Christian, just after Jesus died, in those next hundred years or so, you had to become a Jew first, then you could be a Christian. That meant, you had to be circumcised, and eat by the Hebrew laws, and with the right people. And a Bris Milah, is not exactly an exciting consideration for any adult male. Paul helped to change all that, somewhat, with Peter's okay, but it was a hard fight to pull off. To allow those outside of the Hebrew faith, to even become Christians.

Again, a misnomer, as in the beginning, Christians were known as "Jesus Followers", that "Christ" related name came later. There is a new movement to be called a "Follower of Jesus" in order to relinquish some of the baggage associated with being called a "Christian". They're on the right track, namewise, anyway. Not to mention, when Jesus died, and "The End" didn't after all happen, the leaders of the Jesus Followers, had to scramble to find meaning in the old Hebrew texts, to explain what had happened, or more precisely, hadn't happened.

That was when they found the idea of all that we now hear about. The original Jesus Followers and later, Christians, were a sect developed from a building of considered, plotted out and manipulated concepts. But now in hindsight, no one sees that, no one educates themselves to know that, no one cares. These more modern followers, just want to "Have Faith". Kind of scary really. Strength in Ignorance, someone called it.

When I asked my Catholic mother years ago what she believed in and she told me what she thought her faith was about, I had to ask here, where she got that misguided concept from and she said, "My parents." When I pointed out that her lovely, but uneducated parents were markedly wrong, she just replied that her parents had taught her and she "believed." Talk about confused. But I see a lot of this with religious type people. They believe in what they believe in by what they were taught as children and that's the end of it. How much has been carried down to our times over 2,000 years, like this?

A couple of weeks later, when she had the parish Priest over for lunch and he heard this, he was shocked and told her directly that, "That is not what our religion teaches or is about." Do you have any idea how often that is a primary element in people's "Faith"? Think about that for a moment. I mean, my mother had it mostly correct, in general, but beyond that, she was clueless.

So, for Santa to take over for Jesus on Christmas Day, to bring goodness and happiness, cheer, and goodwill to men, and women, to give people a brief respite from their daily troubles, when otherwise they would never celebrate a Christian holiday, I mean, what's really wrong with that?

We have celebrated for a long time, on multiple continents with a Christmas tree. A symbol some have told me, is a nod to Jesus being born in a manger, more outside than in, as in a hotel, or someone's home. I've also heard it is a descendant of the "Paradise Tree" and the ornaments are replacements, originally as red balls, for the "Apple" that Eve picked and made some bad choice with in some way.

Wikipedia says: "The tradition still persists that Christmas trees should not be decorated until Christmas Eve, which is the day of Adam and Eve. Legends attribute the invention of the Christmas tree instead to Saint Boniface (c. 680 - 755), the Apostle of the Germans, and to Martin Luther." So, who knows, who really cares? It's fun, beautiful, warm and comforting, okay?

But really there is so much of the Paganistic involved here, absorbed by the Catholics and Christians in general, just as they absorbed December 25th to eradicate the Pagan Winter holiday and replace it with the other most potent day they could come up with, that of their Savior's alleged birthday. "It says in the Bible that Jesus was born before the sheep were sent out to pasture; no one sends their sheep out to graze in the winter." - Anonymous.

And so it goes on and on like this. But people simply prefer to have "Faith" than to understand what really happened way back when or how that affects them and the reality of their beliefs now. Okay, whatever, it's your prerogative but for myself, I would prefer to believe in and have faith in, what is true and right, than simply made up along the way. You know?

I have searched long and hard, through many religions over my lifetime, searching for knowledge, wisdom, and a religion that made any kind of sense to me at all. I have found that Buddha Dharma, the Buddha's Teachings, makes the most sense, to me. But there too, there has been much ritual and fantastic nonsense put to music in that belief system, as with any other out there. You can try to pick apart my Buddhist beliefs, but the difference is, as I gain more insight, it makes more sense, but as most all other religions go through that same process, they being quickly to fall apart. But that is neither here or there, for this discussion.

