Dar Kush

More Racial Fun!

2009-11-06T08:20:00.001-08:00

ﾠ

Some good conversations about race, triggered by the racist publisher. My thoughts, in order, to the subjects raised?

1)I see no problem with Blacks assimilating as Americans. I DO see a problem with Whites considering this "White." In other words, they see themselves as the standard to which all others must measure themselves. Since they cannot look white (even if they try to lighten skin, get plastic surgery, straighten their hair (women) or shave their heads (men)) they MUST remain second-class citizens as a group. It is a subtle and insidious problem--and precisely the unconscious intent of the behavior.

2) I don't really "self-identify" as black so much as recognize, quite clearly, that that is how I am seen by others. It therefore enters my consciousness as

a) what are the problems in my life and career that I cannot understand unless I look at life through that lens?

b) What are the unique contributions do I have to give the world? Some of those deal with my rarity in the category of race: my life experiences, attitudes, and career choices would be rare for an "American" of any kind, but virtually unique for that section of Americans with African genetics. When I speak before a White audience, it has a powerful effect. When I speak before a Black audience, it is overwhelming. I have to acknowledge this. But I'm totally aware that I am of mixed genetics, and that my genetics aren't really very important, in the end. I don't wake up in the middle of the night thinking "I'm black". I do understand I'm playing a cultural game of chess, pogo-sticking through a racial minefield, and that that way is littered with shattered black bodies. My sister considers herself "Multi-racial" and that is actually a more accurate term for my genetic status. But it also avoids certain controversies which, I think, must be dealt with head-on rather than sweeping them under the cultural carpet for another generation to deal with.

3) I'm not at all offended if someone considers me more assimilated into American culture than most Blacks. That's fine. And it's true. The problem (and it often happens) is when people refer to whatever positive attributes they see in me as "White." That I find automatic, unconscious, and unfortunately. Inarticulateness is inarticulateness, not "Black." Logic, articulateness or neatness are not "White." When was the last time you spoke to someone of Irish (or whatever) descent who was inarticulate and thought "they don't sound White"? My guess: never. You aren't grasping the preassumptions in that--or the truly horrific results when and if the dominated group accepts that definition. That is EXACTLY like an abused child accepting that they are "ugly" and "stupid". America is not a White country, and never has been. White Americans are currently dealing with the trauma of coming to understand this, and it isn't pretty.

4) I've commented on the two-parent thing. You're right that there are far too many in the Black community who defend single-parent child-rearing. As there are many white feminists who argue that it's fine for women to deliberately get pregnant without partners. And I've made it clear I consider this to be poison across the board. Whites have a higher safety net, so that poison isn't as damaging. And the motivations are different, somewhat. In Black America it definitely represents a breakdown in social structure, economic realities, and statistics of black male-female incarceration and education. But since blacks in indigenous cultures (say, Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers) provide full support for their children, one cannot call this a 'black" phenomenon without annoting that it occurs only among colonized, oppressed cultures--in other words, is a SYMPTOM of massive damage, rather than an intrinsic aspect of the people themselves.

5) Oh, I'm far more assimilated into mainstream American culture than the average Black. Or the average White, for that matter. But that doesn't make me "assimilated White" no matter how comforting that idea might be for White people. Like Popeye said, I am what I am. What you think of me is none of my business.

ﾠ

6) Shady Grady: of COURSE I would rather the publisher be honest with me. Are you kidding? That's like asking: "are you sure you'd want to know there are sharks in the water?" "are you sure you want to know where the land mines are?" What possible benefit would there be in NOT knowing? Then I know I'm not hallucinating when my books don't get reviewed, or are reviewed more harshly than other comparable books. If he was honest, there wouldn't have been the endless panels asking "why aren't there more Black people in science fiction" as if we are somehow different, don't have dreams and imaginations. We would KNOW why: because it is painful to be constantly excluded, killed out, denigrated by some of the best and most celebrated writers int he field. People would be able to make a conscious choice, rather than hallucinating that SF is somehow a harbor safe from "-isms". And I would have known what I was up against in the field from the beginning, and would have laid my plans differently. Grady: that's like asking if you'd like to know if an employee is stealing, or your wife is cheating on you. Hell, yes. One of the things I love about Jerry Pournelle is that he was honest and courageous enough to say, straight out, what he thought. That is honorable and non-problematic. Hidden racism allows people to do damage and then blame the victim.

ﾠ

7) I think all societies go through multi-ethnic phases, whenever two groups come together. There is strife, and then they assimilate each other's characteristics and become something new. To me, that's the only way it ever happens. To those who play the very typical human game of "we" are the "real" people and everyone else needs to become like "us" to be normal, this change is stressful as hell. So become "American"? Sure. But when black people call being studious, polite or articulate being "white" I consider that ignorant and poisonous. And think the exact same thing when white people say it.

Oh...and by the way. Watch "Flash Forward"? I like it, but it fell into an interesting variation on a theme last night: a black character killed to prove to a white woman he never met that "life is good." And also comfort an Asian character that it was all right to embrace his black fiancee. What fun!

Soldiering On

2009-11-05T08:40:00.000-08:00

Well, I had a telephone conversation with the person who had the actual information about that science fiction publisher with the little race problem. Yeah, it was true. You know, I look at stuff like this, and realize that the man was one of the most powerful people in the field. Some would say "most." And John W. Campbell, often considered the most important early figure in the field, had the same attitudes. And people wonder why there are so few black writers in the field. What a terrible, terrible joke.

Apparently, he didn't mind Oreos but didn't like being around "real" black people. Hope he was uncomfortable as hell around me.

I suppose I knew that the field was like this when I first got into it, but hoped that I'd be able to help it change. I get emails almost every day saying I'm right, I did change it, and am still a role model. All I wanted to do was to create images for the little boy inside me, and I've done that.

But...I remember when women were first coming into the field, complaining about objectification and second-class citizen status. And now it seems that the majority of editors are women, and (it seems) half the writers. And most of the viable black SF writers seem to be women, which suggests that there is a bit of Sisterhood Circle stuff going on there. Good.

But if I was a little boy again, I'd still be looking out there seeking role models, and pretty much unable to find it in my favorite genre. I wouldn't have to search QUITE as hard, but it would be tough to look at the rack in the SF section, see all those white people and aliens, and hear SF fans piously claim that there is less bigotry in SF than in the outside world. Simply isn't true.

ﾠ

The trick is that bigotry seems hard-wired. All that has to happen for it to win is for people to remain unconscious. Point it out, motivate someone to do something about it, and you'll hear the closeted bigots whine about "Political Correctness." Women never complain "political correctness" when a woman is inserted into a story in a role traditionally confined to men. You only hear this when the role re-distributes a bit of unfair advantage. Whine, whine.

ﾠ

What was this publisher's problem? He would probably protest hugely if someone called him a bigot. Here's what he'd probably say: that he understood, or acknowledged, some things about black people that it is politically incorrect to admit. And if it is true, it isn't racism. I've heard that countless times. But yes, it is racism, even if true...which means of course, that the concept of "racism" has been a bit demonized. The real problem is bigotry, defined here as TREATING people differently because of their race, especially when their individual characteristics are not taken into account.

And while I do think there is a great deal of what I'm calling "racism" on the Right, being a bigot is another matter, indicative of, well, being a dick. And there are no more dicks on the Right than the Left. Different dicks, perhaps.

This publisher was a dick. And people around him knew it, and no one isolated him or called him on it, he moved in the very highest circles of the field, everyone loved going to his parties and encouraging him to promote their work. Why? Because it was no skin off their nose, that's why. Because the damage was being done to the other guys.

I just happened to be the "other guy", that's all.

I remember Jim Rosenthal, who was the editor at Black Belt Magazine, and went over to Weider Publications, taking me with him as a freelancer. At this time, I'd noticed that there were never any black people in their ads unless they were hard-core champion bodybuilders. And I asked Jim about that. And Jim ruefully admitted that he'd been in an editorial meeting, and the art director was asked about it, and said that he wouldn't use black models because he "didn't find them attractive."

THIS is what I'm fighting against. The rare, rare instances in which I have access to someone who was witness, and will TALK about it to me have to be greatly outnumbered by the times people said nothing, and kept it to themselves. And so it goes.

I soldier on.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/is-ultimate-fighting-gay/

ﾠ

Is Ultimate Fighting gay? The above link is an only slightly tongue-in-buttcheek article about the growth of both gay and female audiences for Mixed Martial Arts. It suggests that the promoters are actively welcoming gay audiences and athletes...which would be kinda cool. Considering that most of the sports stereotypically associated with gay audiences tend to be subjective rather than objective (figure skating, for instance) this is something a little different. I suppose in general, gays would be interested for the same reason that men like watching Hot Oil Wrestling, except that this isn't mere display. The skills and applicable physical attributes are awesome. Boxing is in trouble: one of the reasons boxing was so popular is that a case could be made that a boxer of a given size could defeat athletes in other sports in hand-to-hand combat...and make no mistake, a major element of sports is the sense that "our" warriors are thrashing "their" warriors. But boxers have trouble with wrestlers in general. In the thousands of rounds of boxing I've seen, only one time have I ever seen a boxing match end before the first clinch (Gerry Cooney bombing out Ken Norton before he could even get out of his corner!). That means that if a wrestler covers up and closes, he's got an excellent chance to take even a superb boxer. And MMA takes that to another level, incorporating boxing and kick-boxing into the mix. That's about as close to a street-fight as you'll ever get in a sport, and therefore hits the "who's toughest?" button quite handily. Yeah, it's rarely pretty (watching the real Brazilian Jiu Jitsu experts has a physical/intellectual poetry to it, however), but then much of the grace and poetry of traditional martial arts would dissolve if they were really evenly matched and trying to hurt each other. It's easy to look pretty when you're not in pain.

ﾠ

MMA also clearly selects for young brawlers, not just Alpha males, but those who actually release endorphins when hit hard. That is a scary friggin' thought, let me tell you, and as more of these behemoths walk the street, the idea of aiming blows at anything other than eyes, throat, groin, knees, and insteps goes the way of the dodo. All this to say that if gay athletes and audiences become a larger part of the MMA equation, the aspect of gay-bashing that arises from the notion that homosexuals are more feminine and therefore less efficient warriors will die. At that point, something very interesting could happen:

1) Fewer rational reason to object to gays on the basis of "they're weak." This actually IS a rational reason. It's just incorrect. But if homosexuality weakened men, almost any culture would fight against it.

2) An actual reason to be happy with the increase in gay men: less competition for women. There are few things in life as delightful as being the only straight guy in an aerobics, dance, or yoga class. Yum.

ﾠ

Of course, this would be balanced (one presumes) by a proportionate increase in gay females, so the competition would be different. Women tend to be more flexible about these things than men, for reasons I'm not sure of, but have plenty of whacko theories about.

ﾠ

One thing's for sure...the future will have some significant differences from the past, and it's gonna be both frustrating and amusing to watch people trying to rationalize their prejudices.

Omega Men

2009-11-04T07:57:00.001-08:00

"What about the Omegas?

It may sound flip, but it's a serious question. Especially with the Alpha/Beta paradigm, I imagine it would be hard to ignore the people whose lot in life is to be abused by the Alphas and the Betas (strangely appropriate to the blog title, eh?)

It seems to me that this is a group that is in desperate need of instruction on how to get out of the hole they've found themselves in."

ﾠ

I am unfamiliar with this term. If the writer will explain, I'll try to see how it fits into my world view. The intent of the project is to create a road-map for anyone who wants to become an adult. My take on it is that in most cases, this will automatically create the "Man" or "Woman" vibe. But I still want to slant things in the "man" direction because I've simply seen too little of what seems honest advice in this direction. It is either knuckle-dragging, smirking chauvenism or weepy-eyed "let's all share our feelings" "women are right, men are garbage" nonsense. Seen far too many men who are afraid of their own power, terrified that they might turn into an abuser. And others who are afraid to tap into their feelings, or even to love deeply. Confused about what they need to do or be to be attractive to the women who attract them.

ﾠ

This just isn't necessary. And if people don't like the role models I've selected--who cares. What they'll also have a chance to do is see HOW I"m modeling these men. Don't like mine? Choose others, and model away.

To reiterate, I'm taking the position that a healthy human being can either lead or follow, depending on the circumstances. Natural Alphas find themselves in (or seek out) the leadership positions more often. Natural Betas seek out positions where they can follow an effective leader. But within any hierarchy, only one guy at the top isn't following others (and doesn't he have to be aware of the feelings of stockholders?) and Most "followers" except those at the very bottom have followers of their own. So anyone "stuck" at either position is a potential problem. People with skills and ability who won't "step up" are, in essence, stealing from those who taught them.

ﾠ

There are a dozen conversations I've had over the course of my life that have changed me. One of them was with a lady named Jamie Charles, who looked me dead in the eye and said: "if the Alphas of the tribe don't take responsibility for leadership, the tribe suffers." I can see that. More clearly, the older I get. None of us become what we are in a vacuum. And the best way of repaying our teachers and mentors is to teach and lead.

And if we had bad teachers, bad examples? If we are to be adults, we have the obligation of seeking out positive ones, and modeling their behavior, attitudes, strategies and emotions.

Of course, you know my answer to: "how do I know I've found someone to model?" You look for balance: a healthy body, healthy relationship, and healthy career. Some of my chosen models are only "o.k." in one of the three areas, but make up for it by being STELLAR in the others. That works for me. But I won't model anyone who is "blown out" in one of the three, unless that problem is genetic or beyond control of conscious action.

I'm asking my role models a series of questions, and their answers will help me refine the questions. There are eleven questions, some of which are compound, and the first is:

"WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF MANHOOD? ADULTHOOD?"

ﾠ

Rites of passage

2009-11-03T08:31:00.001-08:00

ﾠ

"I think few men, or women, really, are across the board alpha. Most of us are situationally alpha at most."

This actually touches on what I believe, and am verifying through interviews (and those interviews have been fascinating!) is that a HEALTHY person can play either Alpha or Beta, depending on the situation. But the term in general applies depending on the percentage of time that the person is in one or the other role. A "pure Alpha" who is healthy can still play Beta--for instance in a military or other hierarchical situation, it is necessary to follow for the good of all. In other situations, it is necessary for someone to lead, and a "pure Beta" who is healthy could still take that position if, for instance, they have specialized knowledge that makes them the natural person to decide.

ﾠ

From this perspective, an unhealthy version of either is "stuck" in either being "in charge" or pathologically avoiding leadership positions. Bad. Alphas are no more intrinsically unethical than Betas--both will lie or cheat to achieve their aims. It might be said that Alphas are more likely to force their aims through intimidation, Betas through undermining and back-stabbing.

Every Alpha I've talked to so far has zero problem being a follower--if the leader is a real leader. So that would be my sense of a healthy human being--able to switch back and forth depending on the situation. But in some senses a Beta is a "dialed down" Alpha, and I feel like more useful information on Maleness is revealed by studying the latter than the former.

ﾠ

Clearly, these definitions are very flexible, but everyone understands them (kinda roughly, perhaps) so they are useful, and that's what I want--a useful perspective. I've noticed that many Betas seem to be retreat from leadership or conflict because of specific pain lessons gained along the course of their lives. And Alphas are what they are at least partially because of positive feedback from family or environment. I'd bet older brothers are disproportionately Alphas, just due to birth order.

ﾠ

Another thing I've seen is that women who have been hurt in one relationship by a dominant Alpha will often seek Betas for their partners thereafter. Makes sense to me, but we have to factor that in when we solicit opinions. And I'm delighted to hear the comments about Alpha females finding Beta males attractive. Good.

Can't forget a comment I got from an Alpha female of my acquaintance. She basically said: "what I'd really want is a man who would stay home, do the cooking and the cleaning, and then when I come home he'd throw me on the bed and power-#$%$ me."

I had to shake my head. I sincerely doubted she would ever find such a thing. Make sweet gentle love to her, perhaps. But she wants a man who is a Beta in the kitchen and an Alpha in bed. That is pretty freaking unlikely, and she never found it. She is, on the other hand, currently involved in a gay relationship. Maybe she managed to find what she was looking for, after all. Have to ask her one day.

Clearly, the ability to un-program the negative lessons is critical to being a healthy human being, not just male or female. That has to be addressed, there is no question. I've simply met too many men who aren't sure what being a man is, or if that's what they are. And I blame it on the lack of strong role models and a lack of rites of passage. On THIS side you're a boy. On THAT side you are an adult, and may marry, have children, and sit in the council of men.

Men, traditionally, are taught to repress their emotions. When you're hunting a tiger, no one cares how you feel. Only what you will or won't DO when the tiger charges. Scott Sonnon said that he's traveled the world seeking martial knowledge, hoping to find that levitating master of legend. And all he has ever found (and the man has moved in extremely elevated circles) is earnest, scared young men doing the best they can. We have the fear, but are discouraged from showing it. Or loneliness, or doubt. This, I think, is one of the reasons women are getting ahead of men in terms of understanding themselves and evolving--they actually share how they feel and allow their friends to touch their hearts.

ﾠ

Back in the 70's I remember some "men's movement" stuff that tried to take the iconography or external aspects of male behavior in traditional cultures, like drumming circles. Or providing "rites of passage" for young men. There is a problem here--unless these things are tied into actual performance or privilege, it rings a bit hollow. If we, as men, drum in a circle to synchronize our breathing and movement before we go on a hunt, that makes sense. If we do it before we go back to our cars and drive in a dozen different directions..? Not so much.

ﾠ

If I take a group of boys out into the woods and have them perform rituals, and on the other side of those fearful doings they can court a woman, or join the hunt, or build a house...great. But if the kids drive to the camp in their jeeps, they are already having sex, and they don't have to get jobs or apartments until they are 25...not so much. There's no "there" there. Nothing real. I think this is one of the reasons why so many guys are saying that they became men while actually DOING SOMETHING: building a house with their uncle. Training in the military for service. Working in a church with the deacons. Earning a black belt. Helping their wife give birth (!). Teaching in the inner city. Helping Mom and Dad run a business. Nursing ill siblings.

ﾠ

Doing something. Actually contributing to the flow of life, participating in their own maturation, learning who they really are, dealing with fear and doubt. Under stress, who you really are comes out, and under stress our fears and considerations just stop mattering so much. The voices in your head begin to quiet. And what often emerges is something you've never met.

ﾠ

Frankly, a lot of the "Betas" I've met have been crippled by such considerations. That isn't what they were born to be. Of course, we need more followers than leaders, but that's almost a different thing than fear to face confrontation, speaking your truth, facing your fear.

ﾠ

Human beings who reach the age of sexual maturity, and have any sense of the actual effort it takes to raise a child, and have reached the age where they realize their parents are aging...for such people, maturation into an adult is a natural thing, and the LACK of such maturation is a sign of dysfunction in the social fabric. We aren't providing leadership. Men and women strike me as damned close to each other, and I think we exaggerate male and female characteristics for the same reason assembly lines are more productive than individual craftsmen making a BMW from scratch. It gets more done, provides a higher standard of living for everyone if we specialize rather than generalize.

ﾠ

But men can raise daughters, and women can raise sons...especially if the community helps.

ﾠ##

Would it be possible to create valid rites of passage for young people, to help them make the passage from child to adult? I suspect that those who have really taken responsibility for their actions and emotions, and understand life is finite, who are in those senses "adult," are automatically what most people would consider "Men" and "Women". The traits have to be innate, woven into our genetics, since the same patterns have re-emerged again and again, around the world, throughout all history. So what would it take? Is it necessary or even desirable?

Revenge of the Nerds

2009-11-02T08:41:00.001-08:00

Facebook is so much fun. Had a series of messages with an old friend who used to be a managing editor at a major, major SF magazine, arguably the leader in the field. She asked if I'd had any problems with the magazine, and I said that we'd been frustrated that we couldn't get reviews for GREAT SKY WOMAN and SHADOW VALLEY. She said that she had recently attended an SF convention, and ran into a staffer on the magazine, and in conversation, the topic of the Publisher's "enemy list" came up...and I was on it.

Seems that years back, the former editor and the Publisher had a difficulty, and he was...hmmm. Let's say ungentlemanly about it. He was rude to her in front of me, and much like Hannibal Lector, I abhor discourtesy. Standing up for her was apparently the wrong move career-wise, and he refused to review my books from that point. My my. I won't say more, 'cause I can't without revealing identities, which is not my intent. Besides: most of you who are "in the loop" can probably guess the names anyway.

That's messed up, but human beings do crap like that, always have, and that's just the way it is. Pick your enemies carefully, children.

I got email from a man and his wife who complained that my proposal for the self-improvement project for men (still no title. "The Man Project"? 'Manhood: A Beginner's Guide"? Several interesting ones, but I want to make sure that they really fit both the project and my own personality.) included techniques to help Betas deal with Alphas. They maintained that such a thing isn't possible. I find that a little limited in thinking, but am actually happy to hear it: that means I know interesting stuff that some potential purchasers don't know. Money lies down those paths. Specialized knowledge is often valuable.

I won't comment now on the perspectives and techniques such Betas need, but there was another comment that I did want to put out. It was the comment that Alpha males can't marry Beta females. Not only do I disagree with this, but am of the opinion that much of "traditional" marriage was designed to create structures in which just this could happen. I'm not suggesting it at a model--I much prefer relationships between equals, "Soul Mate" unions. But I've simply seen too many long-lasting relationships between dominators and submissives, where at least from the outside, the situation seemed satisfactory to both partners. Not ecstatic, perhaps, but satisfactory.

And this is important, I think. If I'm right, and Alpha males have been able to marry Beta females, then we also have a need for Alpha females to find Beta males attractive. How to accomplish or increase this? I have no idea. But as more women fight their way to the workplace and up the power ladder, if Beta males sense that they will have LESS access to sex if women advance, they will fight like hell, back-stabbing every step of the way. I've seen it, and don't know what the answer is. Both Beta and Alpha females are attracted to Alpha males. Watch those Betas. Don't frighten them. If you do, they might not review your books.

ﾠAny opinions?

The Man Project

2009-10-30T09:34:00.000-07:00

Intelligence. Support. Honesty. Fierce love, emotional openness...these are the things women (all, I believe, over 20) have been saying they want from men. All we need to do, then, is coordinate this with what younger girls say, and see where the two overlap--this will be the generative material to attract women all your life.

Comfortable in their physical bodies. Prepared to defend their ideas and principles. Unafraid to be honest and open. Capable of total intensity, and total relaxation. Deep self-love and self-acceptance, enough to spill over to all those around him. Can walk with Alphas without intimidating Betas.

So secure that he has no need to dominate others...but God help you if you try to dominate him, or hurt the helpless. Polite to a fault, but capable of being a total kid at times.

Highly sexual--no guilt or pain in this arena. Capable of controlling and guiding those sexual urges (CRITICAL if you want to have a successful marriage. Hell...if you want a successful LIFE! Note "The mystery of sex transmutation" from "Think And Grow Rich").

Unafraid of his power. Unafraid of a powerful woman (and in fact would settle for nothing less!)

Talking to both boys and men, sons, fathers and grandfather and seeing what they ALL agree upon, will provide the generative material to gain the respect and admiration of men.

WHERE THESE TWO CIRCLES, MALE AND FEMALE OVERLAP is the generative material for a mature male human being, capable of sustaining a healthy relationship with a mature adult human female, and raising and protecting children.

Note: what does this mean for gay men? Or those who don't wish to have children? Separate from some social rituals, I can't imagine why the basic truths don't apply. Women seem attracted to most of the same characteristics that gay men are attracted to. And even if you don't WANT children, one or two of the little monsters should be safe in your care.

For the last year I've been canvassing the real MEN I've known. This means both searching my memory, histories and autobiographies, and making new interviews. These would be the kind of men boys want to be when they grow up. When they walk across a playground, the kids follow them.

When they drop their kids off at school, the mothers check them out. Little girls like to sit in their laps, and are totally safe doing so. They will be responsible financially and personally--they don't hurt women (although they are VERY much catnip to the ladies), are capable of long-term relationships. They don't lie to get laid. Ass-kickers but don't start fights. Have faced life-and-death conflict without becoming brutal or brutalized. Take responsibility for the children they have created. Are intelligent to a fault (although not necessarily intellectual). Most will be over fifty--I want men who survived the teen testosterone flush, have raised families, and are often grandfathers--these are the ones who understand what the Game of life really is, from a masculine perspective. Most of them have lost their parents. THAT grows you up pretty damned well. All are self-supporting, all generate enough income to support a family.

ﾠTheir lives should be reasonably balanced, and they should have physical and intellectual discipline, even if only moderate.

ﾠThey should be capable of being intimidating. If not physically, then intellectually or morally. They must be kind and loving. VERY sexual (if married, I should be able to SEE the air shimmer between him and his lady, and her eyes should get slightly smoky when she talks about him,)

His face should soften when he holds a baby, and must be perfectly comfortable changing diapers and playing silly games. They should have MASTERED at least one discipline. Not "good". Not "excellent." MASTERED, dammit. Life is too short for mere excellence. The price we pay at the end of it is one death. I can think of no level of success that is more than we deserve, so long as it does not impose on the rights of others. They should be teachers, or have taught men who follow him willingly. Preferably, he has raised a son to be a good, strong, gentle man. Either an Alpha, or someone who can deal with Alphas handily.

ﾠ

In other words, a worthy mate for a Beta OR Alpha female. Either, helpless and pregnant, should have confidence that Her Man Can Handle It, or will die trying.

ﾠ

These are the things I'm looking for, as I sort through the hundreds of teachers I've had. I'm creating my list now. This will be easy: I was so wounded, so hungry to understand what I was, to find a way to draw out my own masculine energy. All my life, when I've met men who struck me as being both balanced and MALE (and that means being capable of being threatening: either physically, intellectually, spiritually, and/or financially. If you can't scare/fight the wolves from the cave door [or maybe know how to Build A Better Door], the children are not safe.)

ﾠ

Boys want to know how to obtain and handle power. To "raise it" through all seven chakras, and "run it" through the ten steps of the Hero's Journey. To attract the kinds of girls who attract them. And to be respected by the boys of their tribe. Later, to be responsible adults without losing their childhood aliveness. And to be able to attract and hold a good woman in an honest, mutually supportive relationship, and simultaneously have the respect of men. And frankly, if men are just a little wary of him, that's fine with me. A touch of the predator is all right, if it's under his mental/emotional control. The most attractive, intelligent, and powerful women often have that "lioness" energy. What a lioness needs is a LION, not a damned dog.

I've been blessed to know a number of men who fit these conditions. Not all have had children. Not all are physical paragons. Not all are drop-dead brilliant. But all are good, and strong. All have made their mark in the world. All have taught boys to be men, one way or another. All are catnip to the ladies. All can laugh, and cry. All would stand between a woman and harm, in a heartbeat.

None apologize for their lives.

Martial Artists. Soldiers. Teachers. Therapists. Writers. Lawyers. Doctors. Business people. In traditional societies this would have been a CIRCLE OF MEN: fathers, uncles, grandfathers. When the young men of the village wanted to know what a man was, they needed look no further than the Men's Hut.

Now? Thirteen year olds get their advice from fifteen year olds. They watch cinematic images and mistake them for real life. They follow sports figures who are NIGHTMARES as men, but have advanced motor skills. Whoopdy do. That's like expecting Woody Allan to be a role model because he is a brilliant writer/director. They think sex equals love, and money equals maturity. That fear equals respect. That making a baby makes them a man.

They are wrong, and they are swarming our streets.

ﾠ have been BLESSED. God knows I needed role models like roses need rain. And I'm going to take what I learned from them about sex, love, life, and power, fitness and intellect...overlap those models, overlap that with what women of all ages say they want, and what I'll have is something I would be proud to give my son.

And if I love it, my son would love it, my teachers and mentors love it, and...well, not to put too fine a line on it my WIFE loves it...

ﾠI have the right to share it with the public. And only then.

Is there ANYTHING I've said here that raises alarm bells for anyone, male or female?