Buddha had said that if someone tells you something about the Buddha Dharma that makes no sense to you, you don't have to believe it; it is a way to keep His teachings more pure. As he obviously knew from observing Human behavior, over time people will take control of it for their own purposes, or expand on the truth to make more of it than there was, or was meant to be, or should be. He said to think for yourself. As opposed to Christian dynamics through the millennia of "listen and believe whatever you are told because it's so holy, you cannot disagree". To disagree is to burn in Hell for all eternity. And et cetera. That has led to so many atrocities I cannot count.

And so the Zen saying, "If you see the Buddha on the path of Life (Tao), kill him." It doesn't mean to actually kill him, but to not revere him so much that you lose sight of the Truth. Jesus' many followers have been patently doing that since the beginning.

Brief aside: Famous Vietnamese Buddhist Monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, had this Buddhist perspective to say on Christmas Eve Day:

No not this, the quote below....

"In the Christian tradition, we learn that Jesus is the Son of God. It means that through Jesus you can touch the ultimate dimension, the ultimate reality, the ground of being, the almighty. We also learn that Jesus is the Son of Man. As the Son of Man, he belongs to the historical dimension where there is being and non-being, birth and death, sameness and otherness, good and evil. Notions that make us suffer. These can the foundation of our fear, anxiety, and suffering. But Jesus is not only the Son of Man, he is also the Son of God. If we get in touch with Jesus deeply enough, then we can see this ultimate dimension. We have to see Jesus as both. In the Buddhist tradition, it is very clear that everyone belongs to the historical dimension and we also belong to the ultimate dimension. This is our nature and we can learn to transcend our notions."

There is more to life than simply following what you think, are the right rules, and being closed minded. If ignorance and fear are the root causes of intolerance, there is obviously a lot of both around the world, and far too much in America.

Anyway, yes it might be nice to call the Christmas Holiday something else, as the phrase has so much baggage associated with it and Christians get so defensive about it. Though I'll grant you, not as bad as Muslims do with images of Mohammed, which are ludicrous. I mean really, if Mohammed heard you were killing people over a cartoon of him, do you really think he'd buy you a drink (okay, doesn't have to be alcohol, right?), yet alone, give you seventy-two virgins? And if that were the case, then basically, arguably by definition, that would make him quite the jerk.

Repeat after me, "We don't kill people, unless it is to stop them from trying to kill us." So, can we first get that one straight? Drawing a cartoon, is not, a killing offense. Nor are religious indiscretions, of any type (blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, and so on).

The labarum, often called the Chi-Rho, is a Christian symbol representing Christ.

Christians have seen things like the spelling of "Christmas", as "Xmas" in being simply offensive. There is nothing wrong with being offended, there is with stepping over the line about it. It's been claimed that the "X" in "Xmas" was "crossing out", Christ. It's been said that in modern times "Wall Street", or the shop owners in the 1800s, are responsible for that secular attempt. But it's all quite untrue, and abbreviations like this have gone back as far as 1021AD, and by Christians themselves.

So, I would say to the "true believers" in Jesus, "come on, lighten up kids". Really, there is simply too much seriousness attributed to religious beliefs. Get out of the God of the Old Testament and into the newer one (that would be your Jesus, seriously, check out things he said, and not so much what everyone else has said down through the ages, be they his followers or leaders or not). Secular celebrations of Christmas, does do one thing, it brings the word, "Christmas", into the households and consciousness of many unbelievers and the worst thing ti really does, is to give people a momentary relief from life and a feeling of community, love and caring for one another.

Which is why, even as a kind of Buddhist, in the Western parlance, I have no problem with saying to you:

"Merry Christmas!" And may your life and the best of your wishes all come true for you, and your loved ones.

"Are you willing to forget what you have done for other people, and to remember what other people have done for you ... to remember the weakness and loneliness of people who are growing old ... Are you willing to believe that love is the strongest thing in the world ... stronger than hate, stronger than evil, stronger than death... Then you can keep Christmas! But you can never keep it alone." - Henry van Dyke

Weekend Wise Words

2011-12-24T04:20:00.000-08:00

Be Smart! Be Brilliant!