Teen versus mature values

2009-10-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

Suzanne posted an excellent list of characteristics attractive in a man. A question: how does this compare to the list you had at the age of 15? 20? 30? The reason I ask is that unless adopting these qualities will increase their popularity with girls in their own age group, most won't do it. Or at least, the boys and men who most need a code of honor or directed values will not pay attention. The trick will be to see where the qualities younger AND more mature women overlap, and nurture those.

Other ladies (and maybe gay men?) out there: what is the contrast between the qualities you were attracted to in your teens as opposed to the ones you find attractive now? Which have changed? Which remain constant. This, I think is an important question.

"This Is It" (2009)

2009-10-29T08:35:00.001-07:00

ﾠ

This Is It (2009)

ﾠ

Nobody cares who directed this, and certainly no one "wrote it". There is only one star, and one reason to see it: the final performances of Micheal Jackson. If you can't separate the man from his art, or can't find it in your heart to look beyond the tabloids and wonder who this human being was, stay away.

ﾠ

But for the rest of us, those who grew up with Micheal's music (he always felt like a little brother to me), watched him rise to the level of the first black man to escape the bonds of race, and become the arguably most popular entertainer in the history of the planet...This is definitely It.

ﾠ

I have a theory that even Micheal knew he couldn't do fifty shows. That, in essence, he was actually performing for this documentary. I'm not sure I mean that he knew that consciously, although it is certainly possible. There are moments when you can palpably feel his fatigue, and my sense is that it wasn't just physical fatigue from the last hour's performance. More soul-deep, the awareness of someone who grasps, quite clearly, that he somehow lost his way in life, and cannot reclaim what once he was. Just a few.

ﾠ

But other than that...wow. Watching someone, anyone, in any field, who is as much a dominant force in their discipline as Jackson was in his is qualitatively and quantitatively different from watching the rest of humanity. There is a precision of thought and action that is simply beyond what other people experience or express. There is a quality of synesthesia, the ability to interpret stimulus in unusual ways, that simply suggests such marvels see more colors, hear more sounds, fracture time into smaller slivers, make their choices from a palate far broader than that the rest of us enjoy.

ﾠ

"This Is It" is about as close as we've ever been to him. He is interacting with his musicians, his dancers, his singers, and in every case, in every moment, he is telling them EXACTLY what he wants, and they are struggling to give it to him because they LOVE him. It is a simple reality, perhaps difficult for cynics to grasp. These people came from all over the world for even a chance to work with him, because they believe that it was his energy that inspired them to move forward in their lives.

ﾠ

We all know that Fred Astaire, the greatest dancer of his time (according to Baryshnikov) declared Jackson the greatest dancer of his. We don't need to debate this: such people are more than entitled to their expert opinions. I tend to agree if we limit the pool to western entertainers---I simply don't know what the rest of the world was doing in this sense. Singing? Something about his voice and personae cut across cultural lines like nothing I've ever seen in my life. Never ever saw an entertainer who seemed to be so loved by all quadrants of humanity. Not even sure who comes in second. And if I was/am irritated that in order for him to accomplish that he had to have a near-falsetto voice and walk so close to the edge of sexlessness that he had to constantly grab his crotch just to make sure there was still something there, well...that's my stuff. Life is what it is, and consciously of unconsciously he chose a form of protective coloration that gave him the ability to slip past the masculine sexual competition thingie that should have limited his appeal among white males. Strange. Clearly, he was operating on an energetic level above my own, and I can acknowledge that without a hesitation.

ﾠ

Whatever music he heard, whatever strange sun warmed that pale skin, this man was cut from the same cloth as many of the most legendary and influential artists the human race has ever produced. I like Wanda Sykes' take on what happened to him: "Micheal Jackson happened to Micheal Jackson." He had grown women throwing their panties at him at the age of EIGHT. There is simply no way he could have grown up "normal" with that. Add to that the particular time in American history, the cultural change, and you have the recipe for a talented young boy to get totally warped, without a protective family around him. We don't have to comment further on that.

ﾠ

What remains is a marvel. What a concert it would have been, if he'd been able to pull it off. Because his art is one you can actually watch evolve moment by moment, this is actually an important document for those of us interested in human excellence. Wounded excellence. Damaged excellence. But this level of commitment, clarity, energy and focus, applied to any discipline at all, would have produced mastery. I wondered what he had left as a dancer. Had heard that he practiced an hour a day, and personally doubted it: he seemed too frail the last decade or so. But apparently I was wrong. The quality of motion on display is almost superhuman, honestly. For a fifty year old man, his level of muscle control and separation is startling. I've never seen such a thing in a Westerner.

ﾠ

Look, "This Is It" is cobbled together from two hundred hours of rehearsal footage, and they struggle to find coverage of several of the numbers. He isn't singing or dancing at 100% most of the time. But what is here is like getting a CAT scan of Mozart as he composes, or Harlan as he writes, or Ali as he dismantled George Foreman. "This Is It" instantly becomes one of my favorite movies, one I'll watch a dozen times just to watch his feet, or his eyes as he plucks notes out of the air with his fingertips. What a horrible waste. What a phenomenal talent. I can't wait to see what the human race generates next...and I hope that whoever that next breakthrough performer might be, that he is better protected by those who hold his heart in their hands.

Saw an "Avatar" trailer before the movie, and for the first time felt excited. I finally have a sense of the human story inside the spectacle: a crippled ex-Marine given a chance to have a whole body again...a cloned alien body, an Avatar if you will, with which he will gain the trust of an alien tribe so that Earth can steal their goodies. Imperial Marines indeed. And apparently, he begins to empathize with the aliens...

ﾠ

"A Man Called Horse" and other films come to mind. There is a bunch of science fiction novels that play with this territory as well. But by letting us feel the excitement of a warrior given a chance to regain his physicality, paring it with an exotic love story and a tale of redemption, for the first time I can see the beating heart inside the Swiss watch. NOW I give a damn about the half-billion dollars of effects and next-generation 3D and CGI. Now it's starting to look like a potentially great adventure film, where the science that creates the images is a subtext for the future technology presented. I've heard it said that Cameron is the most technologically sophisticated director in the history of the medium. I don't know. I know that when a helicopter broke down on the set of "Abyss" he just grabbed a box of tools and fixed it. That he devised the underwater cameras and gear personally. That Jerry Pournelle said Cameron knew more about the space program than he did. And the guy knows writing. Yeah, I know--almost every writer "knows" they could have written a better script for Titanic, and many of them are right: but they wouldn't have had a prayer of holding the entire project in their minds: designing effects, designing shots and sound design, writing the script, working with the actors, handling the staggering logistics of a two hundred million dollar film...just boggles the mind. Cameron has given me multiple Moviegasms, broken the mold, pushed the edge. In his way, he has a place in my heart as dear as Kubrick. And after a decade, he's back.

ﾠ

I'm 100% ready to slap my money down.

Fat, Sugar, and Control

2009-10-28T09:50:00.001-07:00

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2153006

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/story.html?id=2149118

ﾠ

BC Monkey pointed me toward both of these articles, which are basically commentaries on how various taste combinations motivate us to eat. Very nice. But they don't doom us to obesity. The problem lies in the way obesity has accelerated in the last decades (and I'm sorry, I don't care how you gin up the stats: I'm old enough to remember when you simply didn't see as many overweight people on the streets. Period.) And that means it isn't genetic, it is lifestyle related, and probably really took off post-WW2.

ﾠ

Think about it. In a pre-industrial world, people had a far greater tendency to work physically for their survival. I can think of very few work contexts in which extra fat is an advantage. In other words, if you work as hard as the next hunter, farmer, laborer, and you are carrying extra flab, you literally have to work harder, and the additional caloric expenditure helped to keep weight under control. If you didn't work as hard, you probably didn't earn as much, or catch as much, and your caloric input dropped.

ﾠ

One of the things I noticed in Africa was that animals in the wild didn't vary a lot in terms of their degree of fat. All the zebras were about the same. All the baboons. All the lions. In a civilized society, there is great variation in the size of human beings...and even their pets. Why? I suspect because there is no longer a link between input and output. If there was, body composition would be a matter of survival, and not emotion. There would be none of this "I don't wanna" or "my genes" or whatever. If you were less efficient, you didn't eat as much, and nature takes care of itself. This tells me that the situation is temporary (hopefully) and we're currently making the adaptations necessary to remain healthy in a world of plenty.

ﾠ

Suzanne, you're right, of course, that Testosterone isn't the only factor. And that all penises start out as clitorises. We're talking about both the biological origins of sexual dimorphism, and the sociological extrapolations from that biological reality. In other words: I won't go AGAINST biology, but we've got other fish to fry.

ﾠ

If I'm trying to help young men, I have to work WITHIN their drives, and not push against them, or they will simply tune me out. And they want to know what makes them attractive to sexy women, and how to survive the aggressive actions of alpha males. How to deal with fear, how to implement ambition. Certainly as they get older they want to know how to control their drives, create stable relationships, find self-love and ultimately, to be both strong and gentle. But males in general are rewarded more for their strength than their gentleness, so this has to be addressed first, or they will get negative feedback from both men and women.

ﾠ

The term "testosterone" then means both the raw hormonal cascade leading to male secondary sexual characteristics, but "masculine/male" things like fathering children, aggression, and so forth. The fact that boys started out as girls is an undeniable fact biologically, but is of no use in helping dangerous, fearful young men find their masculine identity. The basic chakras of survival, sex and power have to be grounded before you can reasonably expect the heart and throat to open...especially if those young men are growing up in a hazardous context.

ﾠ

And this is where I would love to have a positive input on young men growing in the inner cities, especially young black men. Telling them that they are women inside just isn't a winner, even if it is biological truth.

ﾠ

What CAN win is helping them feel safe, and that they have ways of ethically meeting their physical and emotional needs. Then, and only then, can you begin to guide them toward that balanced combination of honest, lethally dangerous, intellectually acute and warm-hearted that is, in my mind, an idealized "knighthood" state of masculinity. Not all males want that, of course. But not one single one of them wants to feel afraid. No heterosexual male wants to feel unable to connect with females sexually. And the pattern of men feeling disconnected from their own emotions, unable to love themselves, unable to express their true needs and more should be addressed at least partially from the social and psychological needs, and a big chunk of these things can be boiled down to:

ﾠ

1) What do other men respect? What keeps the alphas at bay?

2) What actually attracts women? What attracts those who are the most visually desirable?

ﾠ

Unless you can deal with these two arenas, I suspect that the average man just won't think you are dealing with the issues closest to his heart AS A MAN. You may be dealing with his humanity, but not his masculinity. And this will fail.

ﾠ

I see lotsa stuff aimed specifically at women, and have never heard anyone suggesting that the material should be modified so that it appeals to men as well. Males deserve no less respect and consideration. As I've said, I would be very, very nervous having a daughter who paid too much attention to what young men said they wanted. I would want her to actually observe what they DID, and watch the relationships that actually lasted long enough to raise a family. Look at those men and women. Learn.

ﾠ

In the same way, what women say they want in men, and what they are actually attracted to can be two very different things. I've lost count of the number of men who have tried to do what they heard women wanted, and ended up treated as friends instead of sexual/romantic partners. Lethal. Instead, observe what women are actually attracted to, who they actually date, who they actually have sex with. Then, note the relationships that last long enough to raise a family. Draw a line between the successful behaviors of youthful men, and how they relate to fathers and grandfathers who actually pass their genes AND memes on to the next generations.

ﾠ

There is enormous wisdom to be gained there. But you have to remember that both men, and women, will try to manipulate the situation so that they get more of what they want. Never forget that, get the joke, and you are ahead of the game. We love each other, but we love control even more.

A letter on masculinity and myth

2009-10-27T08:12:00.000-07:00

A great letter I got regarding my "Lifewriting for Men" (not the title) project:
##
Dear Mr. Barnes,

I'm not so sure how serious you are regarding asking us for advice on your upcoming regarding masculinity project. I'd be happy to contribute my thoughts, but am unsure if I'm replying to a 'bot (or not)!

I've been reading your writing tips for something over a year now and they've been helping think about some of my own writing habits. Haven't plunked the money down for "life writing", though. Yet.

My wife, (DELETED), and I are anthropologists studying prostitution, sexuality, masculinity, sexual tourism and trafficking of women in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. You might say that thinking about masculinity is our profession, as much as writing is yours.

Looking at what you've jotted down, I'd say you have to make an early decision: do you wish to talk about masculinity in a real fashion (i.e. with some foot rooted in what science has revealed to us) or do you want to speak about it in mythopoetic fashion, a la Robert Bly's 'Iron John'?

Personally, as a man and as an anthropologist, I`d urge you to take the high road and avoid the mythopoetry. Mythical musings which essentialize man as hero or protector or whatever have a long and very ignoble history in the west. At the same time, given that you are a writer, I realize that it`s going to be difficult for you to approach this topic from any angle but the mythopoetic.

In that case...

My friend (DELETED) and I have discussed, on and off for years, the need to revinvent masculine myths and given your particular set of skills and sensibilities, you have a much better shot at doing this than most.

I would thus suggest, then, that you think of masculinity as a sort of performance, one which is open to anyone, including women. De-essencialize masculinity and detach it from sex and the Y chromosome. What is it that men - all men - DO? What set of activities, values and ways of looking at the world seem, to you, to be particularly masculine? You might want to sound out a few gay and lesbian friends on this one, btw, given that many gays and lesbians are highly sensitive observers of masculinity.

When it comes to just "ordinary guys" and their discontents, christ, I could write a book (and in fact am writing one). With masculinity, however, one needs to always tread a very narrow path. On the one hand, maculinity is generally the priviledged gender performance in our civilization and many of its discontents are, in fact, complaints regarding the relative weakening of some of these privileges. On the other hand, masculine people are not taught to express their feelings adequately and, in general, masculine complaints are traditionally hand-waved away as so much whining. Because of this contradictory dynamic, one must be aware that what may first sound like the whining of the priviledged often covers up some very deep and disturbing issues which really must be aired and dealt with.

Just uncovering what men's problems are, then, is a problem in and of itself. Feminism has a ready set of answers but, in spite of being a feminist supporter, I have serious doubts about feminism's ability to adequately comprehend men. Many - if not most - feminists borrow a victim-victimizer dynamic which is ultimately rooted in Marxist dialectical thought to explain gender. While I don't want to reject this approach out of hand, it strikes me that it has some obvious weakenesses.

For one thing, in the classical Marxist dialectic, the proletartiat is not responsible for the ethical, moral and physcial upbringing of the bourgeoisie. In the same dialectic as applied to, say, race, black people generally do not raise white people (yes, there are exceptions - some notorious, but these aren't general). But generally, women raise men and thus a very great part of what we learn about masculinity is thus transmitted to us and/or reinforced by women.

The dynamic of oppression and reaction which exists between men and women is thus more fractal and complicated than most feminists give it credit for (Camille Paglia and Judith Butler being two notable exceptions). Though I still believe that masculinity is relatively priveleged as compared to femininity, I no longer believe that said dynamic can adequately be explained or described by a simple binary Marxist dialect which stipulates a clearly dominant oppressor and a cleary submissive (however combative) oppressed.

Any REAL discussion of masculinity is going to be difficult and an exploration of the unknown (or, better yet, the unarticulated) because of the dynamic described above and will almost inevitably piss a lot of people off.

If you're understandably not willing to dive into the deep end, then I suggest you just repackage Robert Bly's primitivst happy-crappy for the gay-affirmative era and leave it at that. ;-)

Anyhow, just my two cents.

Best,
(NAME DELETED)
##

No, I'm not going to write/record something that is also intended for girls, women, gay women, or whatever. I've seen plenty of books written for women by women, understanding that women have some special needs and interests. So do men. And in this case, it is the need to define masculinity in a way that serves them and speaks to their deepest needs and desires. Listen too much to what women want, and you'll fall into the same trap that women fall into if they listen too much to what men say.

ﾠ

We SAY what is in our conscious minds. We RESPOND to what touches the deeper, unconscious structure. Women are just as likely to manipulate men to be docile and controllable as men are to encourage women to be sexually available. And the result is disaster. The trick, in my mind, is to create the strengths, and then round off the corners, gentle those stallions down. But the core of strength must be there, the ability to respond to aggression, to deal with fear, to build a nest. To be strong, and confident enough in that strength, to have no need to dominate. To be capable of nurturing and protecting a child, even if you have no interest in having one. Much of this stuff is just "what is it to be an adult?" But there are some differences, without which women will not respond to you, and men will not respect you.

ﾠ

Yes, the rules are changing, but not equally across all segments of society, and trying to pretend this is a unisex world before it actually is simply courts frustration, anger and fear. So...no. I won't interview lesbians and transsexuals about this stuff, although I'm sure they have interesting things to say. I will draw my attitudes from older men and the women who have been married to them long enough to raise a family. Where THOSE attitudes align with the fevers of youth, I will chart a path. Hopefully, what I have to say will be useful to 90% of men. That I certainly hope for. Where the rules are different for, say, gay men, I would hope there are responsible gay men who will write to that need. My suspicion is that many, if not most, of the rules are the same.

ﾠ

Everything else has the risk of running off the edge of the map.

The current winning title? "Things Dad Never Told Me* (*That every Son should know)"

Yes, there is testosterone there. But then, that's what we're talking about, you know.

A little assistance, Please...

2009-10-26T12:24:00.000-07:00

I have been specifically requested to create a course adapting the 101/Lifewriting approach to MEN: male lives, raising and teaching sons/families, sexuality and ethical seduction, power relations, etc. And am almost ready to go into the studio and create it.

There are aspects of success, relationships and health/fitness that relate to BOTH males and females equally, but then there are some that frankly hit males harder, things that will trash them harder if they don't address the problems and potentials. And apparently, many of my readers feel I have something to offer here. I decided to do it: if it was, simultaneously, a trove of treasures I'm leaving for my son Jason, to be opened at Puberty if for some reason I'm not there. Simultaneously, I want it to be for all men, of any age, who feel that there is a missing piece of their inner or outer puzzle in terms of fitness/health, sex/relationships, and creativity/career/success. Needless to say if I were to get requests from women asking for one specific to them, I'd be happy to do so...but would probably co-create it with my wife.

ﾠ

ﾠI'd like some feedback on titles. Some examples:

1) 101 Things Father Never Taught His Son*

(because he probably didn't know)

2) 101 Lessons For Men*

(and the women who love them)

3) The Heroic Man

4) 21st Century Man

5) Manhood (a beginner's guide)

6) Advanced Manhood.

ﾠ

I'm looking for a title that is specific, a bit challenging, and maybe a little funny.

1) Do any of these titles appeal to you?

2) Are there others you would suggest?

3) What is the specific material you would like me to cover in such a course?

Thanks!

ﾠ

"Paranormal Activity" and "Black Dynamite" (2009)

2009-10-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

Paranormal Activity (2009)

ﾠ

Wow. Made for what, sixteen thousand dollars? That isn't the catering budget for one day of a major film production. This kind of thing makes me VERY happy that the public has accepted High-Def video as a means of relating intensely 1st-Person stuff like "Blair Witch" or even "Cloverfield". If you accept the conceit, and the filmmaker has something to say, you can unleash creativity without being constrained by budget concerns. And in several cases, it's worked GREAT. This is one of them. The tale of two very normal people, Katie and Micah, who are increasingly disturbed by poltergeists, and decide to video the disturbances. What is happening to them as they sleep?

ﾠ

Because we rapidly believe these two, the smallest interruptions in their lives looms like a descending tornado in your typical Hollywood film. This is sweaty-palm stuff, if you let it in. And by the end of the film, when they let you have it, the average movie-goer has surrendered to the point that the very modest (but effective) effects representing the largest manifestations are seat-jumping oh-my-god level. Because you believe in the people. The most frightening movie I've seen this year. I'm going to give it an "A" for originality and resourcefulness. If the same move were a 30-million dollar star vehicle, I'd give it a "B."

"Black Dynamite" (2009)

ﾠ

"You can hit the streets, or the sheets. You can go, or you can come." DAMN, this movie was funny. Not consistently so, but I had more belly-laughs in the first half than I'd had in a very long time. Drags a little in the middle third, then picks up beautifully. A spoof of the 70's Blaxploitation genre starring the insanely gorgeous Micheal Jai White in a straight-faced homage to Jims Kelly and Brown, with references to more fun (and terrible) movies than you can shake a stick at, "Black Dynamite" follows the adventures of the eponymous invulnerable badass as he strives to avenge the death of his brother, leaving a trail of shattered bodies and satisfied ladies in his wake. Jeeeeeze, this was fun. As I've said, it is satirizing a genre of ultra-cheap movies, and that helps cover the fact that they had few resources to work with. But serious kudos to all concerned. If you ever loved "Shaft" , "Superfly", "Slaughter," "Three the Hard Way," or even "Enter the Dragon" there is much to admire here. If you didn't, it might be a "B-". But if you did, another "A." It's been a good weekend.

WARNING! SAMBO ALERT!

ﾠ

It's impossible for me to talk about "Black Dynamite" without speaking a bit about the genre it spoofs. For about five years, from about 1970 to 1975, a unique thing happened: black men were actually presented onscreen as human beings, for the only time in American history. The full spectrum was there: from clowns to saints, from cops to robbers, from pimps to pushers and from vigilantes to judges and lawyers. And they were just as highly sexual as their white counterparts. It is truly bizarre to me that you can have NO black sexuality onscreen for decades, and then if I complain about Will Smith not getting laid, someone will say "do you think it's to avoid the Black Superstud film stereotype?" What? Are we kidding? WHAT black superstud stereotype? Do you honestly mean a handful of cheap movies made thirty years ago somehow balances the endless "white superstud" stereotypes we get every single year, every single day, on every channel and at every cinemaplex? Apparently, even those fleeting images were devastating to SOMEBODY's psyche. Wow. Any black penis at all is obviously far, far too much.

ﾠ

And here is where "Black Dynamite" raises some interesting questions. There are two sequences one might reasonably consider sexual. One is at the beginning, where Black Dynamite is pleasuring multiple foxy ladies at the same time. And during the entire sequence, he never appears in the same shot with them. There are moaning women, and there is a bronco-riding Dynamite...but never the two together. Hmmm.

ﾠ

Then later there is a romance between Dynamite and a local community leader. They have one kiss...and then they cut to a hilarious animated sequence. Remember that Zodiac poster with people screwing in every possible position? That's it, and it really is funny. But...it is also an avoidance of sexual imagery. Was it done for fun? Accidentally? Were they aware that they were avoiding a land-mine of cultural aversion? Making a statement? A commercial decision? It is so odd, and I wouldn't notice it if there weren't such a pattern. In every individual case from "I Am Legend" to "Pelican Brief" to "Bad Boys" there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the characters aren't sexual. It is only when you look at the range of this bullshit, for more than thirty years, that you realize you cannot listen to the explanations, and must start looking for something behind the conscious or public reasoning.

ﾠ

I honestly don't know. My suspicions: a combination of unconscious aversion (created by generations of clear instruction: "don't go there, or you'll go broke") and a "hey! Wouldn't this be funny?" Which would be true and utterly unremarkable if it weren't part of that damned pattern. I remember "I'm Gonna Get You Sucka"--where the lead finally got the lead lady alone. They kissed once, chastely...and the scene cut. What the hell? I mean really...it's just painful to watch.

ﾠ

"Hurt Locker" and "Where The Wild Things Are" (2009)

2009-10-26T08:16:00.000-07:00

The Hurt Locker (2009)

ﾠ

I first heard about this movie almost a year ago. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow, it was said to be the most realistic and non-political film concerning the Iraq War. I was fascinated because Bigelow is one of the very few female directors who can handle action, and handle it well. There is, for whatever reason, one real split I've seen between male and female directors and their approach to action: male directors will move the camera during an action sequence, and most female directors seem to leave the camera in one place, and choreograph the action around it. This can lead to a sense of "static-ness" if you aren't careful. Bigelow, who directed "K-19", "Near Dark" and "Blue Steel" doesn't fall into this trap. Yes, she tends toward a more static camera (she is a very accomplished painter) but each set-up seems designed to probe the psychology of her characters under stress. There is barely a scene in any of her work where you leave the scene without new and important knowledge about her characters.

ﾠ

Because of the question of "why aren't there any positive images from the Iraq war?", preliminary comments that "Hurt Locker" gave a mostly-positive view of American involvement intrigued me. Apparently Bigelow had real difficulty funding her movie in the U.S., and went with French (!) funding, not even knowing if they would find an American distributer. Note something: funding for films is spread over hundreds if not thousands of funding entities across the country, NOT just "Hollywood Studios." It sometimes seems that every circle of dentists, doctors, real estate agents or heirs with some extra capital want to be in the movie business want "in" to the movie business. And trust me again: they may be MORE liberal than average, but there are plenty of conservatives among them, and if they ain't funding positive Iraq images, well...I think you need to talk to conservatives about that, and stop thinking there is some conspiracy to keep them from independently producing and releasing a film. There simply is no such thing, and there are too many avenues of distribution for something like that to work at all.

ﾠ

But "Hurt Locker" was praised in Hollywood, got tons of good reviews, but only a limited release...and not a hugely successful one. And lots of Oscar buzz. But the public didn't seem to respond. The film deals with a crew of bomb disposal experts a month away from rotation back to the U.S. There are seven action set-pieces, and trust me, they are unnerving as hell, some of the best war footage I've ever seen, accompanied by some truly penetrating psychological insight. I saw this yesterday at Paramount Studios, and Bigelow stated that she and the screenwriter (Mark Boal) deliberately structured the piece so that the lead character (Jeremy Renner as bomb disposal expert SSgt William James) does not change, but the audience's perception of him does. That is a lovely idea, something rarely done. And VERY rarely done this well. Does it have a political perspective? I would say that it seems more positive than negative about our involvement, but is somewhat brutal about the costs to our soldiers, who clearly are basically good, decent people trying to make a difference in a difficult situation. I would love to hear comments from some of our more Conservative friends about it. I don't think Bigelow was interested in this from anything other than an intensely personal perspective. But I could be wrong. An "A."

Where The Wild Things Are (2009)

ﾠ

A children's movie for adults. Spike Jonze' version of Maurice Sendak's classic children's book is rather masterful, but not entirely for children. The original book was a literalization of childhood alienation (say that four times fast), and turning it into a 100-minute film required the creation of much context and content. Sendak is a producer, and has signed off on the whole thing, so we must suppose that he approved of the direction taken by Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers. And the direction is a dark one indeed. The story deals with Max, a disobedient little boy apparently grieving over the breakup of his parents' marriage--or perhaps his father's death. Arguments could be made for either position. Running away from the sight of his mother snuggling with another man, he flees to a magical island filled with gigantic monsters with family issues. It is tempting to try to apply "Parts Party" ideas here, and ask what aspects of his psyche are represented by the various beasts, but the filmmakers are far too canny to make this a simple process. Let's just say that Max is on the edge of a growth spurt emotionally, coming to grips with death, pain, and the struggle for power within families and human hearts. And it ain't pretty, and it ain't easy. "Let the wild rumpus start!" indeed. There is definitely a point at which the whole attempt to balance the "monsters" in his heart starts going bad, and you can feel the audience's growing restlessness. There is real danger here: the monsters make it very clear that Max can be their king, but if he doesn't please them, they will eat him. And it would have been a sell-out not to bring this threat closer to the surface. Childhood is a time of wonders, but also terror at the idea of moving out of the safety of parental control into the stark terror of true responsibility and understanding. And bless them, they don't shy away from that. The last image of the film is beautiful, and heart-breaking, and mundane. The beasts are among the most magical ever created onscreen, a combination of practical puppetry and CGI that is...wonderful. Just wonderful. Not a perfect film, but a strong and honest one, I think. Jonze is a fascinating director. His inner child is strong, and awake, and slightly twisted. A very strong "B+" on this one. At times it is absolutely breath-taking.

Remakes versus Adaptations

2009-10-23T08:48:00.001-07:00

Going to see "Black Dynamite" today. 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, starring Michael Jai White, the most legitimate action star America has right now (maybe Stallone?), and it can't get any traction at all. Opinions vary as to why. Yeah, right.