Since this is the Christmas weekend, maybe something on that order would be called for. A Merry Christmas eve day to you all!

Christmas makes me happy no matter what time of year it comes around.
- Bryan White

The main reason Santa is so jolly is because he knows where all the bad girls live.
- George Carlin

There are some people who want to throw their arms round you simply because it is Christmas; there are other people who want to strangle you simply because it is Christmas.
- Robert Lynd

I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph.
- Shirley Temple

Merry Christmas, Nearly Everybody!
- Ogden Nash

The Supreme Court has ruled that they cannot have a nativity scene in Washington, D.C. This wasn't for any religious reasons. They couldn't find three wise men and a virgin.
- Jay Leno

In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!'"
- Dave Barry

Christmas at my house is always at least six or seven times more pleasant than anywhere else. We start drinking early. And while everyone else is seeing only one Santa Claus, we'll be seeing six or seven."
- W. C. Fields

Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childhood days, recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth, and transport the traveler back to his own fireside and quiet home!
- Charles Dickens

Christmas renews our youth by stirring our wonder. The capacity for wonder has been called our most pregnant human faculty, for in it are born our art, our science, our religion.
- Ralph Sockman

To everyone, I wish you all a very happy and merry Christmas, to you and your loved ones, and especially, to those who are bitter of heart and ignoble of spirit; may a lightness, heavily befall you and bring happiness to you in a way that suffers not those in your realm of influence.

Does it matter if infidelity is physical?

2011-12-23T04:20:00.000-08:00

I've had this article sitting here in draft mode for nearly a month now, a little tentative to try and finish it. I wasn't sure I could pull it off. Last month I watched a very good movie with one of my favorite actors. I won't say who, or what film, as I want to speak without fear of spoilers. But I do want to try to explain this. I just find it hard to make my point on it. It can be a very intense subject for many, especially for those who have experienced these kinds of things and they can tend to have a very visceral reaction to something like what I'm about to say. But I'll give it a good shot.

There is seminal scene in the film where something drastic happens. The protagonist's wife has just about had it with her husband. She loves him but he can be annoying. So she goes to visit their son at college. She simply needs some time, a week maybe, away from him.

During a phone call with his wife, he asks if he can come up and join them. But she turns him down, saying that it kind of defeats the purpose of her getting time away. Then he finds that the man she works for just happens to be in that same town and now they going about to go to lunch with him, so she needs to get off the phone. She is open about it, to suggest she sees nothing wrong with her actions, which is a little (a little) bit reassuring. She even points out that her husband was the one to have suggested the man go to that town for some business. It all seems rather innocent.

But that man happens to be someone who has been, at least in our protagonist's mind, a threat to him, just because he is so much more than him in many ways; he is handsome, he is clever, and his wife likes him and works for him. All mostly things that had made him uneasy from the moment he saw them first meet. Obviously he is pretty annoyed about all this. And she is annoyed with him about it, after all, she's not doing anything wrong, just lunch with a friend and coworker with their son there. She is firm and says there is nothing to worry about, that she will see him in a few days.

But, this rips his heart apart. He asks her to come home but she refuses, saying she loves him. So she goes and supposedly has lunch. But he is devastated. He goes to his favorite bar to have a drink and drown his sorrows and missing his wife. While he is sitting there, having his drink, drinks, an attractive women next to him starts talking to him because she recognizes him. As it turns out, she used to work for him some time ago, on his soap opera type TV show. She has an obvious attraction, and after all, he's a guy, so he finds that attractive.

At this point, he believes, according to how he feels from what happened with his wife, that had she left for that town, where she just happens to find "the guy" who just "happens" to show up, all during a point in their life where she is unhappy with him and he is feeling very low. Because she left for a week for the soul purpose of being away from him, because she won't come home, because she was meeting with the one guy that seriously threatens his security in himself and his marriage, because she wouldn't cancel the lunch and run home to him right at that moment, he feels that his heart has been shredded in his chest.