You know, when I talk about the child part of our personalities, and how most of the reasons I hear for note spending an hour a week working on your weakest link sound like pure 5 year old ("I don't wanna!") I want to back up and assure you that my child self is the favorite part of my psyche. That little boy has done so much for me. He is so alive, and aware, and loving. So optimistic, and comfortable in the moment. But he wants to do what he wants when he wants it. If I listened to him, I'd spend all my time writing, reading comic books, watching movies, eating Screaming Yellow Zonkers, and smoking dope. Well, maybe that last part is my eighteen-year-old. The point is that Li'l Steve has all my creativity, all my aliveness, all my fascination with the world--in essence, almost everything that makes life worth while. But if he is disciplined by my adult self, I can create a safe place for him to play. I have to build the walls high, sweep the broken glass off my mental playground, and keep the pumas at bay. If I do that, he is not only safe, but the creativity produced fuels my entire life.

ﾠ

If you DON'T discipline that child, you end up having the child part of your personality functioning in the adult world, and that doesn't work well. In fact, I rather look at it as pimping out your inner child, and that is a disaster by any standard. Most of the time when parents complain that they can't get their children to do something, it seems to me that their kids are just acting out some version of the parental habit patterns. Parents who drink are startled when their kids smoke dope. Parents who don't get off the couch complain that their kids don't want to go outside to play. Parents who live on starchy foods complain when their kids don't eat vegetables. Parents who hate their jobs complain that their kids don't want to do well in school. Well, why SHOULD the kids work hard, if the end of the line is a life spent toiling in a loathsome environment? Parents who suffer through loveless relationships wonder why their kids select bad partners. It is so sad, and so predictable. Kids imitate us slavishly, especially if it seems that we are happy in our lives. It's what they are genetically programmed to do. If we show them our lives, show them that we are genuinely engaging and that we've found a way to make our adult lives mature versions of our childhood dreams, not only are we providing the best role models for our children, but our lives have a sense of grace and elegance unavailable to those who ignore their inner drives...OR those who cannot discipline their childlike restlessness, sloth, and love of lying. This is the task before us. It is possible to become an adult without taming all three of these aspects, I'm certain. But taking at least the minimum responsibility for each is the surest road to creating a protective environment for the spiritual/emotional child within. You are now your own mother, your own father. And if Mommy and Daddy aren't home, the kids will burn down the house.

Stallone apparently wants to make another Rocky movie. NO NO NO!! "Rocky Balboa" was actually a terrific good-bye to the character, and if he goes back to that well, I cannot imagine it being anything but a sad, compulsive, desperate grab at his past. Make all the "Rambos" you want, Sly--Rambo was always a cartoon. But Rocky was about love, and hope, and that first movie was genuinely great. Please, please please: I promise to go see "Expendables" twice if you will let Rocky rest in peace.

The non-stop cavalcade of remakes, adaptations, sequels, "reimaginings" and so forth in Hollywood rolls on. This is nothing new: there have always been sequels, and probably in tough financial times they do more. After all, the movie industry is just that, an industry. Employing hundreds of thousand of people trying to pay their mortgages and put their kids through college. The auto industry doesn't change its line-up every year--it would be suicide. That said, we've had an extraordinary number of these things recently. Let's see...I'm gonna check and see how many of the top twenty films fall into that category (rustling of paper, surfing of web...)

ﾠ

Well, how about that. Five in the top twenty fit that bill: Toy Story II (sequel), G.I. Joe (adaptation), The Stepfather (remake), Surrogates (adaptation), and Fame (remake). Is that a lot? A little. Hmmm. Just as an experiment, how does that compare with twenty years ago?

Top box office in 1989 included EIGHT in this category (that I could count): Batman (adaptation), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (sequel), Lethal Weapon 2 (sequel), Back to the Future 2 (sequel), Ghostbusters 2 (sequel), Dead Poet's Society (adaptation), Little Mermaid (adaptation), Christmas Vacation (sequel).

ﾠ

How about fifty years ago? Again, I'm too lazy to fact check every one of these, but it looks like:

1) Ben Hur (remake/adaptation)

2)Sleeping Beautfy (adaptation)

3) Darby O'Gill and the Little People (adaptation)

4) Imitation of Life (remake)

5)Suddenly Last Summer (adaptation)

6) Anatomy of a Murder (adaptation)

7) On the Beach (adaptation)

8) Journey to the Center of the Earth (adaptation)

9) Hercules (adaptation?)

10) A Summer Place (adaptation)

11) Some Like It Hot (considered a remake of a German film)

12) Nun's Story (adaptation)

ﾠ

Now, I've probably missed some, but there is an interesting pattern emerging I hadn't anticipated: Hollywood is basing its films more on its own past, where a generation ago films were more based on books. A drop in literacy? Intellectual cowardice? Statistical aberration? I don't know. What do you think? has remake/sequel fever gotten totally out of control?

ﾠ

Ima Be Me: Wanda Rules

2009-10-22T08:24:00.001-07:00

Wanda Sykes' HBO special "Ima be me" is brilliant stuff. Never seen her funnier, more vulnerable and honest, more powerful, more on point, more poignant, or, oddly...more attractive. It's as if "coming out" let her relax on some deep level. Just everything about the performance made me think she was the funniest woman I've seen in ages. She did a routine about how being gay was harder than being black, partially because no one ever had to explain blackness to their parents. God, I was howling. That particular little snippet of comedy was as good as any routine I've ever seen, anywhere, when it comes to socially relevant material, or humor that releases pain. Good, good for her. Wait till you see her bit about the salad bar on the gay cruise. I thought I was going to die laughing.

Every morning I've been doing yoga and meditating with Jason. Pretty much, I can tell which days he's going to have his head together and which ones he's going to get into trouble. On "trouble" days he just can't keep his attention on what he's doing. He keeps looking off to the left rather than holding my eyes, and is easily frustrated. Keep my eye on that.

Nicki is moving out...or "up", actually. She's moving up to Paso Robles to join a theater company with her mom. She'll get a new job up there, no doubt. Sigh. I'ma miss my baby, but I'll bet Toni will be turning handsprings of joy to have her girl close. Good for both of them.

Jason gave me a bit of his cold, and it wakes me up at night just enough to throw my sleep cycle off. Bad bad bad...this makes me vulnerable like nothing else, and I need to jump back in bed until my body feels recovered. If I can do that, I'll probably skate through flu season...but have to be careful indeed.

Going back through "Think And Grow Rich" reminds me of my childhood. My mother used to have that, and "Psycho-Cybernetics" and "The Power of Positive Thinking" and other records playing in the house until I thought I'd go nuts. But they obviously took hold. The most important things I'd remembered were having a Definite Chief Aim and being certain that your inner self-image actually matches your goals. Otherwise, you'll sabotage yourself, and rip yourself into pieces trying to follow two paths at once. Napoleon Hill suggests writing out your core statement of action and reading it twice a day, morning and night. Maxwell Maltz suggests spending a half-hour a day visualizing the new you. I'm not doing a Golden Hour right now--it's generally a half-hour, during which I exercise, do Coach Sonnon's Prasara yoga series, and listen to a Pimsleur Spanish lesson. Perfectly aware that yoga is best done with total concentration, but it's fun to experiment. To, for that 1/2 hour, try to carry myself as the person I aspire to be. Every breath in control, even as I twist and turn. To respond to the Spanish lessons even as I get a bit fatigued. It is definitely a challenge.

I think that the only things about our lives that CANNOT be changed are those things that cannot be changed with behavior. Smoking or drug usage can be ended. Money can be saved and earned. Honesty can blossom in troubled relationships. Bodies can be optimized. Lessons can be learned. Perceptual filters can be cleaned.

ﾠ

It is grimly amusing when I hear adults making excuses they would never accept from their son or daughter (it generally boils down to: "I don't wanna!) , and then blame biology or genetics. Their only problem is that they let the child part of their personality make adult decisions. I suspect that this is why, for so long, parents sent unruly teens into the armed forces: to find them a "parental" figure who won't take crap. On some level, everyone would like to lay around all day, eat sweets and fats, have someone else take care of us, lie our way out of problems. If there isn't a strong parental figure to force us to take action, or help us see that such behavior will NOT get us what we want, people can damn well enter their 50's still operating as if they are 13 year olds who forgot their homework, coming up with some bizarre variation on "my dog ate my report." We look around for an escape hatch from adult responsibility, and fantasy can be a great one.

ﾠ

Busyness is a great way to avoid the things you don't want to do. All you have to do is fail to prioritize, then get busy enough that the stuff on the end of your list never gets done. Oops! There goes balancing the checkbook, working out, having that tough talk with your spouse. Well, there's always Mañana. See? I knew that Spanish would come in useful.

ﾠ

So...what is your favorite method of procrastination?

ﾠ

Behaviors and Results

2009-10-21T08:51:00.001-07:00

ﾠ

I've been questioned about my position that our behaviors are influenced by our emotions and perceptual filters. Well, Duh. That's been my belief since childhood, and I see no reason to change it. And by looking at our three most basic arenas: relationship, career, and fitness/health, it seems that you have the complete foundation of our existence about as handled as it can be. Given that...who out there can deny that all three of these arenas are influenced by our behaviors? Now, if you take the position that balancing our checkbooks or our metabolic input/output or our urge to cheat on our spouse cannot be controlled because in some people emotions just get totally berserk, I can agree that we all lose our way from time to time.

ﾠ

But nothing good has ever come in my life because people excused my bad or non-optimal behavior. On the contrary, I was blessed to have mentors who expected more of me than I expected of myself, and constantly guided me toward a purer and more powerful expression of self. Anyone who knows me (or has common sense) knows that I am far, far from perfect. That ain't what I'm selling. What I offer here is very simple: a point of view from someone committed to balance as a human being. If you want to hear someone who agrees that our emotions cannot be healed, our behaviors cannot be controlled, our perceptual filters cannot be cleansed, you will need to go somewhere else. Anyone who comes to this blog will find support for the idea that we can love ourselves and share love. Have a strong, healthy body within our genetic limits. Support ourselves gracefully doing something honorable and contributive, and expressive of self.

ﾠ

The world is filled with pity parties that say relationships are impossible, our bodies are alien life-forms, and success with integrity is beyond our reach. My position is very clear: that is all self-pitying bullshit. Ego-protective lowest common denominator nonsense. It is whining at the world from the position of a sleeping child, rather than the powerful adult self that slumbers within you. Fitness, love, and success are all mightily influenced by behaviors. Control your behaviors, and you control your present and future. The only question then is: how do we control our behaviors?

ﾠ

Go back to your childhood experience, or experience raising children, or training animals. In many ways, not much difference. Children have a vast array of behaviors they must change or adapt, and in most cases, they don't want to change. They complain that they can't, they are too tired, it isn't fair, other people don't have to do it, they've never done it, they're too busy to do it, it's too hard, etc. etc.

ﾠ

Puppies want to pee and poop on the floor, chew the slippers, bark in the middle of the night, and jump all over the furniture. Unless both puppies and children are given loving discipline, pushed beyond their limits, they will remain or become shitty little brats. I often suspect that deep inside, we make a commitment: "when I'm an adult, I'll do what I want." I'll eat what I want, spend what I want, tell the lies that I want...and there will be no one to stop me.

ﾠ

Every coach knows that his players will complain like children: I don't want to do it today. It isn't fair. You're asking for too much. The ego is exactly like that. Ask for too much, ask for it to change (die) and it will shriek.

ﾠ

For almost sixty years I've watched people who fail in these three arenas, and those who succeed. And frankly, sorry, but I see dishonesty clustered there. I think it is reasonable to assume that 99% of people would like love, health/fitness, and enough money to pay all their bills and help their friends and family. And among those who don't have those things, better than 80% take the position that their results are not affected by voluntary behaviors.

ﾠ

I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT MY POSITION IS THAT THESE THINGS ARE INDEED INFLUENCED, OR CONTROLLED, BY VOLUNTARY BEHAVIORS. Given that, how can I help but assume that people are lying to themselves? They watch twenty hours of television a week, and then say they don't have time to exercise. They claim not to want relationships, and then complain about loneliness. They say they don't want money, and then complain about bills, lack of travel, or inability to help their loved ones. They lie, in other words.

ﾠ

This is why Musashi made "Do Not Think Dishonestly" the very first principle. Because if you lie to yourself, you will distort your reality map, and become lost. Worst, you will surround yourself with people who agree with your distorted view of life, and feel that life is just out of control, there is nothing you or anyone can do, and anyone who believes it can change is just selling something.

ﾠ

Fine. That's what you get "out there." I've gotten raked over the coals for suggesting that the depravations of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation created genuine dysfunctions that ravage the black community, contributing to fatherless children, crime, disease, and inability to recognise opportunity. In other words, a cultural tendency to lie, those lies protecting the ego shell from the horrid possibility that Whites are correct to consider Blacks sub-human. Unbelievably damaging. And while I place the blame for the situation cleanly upon the dominating culture that dragged Africans here and brain-washed them, responsibility for climbing OUT of that hole is clearly on my racial brothers and sisters. There is no one else to do it, and it must be done.

ﾠ

Geeze, I've taken crap for this. And it is precisely the same attitude I have toward individuals: 99% of people have more capacity than they've ever expressed, and what stops them is fear and lies. No, in no way do I think that the Right has more liars or deluded people than the Left. If I mention more of them, it's because the particular diseases of the Right impact my life more, and I think the country went out of balance in that direction. If things tilt back the other way, I'll probably shade toward Center-Right. At least that's what I tell myself--maybe that's a bit of self-deception right there.

ﾠ

But a wealthy and powerful public figure who has a string of failed marriages, or is morbidly obese, raises questions instantly. If a wealthy person can't find the time to take care of himself (as little as an hour a week!) then none of us have any hope. Which is, of course, quite a comforting concept to our egos, which don't want to change anyway. No. If a billionaire says "I have to work 80 hours a week, even if it destroys my body, even if I lose my relationships" then they are saying that making money and accruing power is more important than anything else in the world.