He is feeling great pain, and partially because his wife is off with another man. He is intelligent, creative, and hurting, not a good combination; and his wife will not do anything to sooth his pain, to make it stop, to make it go away. So, she has in some way, seemingly abandoned him, and replaced him with another in order to feel good, to enjoy herself with; even if their son is there with them. And, after all, what about after lunch, or the next day, or night? Since there is some distance between himself and his son, would his son hide any indiscretions?

So he ends up on the floor at home, having sex with the girl from the bar. And he feels better afterward. He can make it through the rest of the day now. But after a little time passes, he starts to think about it. Having not used protection, he panics. By the next morning, he asks his friend and doctor to give him a test to find if he is infected with a social disease, and run it, really fast. You see, he realizes, now that he can breathe easy again, and has calmed down some, can be sane again, that he shouldn't have done what he did. It was wrong.

But he was just a little bit insane for a while and it took someone being intimate with him in the most intimate way possible, to show him he was worth the attention, in order to find his sanity again. Now this is not making excuses for his behavior, and he knew that; it's simply explaining the order of things and how it happened.

His wife then finally returns home, having stayed until the end of the week as she had said she would. As it turns out it was good for her, it was just what she needed. Once she gets home she is happy to see him again, she feels rejuvenated. She just needed to get away to clear her head, just like she had said. Nothing had happened with the man, after all; they were just friends, coworkers.

The phone rings and he says he has to take it. She wants him to hang up, for him to take her to bed. He is rather happy about this, but pretty panicky, but tries to be calm and simply says he has to take the phone call. So she tell him that she is going to the bedroom and he knows what will happen if he simply joins her.

He takes the call and finds out that no, he is clean, no STDs. He is so happy now, he can finally put this horrible mistake behind him and never do it again. After all he loves his wife and she is an incredible wife and person, and he just wants to forget what an idiot he was. This has reaffirmed his belief in life and his wife.

So he goes to her, just in time to see her setting down the phone, with a shocked look on her face. She apologizes, and has a good reason for having listened. But she didn't really hear anything, other than it was the doctor. She is concerned. Is he dying? She asks him to just tell her, whatever it is, just tell the truth.

Foolishly, and since he has been traumatized and is so happy to be back with his wife, he makes a very poor choice in judgement; he tells her the truth. Of course she is devastated. And sadly it ends their marriage. She can put up with anything, with his grumpy old character all these years but she cannot put up with this, he has broken a trust with her and she simply cannot get back to before. Ironically, she ends up with the coworker. So in a sense, he was right to have been worried except, she wouldn't have done anything, had he not ruined things.

But he has ruined things. But why?

She didn't have sex with the friend and coworker. But he acted like she had. It wasn't that he thought she did, he knew she hadn't, but he "felt" like she had. By her having left him, rejected him, even for that short time, leaving him vulnerable when he needed her most, by then rejecting him again when she refused to come home, or to allow him to come up to visit with her and their son; then rejecting him yet again in the most intense way at that moment by going to lunch, seeing that particular other man, by acknowledging that man over that of her husband, buy sharing her "wonderfulness" with another man, when she was so in the process of taking herself away from her husband; she had damaged him so badly by all that, that it was like he had experienced the situation of his wife having actually been adulterous with that other man and that man in particular.

It was at that moment on the phone with her, that he was experiencing that she had indeed been adulterous.
And he had acted accordingly. Not in a mature fashion, to be sure. But in a way to stop the pain and anguish. So that when he tells her the truth, that he was tested not for a life threatening condition, but for the possibility of having acquired a social disease by being adulterous in her absence; her reaction to him, as one of the cuckolded spouse, was almost mean spirited. Ironic, to say the least, that is from her husband's point of view.

Did he know this? No, he may not have recognized it at all and his argument at that time, was weak because he didn't understand himself all I have just explained. He too was at a loss as to how to explain why he did what he did. And it's not to say that he thought she had committed adultery and so it cancelled out what he had done. He knew something was wrong and so he got angry and argued back about it, about how she was off in another town with that man.

Of course, she asked if he thought that had any comparison to what he had done, and of course, he had to reply to the negative. Of course her having lunch, with their son there with them, in no way compared with his act of infidelity.