ﾠ

But that's not what they say on their death-beds. That's not what they say when they take their wedding vows. They want love and health, but are pulled in other directions by drives they don't know how to control, childhood vows to never be hungry again, never be manipulated again, never be abandoned again, never let anyone close enough to hurt us, ever again. Without being able to admit the conflicted goals, one cannot sort it out. And if you know that there are twisted, frayed wires in the head, one can either begin the process of un-twisting them, or you can avoid that pain and blame the problems on genetics, statistics, economics, or anything except your own behaviors.

ﾠ

Frankly, most parents hear childish versions of these excuses from their children, every day. If the kids are lucky, the parents cut right through that bullshit and demand a higher level of excellence than the kids believe they can achieve. And time and again the kids actually learn to walk, or ride a bicycle, or do algebra, or read, or learn their lines, or hit the ball, or dance, or learn to lose with grace. Because there was someone who believed in them more than they believed in themselves.

ﾠ

Maybe that's what's going on here: I believe in you, all of you, more than you believe in yourselves. I believe in the human potential for love, health, and happiness. Want to never be lied to again? Believe in human potential, and see anything less than excellence in these three arenas to be a warning sign. One sign...o.k. Two signs...a red alert. Three signs...absolute disaster, don't believe a word they say until you have a chance to observe their behaviors to see if they match their words. Yes, you will sometimes be too suspicious of people who really do have limited capacity and are doing their best. But far, far more often you will avoid the horrible feeling that "damn! Why didn't I see that coming? Why didn't I know he/she was a thief, abusive, a liar? Why didn't I see it?"

ﾠ

You didn't see it because you are lying to yourself, and seek out relationships with others who are lying to THEMselves, so that they can't afford to call you on your bullshit. And unless their lies and distortions are a perfect match for your own, they'll throw you curves, and you'll squawk, and form a pity-party with friends who'll agree with you that the problem isn't your behaviors, it's the world "out there." Men, or women, or whites, or blacks, or Christians, or Muslims, or bodies, or Liberals, or Conservatives are the problem. Can't be you. Oh, no. Can't be that. The answers to all your problems can't be inscribed on your own soul. Oh, no. That would be just too cruel. That to fix the world, all you have to do is fix yourself? No, anything but that.

ﾠ

If that's what you're looking for, look elsewhere. Period. Here, you will find a consistent point of view: you are more powerful, more wonderful, more capable of love and creation than you have ever dreamed. All you have to do is wake up, and take responsibility. And love yourself enough to soothe your wounds when, inevitably, you scrape your spiritual shins.

"Gotcha"

2009-10-20T08:14:00.000-07:00

I hate "Gotcha" politics, and the Franken anti-rape amendment situation is an example of it. Look: on the surface, I'd vote for it in a moment. But the thirty Republican senators who voted against it (all male) are literally being called "pro-Rape." I don't know what aspects of the bill disturbed them. Probably something about government interference in private business contracts or something. But these guys have mothers, daughters, wives, and to suggest that they are "pro-rape" is really over the top. I've seen the same thing before, from the other side. People taking the very worst interpretation of a vote, and saying that someone is "pro-murder" "against the troops" "pro-terrorist" or some other crap. Sickens me. Good for Al, though. Wow. Maybe it really IS the Al Franken Decade.

Couple of South Carolina politicos got quoted talking about fiscal responsibility being like having "A Jew watching your pennies." Oh, my. Does it feel to you like the flat rocks have been flipped over, and we're seeing more of the filth beneath these days? That motivates some people to suggesting that we're going "backwards" socially. I don't think so. I think we're just hearing a little more of how people actually feel about these issues. Remaining in denial, or hiding it, solves nothing. The recent piece about the Secret Service being stretched to its maximum by (among other things) an "unprecedented" number of threats against the POTUS was greeted by a predictable response: from the left, sorrow at the perfidy of the Right. From the Right, just denial or even justification. Those who are capable of waking up will hopefully do so.

Watching "Dexter" is definitely one of my favorite entertainments. Almost as much fun is reading the "Talkbacks" on Aint It Cool News. Guys complaining about how Rita, the friendly serial killer's wife, is whiny and insecure...as if Dexter could possibly have a relationship with a whole and healthy female. Yeah, right. I suspect those guys might still be wondering why they can't date Supermodels.

Jason is learning about lying. Basically, how well it works. Tananarive and I can't possibly watch everything he does, or know what he is thinking. So if there is an immediate punishment for telling the truth about something, he won't. Now, it can be hard to separate the lying from the "teasing"--which is another form of lie, of course. This one is going to take a very long time to work out. Musashi's first principle: "Do Not Think Dishonestly." Is a murderously hard one. And of course the easiest, and most dangerous person to lie to is yourself.

Think And Grow Rich insists on re-reading your goals every day (wait a minute...I forgot to do that this morning. while I go and do it...O.K., I'm back now). This is because repetition of emotionally charged images programs the unconscious mind. How many times have grown adults told you that childhood criticism from family has negatively impacted their entire lives? Or conversely, support from their family set them on a positive path?

ﾠ

Well...what if you didn't have a positive family environment? Then it behooves you to grow up, accept responsibility for your life, become in effect an adult. That adult can then create/provide programming for your "child" self, and that will change everything. Our beliefs (including political positions) can sway, slant and poison all of our perspectives. This corrupted information then feeds the unconscious computer to influence our actions. Information that doesn't fit our deepest beliefs is either deleted or ignored, or causes us deep distress. And how can we know if our lens is distorted? You know that my answer is to aim at balance in all three arenas, and to deeply examine any attitudes that take us away from this Holy Grail. If you have it, you don't need external teachers or gurus...although they can be useful. Ultimately, we have everything we need to make our way through life. We just have to embrace what Tananarive refers to as our "fabulousness." What if we were born not just to survive, but to thrive and grow? What if we were intended to have love, health, and success? What if everything other than that is a matter of emotional obstructionism and bad programming? I don't know if that's the truth, but it is one of the most useful lies imaginable.

ﾠ

And since it's so hard to stop lying to ourselves, if I have to choose an intermediate position between being asleep and awake, it would be being asleep...and dreaming of hard, honest work toward a balanced, healthy, adult life.

Rush and "O"

2009-10-16T08:31:00.000-07:00

The Justice of the Peace who denied a marriage license to an integrated couple made the national news. People squawked: "where is this Post-racial America?" Well, two things. First of all, you can't really get to Post-racial. This stuff is hard-wired in. Second, when I was a kid, or even twenty years ago, there wouldn't really have been any flurry about this. The fact that everyone is up in arms about something that was totally common a generation ago is about as "Post-racial" as you're going to get. Come on, people! We're doing the best we can.

People ask: what can I do to help? In issues like this. And I'm sure that those who strive for Women's Rights, Gay Rights, and so forth are asked the same thing. I generally just advise people to be good, raise their children well, and watch what you say and do if you can't change how you feel. Now, I just ask people how long they want to live, and sincerely wish them health and happiness and all of those years...and then to die. Because what changes this stuff is time, and the roll of generations who are not invested in the pain of the past. Sorry, but I've stopped trying to change adults.

ﾠ

One thing to remember, however: the people who claim to be "race neutral" or "they don't see race" are, at very best, deceiving themselves. Compare to a man or woman who says that they "don't see gender." It's nonsense. But one group profits by this delusion: racists. If they can just get the people of good will to pretend to "not see race" then they won't notice the automatic tendency of human beings to side with "theirs" and against the "others." In this arena, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for people of good will to pretend not to be human.

ﾠ

And if you'll notice, the most vicious demagogues protest most loudly that they "don't notice race." Yeah, right. If you want to know if Limbaugh could possibly be an honest person, look at two things, please:

1) his weight struggle

2) his miserable history with women.

Two-thirds of his life is totally out of whack. His career is through the roof, so there is no reason he could not spend all the time he needs to address his emotional needs and wounds. If he chooses not to do that, then he is clearly stating his priorities, his value hierarchy.

By the way, Oprah has a very similar effect on my b.s. meter: the weight and her very public, very strange relationship with Stedman fairly radiates "unprocessed emotional baggage." In some ways its worse with "O" because she makes a huge case that we can heal if we have the right resources, find the right mentors and teachers, do the right exercises and eat the right foods. The subtextual message is: no, you can't. It is impossible to actually heal, really change, even if you have the resources of the most powerful woman in the world. This is very unfortunate, and gives millions of people excuses for not handling their business. "Well, if Oprah can't do it, why should I be able to..?"

Unfortunate, because in many ways she is one of the most powerful advocates of health and change we've ever had in the media.

Ah, balloon boy stole the news cycle. It was amusing to hear some of the folks complaining about all the coverage, as if we aren't programmed--or hard-wired--to:

1) care about danger to children.

2) pay special attention to a dangerous thing we have never seen before.

ﾠ

This, of course, was both. I am amused by the "why won't the news pay more attention to the things I care about politically?" I would fear for our species if we didn't drop everything to watch a flying saucer carrying away a child. What in the hell would we be?

"Before forming your `Master Mind' alliance, decide what advantages, and benefits, you may offer the individual members of your group, in return for their compensation. No one will work indefinitely without some form of compensation. No intelligent person will either request or expect another to work without adequate compensation, although this may not always be in the form of money."

I recently communicated with an old friend who has been offered genuine and exciting opportunities to advance his/her career. Unfortunately, there is no support at home, and in fact, the spouse in question is dragging feet, fearful of change, fearful that if his/her partner advances, he/she will be left behind.

Totally predictable. There are several things here.

1) if you are in a committed relationship, it is not necessary to leave your partner in order to advance your life, in most cases. You MAY need to stop reacting to their childish, selfish, sabotaging behavior. As long as you are loving and honest and compassionate, not "rubbing their nose" in the fact that they can't keep up with you. Do you think Einstein's wife could keep up with him in physics? Do you think it mattered? Now, one thing is clear here: it is harder when women outperform their husbands, than if husbands outperform their wives. Try not to make the mistake of blaming "insecure men" for this. If you do, you are part of the problem. As a species, we have embraced some reproductive strategies that aren't great for us as individuals.

ﾠ

If your partner loves you, and is an adult, they will want you to rise to your highest good. If they don't love you, or are not adult, there are problems that have nothing to do with gender. Relationships change and grow. This is a natural part of life, and we have to maintain communication and a loving open heart. People are genuinely afraid of abandonment: both men and women have walked out on their families. We have to be compassionate as well as ambitious. Be careful before you say "till death do us part." That kinda implies the obligation to make extraordinary effort.

ﾠ

2) If you can reach outside your marriage or circle of close friends to find role models and master mind allies, it is totally possible to maintain your relationships and still find the support you need. But you do need to have things to offer the desired ally. If not money, there is knowledge, friendship, honest feedback...there are so many things. Honest admiration for accomplishment has earned me the time of some extraordinary men and women. Heck, offering to buy a meal will get you time with most people. What will you exchange?

ﾠ

ﾠIf you are in a relationship with someone who will not change, who also objects to your change, you may have to think carefully if they work to sabotage you. What would you do if a mate tried to get you on drugs? Or encouraged you into prostitution? Or theft? You DO have to be careful to be true to yourself. I've seen men and women stay in horrible relationships with crazy people because that was the promise they made. They struggled to keep their families together under horrific stress...because that was the promise they made. These are heroes, especially if they manage to keep their honor and sense of self, their "soul' if you will, even under such pressure.

ﾠ

I refuse to believe that these people are unique. And if you can maintain a relationship under tremendous negative pressure, doesn't it make sense that you can also do it as you reach for the stars?

ﾠ

The point is that you mustn't allow a current committed relationship stop you from reaching for your dreams. You can bring the person along with you, you can isolate that part of your heart and allow them to remain as they are, or if necessary you can leave. But we have an obligation to fulfill ourselves so long as we do not violate the rights of others, or trash our honorable duties. When you die, you will go in the box by yourself. When you are in your death bed, looking back over your life, I think that the most meaningful things in life will be the contributions you have made, the people you have loved, the dreams you fulfilled. The degree to which you have honored the heart of the child within you. That fulfillment can be attained without being cruel to those who love you, and need to know you love them in return. This, I believe with my whole heart.

ﾠ

Any disagreement?d

The Greatest Tragedy Of All

2009-10-15T08:19:00.000-07:00

Ah, Rush Limbaugh doesn't get his NFL team. Sob sob. The chickens have come home to roost. He's been playing around the edges of racist rhetoric for over a decade, doing the "aw shucks" routine when he gets called over it. At the VERY least, he is remarkably insensitive to complaints of such talk...and why in the world would black NFL players want an owner who doesn't care about their feelings? Who tells them their concerns are just phantoms of their mind? Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, we still have a person who apparently just doesn't care about people's feelings. Would you want him as a boss? People who suggest that his disturbing rhetoric is "just an act" are missing the point. If it's an act...the situation is actually worse. In that case, he is AWARE of the impact of what he's saying, but doing it anyway for money, not because he actually believes it. In which case he is a sociopath. I'd rather think he actually believed his positions. Then, at least, he would be an honorable man. Why do I waste time thinking about him? Well, unfortunately, while I lived in the NW he was one of the few radio stations that came in clearly. I was listening the day Dick Cheney called in and annointed him as "the official voice of the Republican Party." I see no reason to believe this was entirely a joke. The fact that he hides behind "it's entertainment" whenever someone draws a bead on him matters to no one but Dittoheads. He knows exactly what he is doing, and I would love to think that the NFL debacle is the beginning of a long, painful decline.

The Health Care Industry has announced, clearly, that unless they have competition (in the form of a Public Option) they will raise their rates. This is absurd. The entire fiction that the government is BOTH incompetent AND will drive private insurers out of business is just disturbingly schizophrenic. What is the industry that governmental competition has ever driven out of business? I may be totally ignorant here, seriously, but I can't think of one. There are private fire departments, police forces, mail services, schools, even private armed forces. Please, and I mean this honestly because I just can't think of one, and I'm wondering if I'm blocking somehow. Remember: I'm saying competition, not legislation. I understand Canada made private insurance illegal, which I'm not advocating. But what industry went belly-up as a result of governmental competition? If it has happened, I genuinely want to know.

I've been running the 101 board for just about a year now, and have been having an unbelievable amount of fun. Still haven't gotten the for-pay aspect of the board going, at least partially because I've seen how much people appreciate what I'm doing free of charge. I have to admit that it is terrifically meaningful to offer something that simply flows from my heart, without any thought of material compensation. Sigh. Life feels good right now.

"We become what we think about" is the hidden message of Think And Grow Rich--or so some say. Frankly, I don't think the message can quite be phrased in words. Most profound knowledge doesn't easily yield to language. Another way to put it is "where attention goes, energy flows and results show" a phrase I first learned from Tim Piering. I miss Tim. His morning workouts were just wonderful, but I can't get up that early without throwing the rest of my schedule out of whack. A genuinely wise and good man who has done enough work on himself to have achieved a kind of Parallax--he senses where parallel lines of spiritual inquiry meet, and can communicate this to others. Scott Sonnon has this capacity--to sense a reality about physical movement that cannot be entirely conveyed in words. I suspect it is the source of his fecundity. Harley "Swiftdeer" Reagan is another one. Now, that is not the same as what, for instance, Sri Chinmoy seemed to be. HE was one of those guys who actually sits in the crossroads of that inexpressible knowledge, radiating outward. Fascinating, and very different, someone who lived on a different level of human experience. Scott's spiritual guru Amma is another. More so than Chinmoy, I suspect. My ability to sense auras was totally overwhelmed by her, to the point that she barely registered as human. I know that that sounds freaky, but I'm just being honest: consider me cracked if you want, but I'm being honest. It has been a great honor to be allowed to sense the presence of beings simply more advanced than I. It marks out a direction for growth, and once that path is detected, it is possible to look at any spiritual discipline and see what the "critical path" as opposed to the political bullshit that gets grandfathered in by church leaders and grasping gurus. And worst, in some ways, is the damage done by half-awakened individuals who want, really deeply want, to be teachers and wise folk. I know one person who is so obviously damaged that anyone in his/her presence knows it immediately. He/she is kind and giving, but just so wounded that he/she is damned near an anti-advertisement for his/her discipline. It is sad, because there is real value there, but he/she grasps so hard at a level of integration totally beyond him/her, and cannot grasp it.

ﾠ

This is why I've used the over-simplified standard of body, relationship, career. If you have all three, I am instantly curious as to what you're doing, and look for ways that your process might be superior to mine. Without all three, there is the very real possibility of ego traps, of perverted scripture, of fear masquerading as wisdom.

ﾠ

IF you will look at all three aspects, you will need no teachers save your own heart. If you are excellent in any area of life, you already know the secret of becoming excellent at everything. "Know One Thing, Know Ten Thousand Things." Find the connection between whatever principles and actions that led to your excellence, and see how it applies to the other arenas. Stay THERE. Consider THAT the center of your existence, and pay no attention to any spiritual or psychological rules that conflict with whatever basic truth you have found. As the years pass, you will begin to grasp everything that the great teachers have said about our existence, and make the progress you have sought...even if you cannot put it precisely into words. The truth is there, but you have been taught not to trust your own heart, and this is one of the greatest tragedies of all.

ﾠ

Can anyone think of a greater tragedy than the inability to trust your own heart?

The Master of your fate, the captain of your soul

2009-10-14T11:24:00.001-07:00

"I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul."

ﾠ

The above statement is held up as a goal of the autosuggestion and goal writing in Think And Grow Rich. I've had many conversations with successful people, and disproportionately, they believe this, or have positions reflective of it. I've yet to meet a really successful person who felt they just sort of wandered through their life. Who believed the opposite of this, in other words...unless they saw themselves as an instrument of the Divine. God's soldier, so to speak. That I've seen, and accompanying this is a certain amount of bewilderment that they ended up where they are in life. Looking back over their lives, however, these people tended to work hard at what was place before them: school or extracurricular activities, etc. At some point they discovered a talent, an ability, a vein of accomplishment that both came easily and felt good to them. So they went that way.

ﾠ

Often, these people had strong, supportive parents and communities. That's terrific. But what if you don't have that? I'd say that you then have the obligation to "be your own parent." In other words, you have to tame that wild six-year-old inside you, the one with all the creativity. Create a playground where the dreamer and the planner and the do-er can all come together and work for a common goal. Remember of course that the "kid" part of you needs to play, and has to be indulged...a bit. But like a dog, horse, or child, that part of you also responds to loving discipline. Needs it, in fact, like roses need rain.

ﾠ

Being the "captain" of your soul implies taking responsibility for your actions, if not your emotions. We may not have conscious control of the voices in our head, and our feelings, but we DO have it over large muscle-group actions. And this is one of the critical lessons: that what we feel and think does NOT have to determine our behaviors.

ﾠ

Being "master" of your fate doesn't mean that you don't acknowledge that there are outside factors that can contribute to, or diminish the chances of, our success. It means to step away from the common crowd that says their relationships, their careers, their bodies are beyond their control, in the hands of society, history, family, or whatever. These people can easily find pity-parties to agree that it is impossible to make money, that there are no appropriate mates available any more, that it just isn't possible to lose weight. Whatever.

ﾠ

If you want to live your life on your terms, you will HAVE to ignore them. Have to shut your mind tightly and move forward. Your actions will threaten the hell out of some, and they will try to drag you back down: the "crabs in a basket" phenomenon. And I've yet to meet a single successful person who did not have to deal with slings and arrows of unfair criticism. Not a single one. They just kept going. They just heard the call of their muse more clearly than the screams of the social group that thought it had a right to hold them back. Somehow, they took responsibility.

ﾠ

That's the first step of the entire Lifewriting process: to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. If you don't do that, you are dead in the water. Your career, your life, your health depend upon it. After all...if you aren't in control, who is?

God and Moral Societies

2009-10-13T09:18:00.001-07:00

Took Jason to the emergency room yesterday. He'd fallen from our little Jungle Gym, and cracked his head on concrete. Ugh. Strange: he was totally lethargic until throwing up at the hospital, then suddenly all his energy came back. The doctor said he might have a small concussion, but sent him home with instructions to look in on him every two hours. By this morning, we were tired, but happy: he's fine.

There is a minor flurry of comments on Facebook dealing with the "debate" between O'Reilly and Dawkins on evolutionary ethics or something. Basically, the question of whether God is necessary to the creation of an ethical society. More specifically, the question of religion and morality. Look. I think that the two circles called "Religious" and "Moral" overlap nicely. But then so do the circles called "atheist" or "pagan" and "Moral." Not that there is no connection, but that those on either side of the issue take the position that they are the morally superior folks.

ﾠ

While you most certainly can create a society without a singular or anthropomorphic deity, I'm not sure there are any societies without some Cosmological theories. What is the world? What are the stars? What is it all about? Where did I come from and where will I go when I die? These questions are so basic that attempts to answer them are more common than the Hero's Journey. But are God-centered answers necessary to morality? Don't think so. However, I think they are incredibly valuable tools for the development of a moral perspective, and a spiritual approach to life.

ﾠ

Can one develop morality without this? Yes. And those who cannot believe this are merely displaying their own narrow, rigid thinking. As efficiently? I have no data, but would suspect that, since such beliefs (and the word belief is definitely not used in a pejorative fashion here) are so universal, I think that it might be MUCH easier to develop a moral society if the average person believes there is an old man in the sky looking over their shoulder.

ﾠ

The question is: if there is no God, why should we not steal, kill, rape, and bear false witness? Anyone who asks this question is REALLY saying: "without God, I myself would find it difficult to stop myself from doing these things." Personally, it seems to me that there are multiple streams of meaning, multiple perspectives on What It All Means. If I believe in God, whatever major religion I accept, my behavior is pretty similar, given similar environments. Then there are non-deity based "religions" that look at "Mother Nature" or "ultimate truth" or "Gaia" as spiritual nexuses. And then there are others who look specifically to evolutionary biology for answers. And they all, to one end or another, work. I guess I've never understood what the difficulty was. Killing? Stealing? I want to live in a society where human life is valued, and property respected and it would seem to me that the easiest way to guide a society is to lead by example. In other words, if you don't do it, it is hypocritical to criticize other people for doing what you do not do.

Life is easiest, simplest when you are congruent: your words, thoughts and behaviors all moving in the same direction. Rape? Same thing: respect for the boundaries of others increases your ability to maintain your own. False witness? A society that does not discourage lying will have a hard time functioning. At the very least, I myself prefer to live in a society where, if someone tells me my house is on fire, I have reason to believe it.

ﾠ

These things just aren't difficult. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to ask why every society evolves spiritual beliefs if there is no spiritual realm. First of all, I'm not saying there is no such realm--anyone who has been reading this blog for any period will know that ain't me. I don't limit spirituality to Christianity, however, which makes some people say I'm not a Christian. I could care less what they think: what I am, and how I see the word, is between me and my soul. Period. But I think that these things are fairly universal because the easiest answer for a child or unsophisticated thinker who asks "why should I be good?" is "because God is watching." It just flat works. Children live in a world in which adults have magical powers, and produce food, shelter, transportation and entertainment from apparent thin air. Taking the step to believing in God is tiny. As they age, they should be exposed to increasingly deep and wide views of morality, life, and the ethical structure of the universe. As adults, their basic moral structure should be deeply inculcated.

ﾠ

I think that, ideally, your moral structure should be utterly independent of the question of "is there? Or isn't there?" a God. This relates to the thingie called "Enlightenment." All the spiritual disciplines that propose a path to this state seem to pave that road with morals and ethics. It is vital, because by the time you awaken, the strictures of society and religion no longer control you, and you are governed only by whatever deep structures exist in your consciousness. You do what you do because you do it. You are what you are when no one is watching. It's just you and the truth of your existence.

ﾠ

Those who are afraid of themselves, who believe that at the core of their being is something ugly and brutal, will fear this. Those who believe that at the core of humanity is a positive force will be less so. None of this relates to the question of whether or not there is a God, or if so which God should be worshipped. Just what purpose morality and ethics serves...and most of the time, it seems to relate to the creation of a stable society in which children have a good chance of growing and thriving. But do we NEED God to create moral individuals? The evidence says no. Do we need it to create moral societies?

ﾠ

The jury is out. I suspect that it actually might be necessary to create them...but not to sustain them. What do you think?

"Jennifer's Body" (2009)

2009-10-12T09:56:00.001-07:00

"Jennifer's Body" (2009)

ﾠ

Diablo Cody's horror-comedy gets almost everything wrong. Really. A tale of a high school vixen, the eponymous Jennifer (Megan Fox) who becomes possessed by a demon and proceeds to kill the local boys until her nebbishish best friend (Needie) steps up to stop it.

ﾠ

Where do I begin? Well, the reason that all of this happens is pretty well thought out, thank goodness, or it would have been a complete disappointment. Let's just say that the next time you sacrifice a virgin, make sure the hymen is actually intact. Yow.

But what did she get wrong?

1) Jennifer's killing of the boys. There is a simple reason that women are usually threatened in these movies: no one cares if you kill boys. They just don't. It wasn't scary at all, it was really kinda funny, and the audience was snickering. Males who cannot defend themselves are pretty much perceived as worthless. And if attacked by a female, even one possessed by a demon...it just isn't scary.

ﾠ

2) Generally, in horror films, the person who actually faces off with the monster is a member of the same group who has been threatened. In other words, in films where women are being threatened, a guy doesn't come in to save the day. Usually, the most intelligent and virtuous female kills the monster. Not always, but it allows the audience to discharge the tension. Not here. Men killed, the best friend resolves it. That makes the target group...just targets. That CAN work, but it doesn't, quite.

ﾠ

3) Cody's signature dialogue, so pleasing in "Juno", feels labored here. A bit too hip, as if she has great insight into the vocal patterns of white teenaged suburban girls, but little grasp of group psychology under pressure. There is a fire at a bar, and the reactions of people to the death and destruction just never felt spot on. Too much at one point, too little at another, as if the writer was watching humanity through a thick intellectual filter. I don't believe she actually felt any of it.

ﾠ

4) Even the reaction between these two friends was ultimately broken so that Cody could play with the sexual subtext of their long-standing relationship. She was more interested in the hidden power games in girls' friendships (especially between the Hottie and the Nottie) than actually playing out the situation she set up. For instance: although Needie (the name is too clever by half) knows that her friend has been possessed by a demon, in all of the climactic dialogue, she addresses Jennifer as if she has volition in the matter. Not one single time does she address the demonic force within her. Nor does she display the slightest interest in trying to free her friend of the demon. No, she just allows her resentment to boil up, and acts totally as if Jennifer planned the whole thing. I've never seen that before, and it trashes their relationship, makes her look stupid, and turns them both into puppets so that Cody can express what seems to be a pretty misanthropic view of humanity. This, combined with a lack of real commitment to the premise, leeches the movie of any real tension--these aren't people, they're just pawns on a political grid.

ﾠ

I could go on, but the upshot is that there is barely a genuinely tense moment, the comedy feels forced and mean, the boys are either useless or utter tools, and there is actually no center of good in the entire universe to identify with. I'm sure she was trying to say something about female empowerment or something...but this just didn't work in any way at all. I have to give it a "D."

ﾠ

Nobel Prizes and Mother Nature Loves Gay People

2009-10-11T20:31:00.000-07:00

My guess about the Nobel committee and their prize to Obama: it was viewed as an event similar to the fall of the wall between East and West Germany. Obama did not entirely create the wave...but he surfed it beautifully. One example: In terms of race relations in America, it was similar to the fall of Apartheid. We don't know what's coming next, but it is an emblem of a massive sea-change in American identity politics, something that white Conservatives seem to be having a very difficult time understanding. But then, it is hard to consciously acknowledge damage to others that works to your advantage.