He knew he was in the wrong. He was devastated. He had ruined their marriage. But he was not fully culpable, was he. She did have a hand in his actions. She had lived with him for years, she knew him better than he knew himself. She knew how he saw things, even on the night they first met. But she would never see that now. Their marriage was over, and it was his fault.

You cannot claim that she was at fault, he was the one who acted on the actual, act. But she broke trust with him first. She didn't see it, because she was hurting, because she needed time to herself, she couldn't see that she needed to be there for him, that to leave him like that, was devastating to him, and was taking their marriage to a precipice where it could easily be knocked over and destroyed; and so it was.

Should she have stayed with him? Should she have come back when he asked on the phone? No, probably, most likely, not. That would have been the optimal thing, for him, and in the end, for their marriage. But she deserved her need for privacy, for alone time (and there is part of the problem, she was welcome to her "alone" time, but not with another man, especially, that man).

Of course she needed her time away, and no doubt, he needed her to return. Her going was probably actually good for their marriage. Maybe too, even her staying. But throwing that other guy into the mix was the toxic element to topple things over that edge.

The point here is this, sometimes, there is simply nothing to be done. You may very well both need what you both need and sometimes, only one of you can get what it is you need, for things to continue all well and good. But sometimes, if one of you can recognize that single element, that one thing you can do, that you may even not want to do, if you can find your way to move on that, you may just save the rest of your life, or at least, your marriage.

Sometimes undoubtedly, it is best that a marriage end. But many times, I think people give up too easily. It can take a while for a marriage to smooth out and get back on track. It is when the love is truly dead, when you are completely miserable and it will never go away; or even more so, if it becomes destructive, that it's truly the time to end it.

So, that was what I wanted to share. I just thought it was interesting, intriguing and bittersweet. It was a very moving part of the film and I found it both sad and enlightening. I've been through a few relationships, all of them interesting, all rewarding in some way. And all of them have had moments like the one I have described. Perhaps not so large and intense, as I've never gone out on someone like that, though I've had it done to me a couple of times. The first time it happened, it was devastating. But whether it has actually been done to you, or it only feels like it has been done, it can still be intensely painful.

If we can just see when these times happen and try to avoid doing those kinds of things to the ones we love and care deeply about, I think the world would simply have to be a better place. Even if just a little bit. Because sometimes, that's all it takes, a little bit of effort, to avoid a devastating life event.

The Auteur Director

2011-12-22T04:20:00.000-08:00

Why is a film directed by an Auteur Director supposed to be better? For me, it's because in order to be considered "Auteur" as a Director, you have to have a grasp of all aspects of film and Cinema, but to a very high degree. You have to fully "Get It". You have to rise above the solidly capable, and venture into that scary land of the Artiste. It takes understanding of the form, genius, fusion, clear focus even when it appears to be unclear.

I grew up watching PBS, Channel 9 in Tacoma, Washington in the 1960s. I don't know who was responsible at that station, but they did a bang up job.

I saw a lot of films with the Janus Films logo.

A logo I find as evocative then as I do the Criterion brand now. PBS showed Kurosawa films, Truffaut, Bergman, and many others. As a kid, I was fascinated. These were no American type films, they had something more, texture, substance, depth, unlike anything I was used to. They left me stunned, curious, blown away.

I had no idea what I was seeing but in comparing it to most of the American films I was seeing, there was something special going on there. I grew up going to the Drive-In Theater every Friday night as our Step-Dad was an Asst Manager. It was his night job, the job he enjoyed. Having been a big band leader, it was his chance to get out of the warehouse he worked in during the day, put on a suit and meet the public; even if it was only to sell them tickets. Later I too worked there at night all through High School. So I grew up seeing a lot of films.

On top of all that, my mother saw Hollywood actors as our American Royalty and so we celebrated when we watched the Oscars. Film, is kind of in my blood. And so it makes sense that I would lean toward the top end of filmmaking, the Auteur films.

So, what exactly is "Auteur"? The technical definition of the term "Auteur" (French for author) describes film directors (or, more rarely, producers, or writers) who are considered to have a distinctive, recognizable style, because they:

(a) repeatedly return to the same subject matter,
(b) habitually address a particular psychological or moral theme,
(c) employ a recurring visual and aesthetic style, or
(d) demonstrate any combination of the above.

In theory, an Auteur's films are identifiable regardless of their genre. The term was first applied in its cinematic sense in François Truffaut's 1954 essay "A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema" - Wikipedia

Using a list of Auteur Directors, I picked the ones that were influential starting from before I was a teenager to adulthood and after I had spent some time studying Film Theory and Cinema at my University.

I would argue that some of directors on the list I was looking at, I really wouldn't consider Auteur, but well known, proflific, or highly competent. I have a more stringent definition for Auteur, similar to my differentiation between Artist and Artiste. I have always tried to differentiate between those highly competent and prolific Artists and Genius Artists, or those individuals who took their craft or art to a much higher degree. Thus I see Director and Auteur Director, Artist and Artiste, for wont of a better term for either one.

Here is my personal, mostly complete list, not in any order. I may have left some off, but I think I got most of them, those who have touched my life in some way. I may have included some perhaps through emotionalism, and who could arguably be removed, but not many I think.

Michelangelo Antonioni
John Boorman
Frank Capra
Jean Cocteau
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Jim Jarmusch
Fritz Lang
Louis Malle
Georges Melies [500 films to his name, he destroyed them all]
Alan Parker
Roman Polanski
Jean Renoir
Ken Russell
John Sayles
Steven Soderbergh
Martin Scorsese
Paul Schrader
Bob Rafelson
Nicholas Roeg
Quentin Terantino
Jacques Tati
Guillermo del Toro
Francois Truffaut
Paul Verhoeven (mostly for his preHollywood films)
Luchino Visconti
Orson Welles
Wim Wenders
Chris Marker
Henri Langlois
Terry Gilliam
Alfred Hitchcock
Woody Allen
James Cameron
Stanley Kubrick
Lina Wertmüller
Ingmar Bergman
Jean Luc Goddard
John Carpenter
David Cronenberg
David Lynch
Pedro Amodovar
Alain Resnais
Sir David Lean
Louis Lumiere
Ridley Scott
Francois Truffaut
Werner Herzog
Akira Kurosawa
Andrei Tarkovsky
Sergei M. Eisenstein
Federico Fellini
Luis Buñuel
Peter Greenaway
Buster Keaton
Harold Lloyd
Charlie Chaplan
Tim Burton

Non Verbal Thought

2011-12-21T04:20:00.000-08:00

This article was accidentally published before it was ready or meant to be. I do apologize for that. Now, here we go....

Peter Chatterton wrote an article I found very interesting article.

He talks about Non-Verbal Thought (NVT). What is NVT? Hmmm... well, let me paint you a picture....

Have you ever read a book and heard the words in your head? Okay, that's verbal thought. When I was in Eighth Grade, Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics came to our classroom and taught us Washington State History over several months, using their methods.

Sadly, and you'll understand the irony of this even more in a minute, when I got into High School, they wouldn't count the credit for this class for some reason, and I had to take it all over again. Their comment was, "Well, if you did take it before, then it will be a breeze for you this time." What a jerk. Well, it was a breeze. But I learned it better the first time, than any of the kids did in this new class, this time.

Evelyn Wood had taught Pres. Kennedy herself, as I heard it, and many others, to use this method to read quickly and increase your comprehension. They wanted to find if teaching in a classroom setting was workable. Turns out it was. I've seen many other "speed reading" courses over the years, and most of them aren't worth the money, if you ask me. Some teach you better reading skills than you have now, to be sure. But I guess I see Wood as the gold standard.

The first thing they told us, and taught us, was to stop thinking words in your mind. After all, your mind can move much faster than your words, when spoken. When you "hear" the words in your mind, you slow your mind down to the rate at which the muscles in your mouth and face will allow you, to talk and articulate. Well, don't do that in your mind and you immediately speed up the rate at which you read, and think.