ﾠ

ﾠAgain, unless you spontaneously grasped the cultural gap, automatically "got" the black death and lack of sexuality in films without trying to encapsulate it as "Hollywood racism", or looked at the Senate and was aghast at the sea of white faces, I wouldn't expect you to understand. It would be phenomenal if you did, and most of us ain't phenomenal. For those of us who DID grasp these things, the Committee's decision was more comprehensible: Obama's election was an incredible accomplishment and symbol in and of itself, quite possibly sufficient to warrant a Nobel nomination. (By the way: I expect someone to deliberately "misunderstand" what I'm saying here, and suggest that I'm saying that the AWARD was because of his election. Nope...just the nomination)

ﾠ

Just as the Right began to attack him from the beginning, blaming him for the recession and more, attacking from every side (remember John McCain having two negative ads: one if he DID visit troops in Germany, and the other if he didn't, lambasting him either way? Limbaugh talking about "The Obama Recession" the day after the election?) and blaming him for everything bad before he'd done anything, it could equally be considered human nature for those who approve of his policies and politics to do a bit of projection, as well. It is hypocritical for those who tolerated or approved of the negative projections to condemn the positive as something extraordinary. So to everyone out there: unless you PREVIOUSLY condemned such pre-emptive criticisms, you can guess what I think if you now condemn the Nobel committee's praise. Don't think you can say "well, I didn't like it then..." unless you stood up at the time and said something.

ﾠ

The committee then went on to say that the way he has dealt with the rest of the world has given hope to millions that we've turned a corner on the last eight years. Again, if you LIKED the way Bush handled things the last near-decade, this isn't likely to resonate. I can understand how that must look from your position, and I empathize. But if you can't understand how it looks from the position of those who believe the administration attacked innocent countries, raised international tensions, tortured as a POLICY, or colluded in the destabilization of the world economy (not asking you to agree, just to understand how the world looks to someone who does) then what Obama has done to extend his campaign methodology out into his diplomatic outreach would certainly be considered a positive change. It is also difficult for whites to understand the power of the image of a black man as the head of the most powerful nation in the world, as a symbol of hope to billions of brown people around the world. The change is staggering, and I sympathize if you cannot rejoice. You're missing a hell of a party.

ﾠ

That said, I grasp that his policies, although hardly "far left" (have you actually listened to what the far left says about him? Have you been paying attention?), are not to your liking, and many of you believe that they would/will be counterproductive. To that, I say: I want no policy of Obama's to go into effect that would hurt this country. But we may well have disagreements about what that means, as we disagree about the meaning of the statistics gathered by the WHO. We'd have to, because at the core, Left and Right see the world differently in ways that cannot be ultimately rectified. That's part of what a Democracy is about: sometimes your tax money gets spent for things you disagree with (like mine, spent for the Iraq invasion, and the murder of thousands of innocent soldiers. Oh, well...)

ﾠ

Of course, you are perfectly welcome to, as Limbaugh did, side with the terrorists against America. No, I don't really exactly mean that, but it is sure as hell fun to put the shoe on the other foot.

The "Big Gay Rights" speech triggered an old thought. I don't know the statistics, but I'd bet that the percentage of people identifying themselves as gay is increasing. And I see a positive reason that would explain it. The following thought has absolutely zero evidence for it, and I state that clearly. All right, here it is: population control. Imagine Mother Nature watching her human children multiplying like a virus across the planet. How do you slow this down with the minimum of cruelty? War? Famine? Spontaneous abortions? Decreased lifespan/increased disease..?

How about just increasing the number of homosexuals? I'd bet anything that the average gay couple would have fewer than the national or international average...if for no other reason than a gay couple has to really WANT those kids. They aren't going to have children accidentally, you know? It can't be a matter of a failed condom, or forgetting to take a pill. So if we take the current estimation of two to eight percent of the population primarily gay up to, say, fifteen percent, and remove the social stigma, I'd expect the population to decrease handily. So they get love, and life, and passion, and success, and...all the children they really want. And I doubt that would be more than about sixty percent of the heterosexual average. Just a guess, just an odd thought...but I bet I'm right. And wouldn't that be a nice little way to slow us down?

Yesterday was one of the best days of my life

2009-10-10T09:22:00.000-07:00

Because I saw "Couple's Retreat" (2009)!!

Psyche. I would rather have my eyeballs ripped out and rolled in salt than see this movie, concerning four couples and their attempt to heal their respective relationships. Starring seven attractive, sexy people and one morbidly obese black man. Thank you, America.

When you look at the four principles at the core of Think And Grow Rich

(1) A definite purpose backed by a burning desire for its fulfillment.

2) A definite plan expressed in continuous action

3) A mind closed tightly against all negative and discouraging influences, including negative input from friends, family, and acquaintances.

4)A friendly alliance with one or more persons who will encourage one to follow through with both plan and purpose.)

If you have a hard time grasping their importance, let's look at the reverse, and the consequences of NOT having these four in place. This is vital, because the unconscious mind is always reaching toward a result, always trying to reduce the pain in your life and increase the pleasure. If you don't have a positive set of values and resources, it will naturally, and inevitably, gravitate toward negative ones.

ﾠ

1) No focussed purpose. No desire. This describes most people, frankly. They only know what they don't want, and are afraid to feel real passion, trying to protect themselves from disappointment or embarrassment.

2) No real plans. Vague dreams at best: "if only someone would give me a chance" "if only someone would give me money for my project" "I'd love to own a company" "If only I could Y, W, or Z." And if they have, they have no "continuous action" built in, so there is no connection between today's actions and tomorrow's dreams. You need to have a clear sense of what you will do TODAY, and TOMORROW to create the life of your dreams.

3) A tendency to "go with the flow" socially, remaining susceptible to the fears of those around you. Vulnerable to the voices in your own head, and the suggestions of negative, fearful, saboteurs. Feeling that you need other people more than you need an authentic relationship with your own essence. This is lethal to your dreams, and trust me: it will destroy your relationships as well. You will end up with nothing, not even a sense of being true to yourself.

4) No allies or meaningful supportive relationships. You only ABSOLUTELY need one: yourself. But for success in the external world, there is nothing that takes the place of one other person you can share your dreams with, who will hold you to the highest standards, remind you of your values, and call you on your bullshit. A Mastermind group makes it possible to accomplish things beyond your own personal capacity. This other person doesn't need to be a genius, but they do have to be willing to explore the possibilities of greater achievement and fulfilment.

ﾠ

I have seen so many talented, intelligent people utterly flounder in their lives for lack of even two of these four principles. I have never, ever seen anyone succeed without having at least two of them in place. Never. And I've never seen anyone who had all four of them who did not accomplish WAY above average. Note that you don't need to be brilliant, rich, educated, or almost anything else to use this system. But you do need a definite purpose, a plan expressed in continuous action, a tightly focused mind, and at least one person to share your vision.

Yesterday was one of the best days of my life. I was at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills for a lunch meeting, waiting in the bar. And right past me walked...Sidney Poitier. One of my all-time heroes, arguably the most socially important actor in the history of Hollywood, a man who carried himself with immense dignity when he was the only bankable black actor in the world, at a time when the little stage spotlights in studios were still called "niggers." I cannot even imagine how much strength it took to carry himself without a single misstep. He was incredibly gracious, seemed totally healthy, alert, with a wry sense of humor and a serious twinkle in his eye. His film "In The Heat of the Night" was the very first film I'd ever seen where a black man stood up for himself as a human being. The first. And by a happy coincidence, I had a copy of "In the Night of the Heat" with me! Because he was one of Blair's mentors, I had specific things I could say to him rather than just fumble-tonguing my way through the exchange. According to the friend who was with me, I didn't make a total fool of myself. God, I hope not.

ﾠ

If I made a list of the ten living people I would most like to meet, Sidney Poitier would have been near the top of the list (the top? Possibly Nelson Mandela). Yesterday was a very, very good day indeed.

Thick Face, Black Heart

2009-10-08T09:01:00.000-07:00

ﾠ

The question of focus came up in response to the "mind tightly shut against negative influences" question. There is definitely a risk in life of not listening to anything, or anyone, and going off the edge of some social, financial or personal cliff. But if the majority of those you have respected as "successes" have this quality, then you ignore "Thick Face, Black Heart" at your own peril. Barely a day passes that I don't hear someone complaining about their internal voices warning them not to pursue their dreams. Fear of what "people might say." Fear that if they stop drinking, drugging, or overeating, they will lose their reference group. Fear that they grew up in poverty, and if they aim at extraordinary success they will be considered "uppity" or whatever. Fear that "men ain't shit" or "all women are bitches" or whatever the latest pity-party is.

ﾠ

Personally? I had to deal with feedback from both black and white people that I wasn't supposed to be a writer. Input from my mother that I was too fragile to be an athlete. That I wasn't supposed to love someone of another race. That if I displayed my intelligence, white people would kill me. And on, and on.

ﾠ

I have certainly met a few people so impulsive, so unwilling to listen to reason that they have damaged themselves with unconsidered ambition. But by a factor of ten, people seem more limited by fear than by being overly optimistic.

ﾠ

But still...if you are limited by fear, you may not reach the stars, but aren't you more likely to survive? Yes. That is true. And this is where the Cautious approach has legitimacy. If you stay with the crowd, don't try to stand out, aren't you safer? Yes, you are. But between the safety of the herd and the wish we have to perform at the level of our idols, there has to be a happy medium. Children have huge dreams, and adults pound those dreams out of them. It is sad to meet people who clearly, no longer believe that they can be healthy, and happy, and successful...settling for one or two of those, and then hiding their fear inside a cocoon of rationalizations: "I can't" "I shouldn't" "I'm genetically limited", etc. etc. We search for reasons not to leave our comforting harbors, even if our hearts yearn for the endless sea.

ﾠ

So the principles of Think And Grow Rich are for those with the courage to move beyond what their neighbors and families consider "normal". And the inevitable price is that you will be attacked. Almost everyone you have ever admired in the public eye has been attacked, and the more successful they are, the more vicious the attacks often become. It is a natural part of the process.

ﾠ

But how can you avoid going "off the cliff?" Modeling. You look for people who have accomplished goals that you desire. Preferably, you find at least three people, and chose those who are extraordinary in the area of interest, but at LEAST average in the other two. Ideally, you look for people who are extraordinary in one, and "excellent" in the other two. You may have to hunt, but the hunt is worth while. The voice in your head that says: "but the price of success is loss of love!" will fade if you study those who have both success and love. The voices in your head will often urge you toward the lowest level of overall accomplishment: enough money to survive, enough health to "not be sick" and enough intimacy to satisfy the most basic needs for sex and companionship. Decide that you want more than the minimum, and you will run right into every negative belief imaginable, an attempt by your unconscious to protect you against either disaster or the pain of disappointment.

ﾠ

How can you know if your internal voices are lying to you? Some suggestions:

1) Illogic and impossibility. If you believe something like "it takes money to make money" (really? Then where did the first money come from...), "love only leads to pain" (really? Then all us happy folks are just lying to ourselves?), "nothing ever changes", "my body disobeys the laws of physics" and so forth--your demons are in full swing.

2) You tell yourself you've never succeeded at anything. Really? You never learned to walk or talk or ride a bicycle? The truth is that as soon as you accomplish something, there is a negative part of your personality that tries to discount it. "Oh...everyone learns to do that. It's nothing." And no matter what you accomplish, no matter what wonders and marvels you accomplish in the external world, those voices remain. The wise simply learn to separate themselves from their voices.

ﾠ

And this is important to remember: that shutting your mind against the negative input of others is REALLY practice in shutting off your own negative voices. Critical if you want to move from one level of success to the next.

3) Deleting information contrary to your world view. Highly politicized people do this all the time, to the point that they can sound...well, emotionally disturbed if you don't share their world view. This is called arguing backwards from a premise. But how do you do it, if the very organ you use to test reality is itself warped by fear of change? Wellll...I think a combination of two approaches is a damned fine error-checker:

a) The Mastermind. At least one person whose opinion you will listen to. Choose them based on their track record, not their intent or promises.

b) Balance. Both in yourself, and in your chosen Mastermind partner. If you are strong in all three arenas, you can be fairly certain your reality map is basically accurate. If weak in two or three...WATCH OUT.

ﾠ

It really is sad. I don't know anyone who doesn't admire accomplished people. Musicians, writers, scientists, politicians, spiritual leaders, warriors...SOMEONE. In my book, all you need to do to improve your results is study what these people have in common, and do "that." And here is where the excuses boil up, fed by an ego terrified of death, and willing to kill your dreams to stay alive.

ﾠ

This is where deep meditation can be one of the most healing and valuable things in life: we are not the voices in our heads--although they can be powerful allies. We are not our histories--although a person's history is usually the best predictor of future actions. We are not our self image, although our self image can be a vital tool in our quest for fulfillment. We are not any of the things we can see or hear about ourselves, but our senses are the first line of defense against delusion.

ﾠ

Think And Grow Rich is a fabulous source of information, possibly the best ever written, partially because the early 20th century was such a rich time for growth in America. Partially because nothing quite like it had been done before, so Napoleon Hill's interviews weren't polluted by preexisting expectations. The principle are contrary to no religions I know of (so long as those religious allow commerce of any kind) and while they are directed specifically at the making of material wealth, if you look closer, they are also about relationship (the Mastermind and Sexual Transmutation both start with the primary relationship). While there is little in the book about physical health, the principles can easily be applied to fitness (Bruce Lee famously based his career on it) or health (so did Jack LaLanne).

ﾠ

Because it requires little money, or even time, to apply these principles, they will be flat-out TERRIFYING to the ego, unless you have permission to thrive. You are being asked to risk...what? A few sheets of paper? A few minutes a day re-reading goals or studying the book? And what are you being offered in return? The life of your dreams? Wow. The cost-benefit ratio is staggering. Hell, the book is available FREE in PDF form, or costs about ten bucks in any bookstore in America, or as a recorded book at iTunes.

ﾠ

Think about that. All the success, health and happiness that any organized plan can possibly offer, tested for almost a century, free of charge, testable with little risk. And on the other side? The voices in your head.

ﾠ

Most people will let the voices win, which is why, by definition, the average person gets average results. If you want extraordinary results, you must take extraordinary actions. You must be willing to walk alone, if necessary, with only your loving partner at your side. You must be wiling to practice while others party, work while others rest, embrace loving discipline for yourself as you would discipline any pet or child, tell the truth when lies are more comforting, test your theories against reality, associate with people smarter and more accomplished than yourself, and be willing to kill your ego. Again and again and again. It's a tough little vampire of a regenerating beast.

ﾠ

And you must be willing to shut your mind against negative influences, whether they come from the outside world, or inside your own head. I promise: almost everyone you have ever admired learned to do this. And you can too.

ﾠ