I went from 60% comprehension at around 280 words per minute, to within several months, by the time this class was over, to 80% comprehension and 10,000 words per minute. Honest. I was reading a novel in an hour. And I was understanding and retaining more by 20%.

One thing this told me was that in all the years previous, where I thought I was slow and stupid, I found that I was simply bored. There was actually more to it than just that, but that was a lot of it, actually.

When my teachers, who were usually going too slow for how my mind worked (or could work), whenever they sped up their teaching, I found I was then able to understand them better. But usually someone in the class would complain and they would slow down and typically start going over it all again, which just made me even more bored and on top of it, frustrated.

Of course there are other elements involved, emotions, nutrition, etc., but let's skip those for the purposes of this discussion.

Then when it came to tests, it looked like I was just stupid as the other kids would get better scores. But that was because they got to learn at their speed and (this will sound funny), I couldn't keep up at their slower speed of assimilation. I would get quickly bored and start looking around and not pay attention.

But that wasn't inherent in my attitude. I was interested, actually, fascinated, but my thoughts were going so fast, I simply couldn't pay attention. It was like watching a movie, only they play the first scene at half speed and repeat it three times, so that by time the next scene comes up, your now reading a book or something.

Getting back to the Speed Reading, I kept it up for a while, but doing the "push up" drills gave me headaches. Your eyes have to get accustomed to the zipping back and forth across the pages, at first. Then once you get beyond that, you're smoothly slipping down a page; in the time it takes to look from top to bottom of the page, you have read it and can answer questions about it. You also can't read dense material that way, as it simply slows you way down.

So I eventually quit reading that fast. But the real reason I quit was that I had read a few really good novels using that technique. They took me an hour or two to read. It was actually pretty cool, like watching a movie in your head while you read. Except for one thing.

When I read a really good novel I want to savor it, enjoy it, let it last for a few days, a week, maybe as long as I can stretch it out. But with this fast reading style, it was zip, over. Also, to really learn a book, they expected you to read it possibly three times. But then you would have learned it far better than using normal reading methods. Of course, even reading it three times, you were still done far faster than ever before possible.

Now you might ask, could I really do that? Well many years later I asked myself the very same thing. I was in the USAF in my early twenties. I had a letter from Evelyn Wood stating that should I ever want to take their classes again, for the rest of my life, I can take them for free. So when I was about twenty-two, I saw they had classes starting at a local downtown hotel conference room. So, I signed up for free.

I knew I had done this before. But even having done it before, I had trouble understanding by then, how that was possible. How does anyone read 10,000 words per minute? So I took the class again. And once again, I got up to those speeds. And once again, I found the same issue. I liked taking time reading so that the experience lasts longer.

But that is neither here nor there.

So I was bored as a child in my classes. I did have ADHD as a kid which explains some of that. Or is ADD a natural evolutionary development for us to help our race pick up the pace to that of modern times?

The point here is speed. That is one element in this NVT thing. Remember that? We naturally, purposely slow our minds down, without even knowing it. Parents will tell kids sometimes, "you're going to fast" (yeah, for the slow adult). They tell you to slow down. Sometimes of course, kids are going too fast, but if they can handle it, let them go at their own pace. If it seems not to be working, consider if you are trying to teach them using a method too slow for a kid with a fast processor.

What makes you think that a car that runs at fuel injector speeds, can run in a healthy manner using a carburetor? Well, you see what I'm saying anyway, right?

Getting back to Peter's article, in it he says:

"To me, the idea that mathematicians, artists and chess players think in words while they are working productively is preposterous."

Interesting. He goes on to say:

"I’ve found that I can reduce unnecessary sub-vocalization in daily life just by making a point of not thinking in words. It is my impression that anyone can improve their NVT, but it takes time and effort; on the other hand, presumably, anyone can lose NVT by sloppy thinking."

Interesting article. He has a good point. How many years were humans non verbal? Language has developed our brains in a certain way, certainly, but the basis was non verbal. So, if we allow that to work, now, what happens?

I like the concept on a TED video I saw about our minds using a kind of photo indexing system, or even video, or more so, perhaps, 3D image indexing inter relationships, rather than a FAT (File Allocation Table) type format to allocate and track our compartmentalization of data. A FAT type table tracks the beginning and end of a file on your hard drive, and if it's fragmented, spread all over the disk, it tracks where all parts of it are, so you can access the entire file without having to realize it's in pieces all over the place.

As for 3D indexing, think holographic indexing, perhaps. It's on the order of what I'm talking about, anyway. Still, it's too simplistic, but you get the idea.

Computer memory hardware "bit", 0 or 1, on or off

If every image in your mind is 3D, or "video" in nature, or video 3D, a streaming one second slice of that stored moment, then every element possible to consider is stored in relation to that "experience". So, you are indexing not just by word, image, temporal slice, but the overall consideration of that, EAT "Experience Allocation Table". Then by "lighting up" different matrices in your brain, you can access these, which lends itself to this kind of thing; in a computer, it uses more basic indexing as a grouping of various hardwired junctions using "on or off" bits, 1's and 0's. The difference between the two concepts is light years apart in complexity.

If, rather than using words to categorize our thoughts, to store and access data, what if we use a rich image related to the event, then each element within that frame becomes a search element. Think of the depth of storage and retrieval we must be capable of.

I've always had trouble with retrieval in my own thought indexing. It is slow. Why? Well there may be many reasons, and many of those may be physical. But I wonder.

We have two basic ways to access memory: retrieval and recognition. But I discovered early on that I am incredibly good at recognition and creation, but not so good at retrieval and association. So it can take me a while to fully remember something.

When, let's say, I see a face I've seen before, I recognize it instantly. But attributing it to its history in my memory, and extracting that data, takes me a while. So I've learned how to make that work for me in life. Basically, I'm very good at creating but not so good at regurgitating information. I'm just very good at generating as I go. And so I'm good at writing, composing articles and stories. The funny thing about that is that as I'm creating, I'm drawing indirectly, vast amounts of information, but more in an image index than a word index. If you follow what I'm saying.

If you want to learn something, learn it in those two formats. When I started college, one of my first classes was Physics / Chemistry, as they are basically the same in their beginnings, I had to learn the entire periodic table. So I wrote two programs. One to help me recognize, another to help me recall or retrieve.

Basically, one program showed me an element and I had to recognize it and recall what its properties were. The other program, required me to type in, to recall the properties, to retrieve information, which I find more difficult. But with time and repetition, it's doable; see that is usually the issue. I can do it, it just takes me a long time to remember, which appears as dysfunctional.

So, I learned it all in a week, far faster than anyone else in class, and with better memorization. One of the students said I cheated by using a computer, but all we had to do was learn it, so I don't know how it was cheating. Then someone pointed out, my lab partner, very cute girl (after getting together, getting a college degree, then breaking up), she pointed out that I had first had to design and write a computer program to be able to "cheat". The others thought about that and then all agreed they had to give me that much. This was back when few people anywhere had a PC at home.

Now, Peter ends his article with this:

"I would like to see more awareness of NVT to save other people the learning curve and to improve the overall level of cognition and reasoning (wow!)."

What he's saying is that this all sounds rather intimidating, high level functioning, genius level stuff. But, it's not. Anyone can do this. You just have to understand what you are doing. Though it helps to understand how your own personal brain works, how your mind best functions, for you.

Once you realize you don't have to "hear" words in your head, you're way ahead of the game. It takes a little effort, but I believe almost anyone can do it, if they really want to.

When I started college, the first class I took, was study skills. I never took a more important class. I came to realize that my understanding of how to study was wrong and for the first time, learned how I could learn and retain information in a way useful to me in an academic environment. Since college throws things at you faster than you need it, that was no longer at issue. Learning was still difficult, in a classical type or academic environment, but you learn to adapt.

Sometimes, all it takes is being given the right information for the task at hand. We just need to have the information about how to do what we need to do and, they simply don't tend to teach that to you in school.

But in this information, that I'm giving to you today, gives you enough information so that you can go look it up yourself, and change your life. If you want to.

And if you do, let 'er rip!