Well I just watched the season premiere of my favorite show, Californication.
Hank Moody has done it again. Funny, interesting, quirky, and unexpected. I love this show. Ah, if only to be so free of spirit as to be relaxed at anything, saying, anything you wish to say, but on the other hand, what you say is perfected scripted and completely appropriately designed to state the needed and shock the mediocre, titillating the brilliant and interesting in the room.
If only to be so together, yet dysfunctional, of course, I could most definitely skip the dysfunctional. Well, I would, but let's face it, dysfunctional, I can do. I can play it in my pj's, my tux, my shorts, at a roast, on some toast, yes, its pretty much me all over in that realm.
But, alas, I'm no Hank Moody. I was perhaps a faint reflection of one, at one time, years ago, but a more Seattle version, or less focused version, more perhaps like a PNW version. And not as a writer. I'm still working on that part. And of course, in a longer frame of time. What Hank can pull off in twenty-four hours would take me at least a six month stretch to accomplish. Actually, perhaps, I wasn't a lot like him at all.
All I can say is, thanks to the writers of Californication, thanks to David Duchovny, as I don't know who else could pull it off so perfectly as he does.
And to all those people who look down on me for liking the show, I have only one word for: Scrotum. No? Okay. How about headlights? No? Bonkers? Well, I said I was no him.
Anyway, deal with it. If you don't like that, well then, sometimes, reality just sucks.
But I'm liking it from this side. And next week, another new episode. Go Hank!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Weekend Wise Words
"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, they make them." - George Bernard Shaw
"Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.” - George Bernard Shaw
Just remember, circumstances, especially those that go against our intentions, are the tools we use to achieve our goals and exercise our creativity.
"Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.” - George Bernard Shaw
Just remember, circumstances, especially those that go against our intentions, are the tools we use to achieve our goals and exercise our creativity.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Top 10 Cannabis victories in 2010
Top 10 Marijuana (cannabis) Victories in 2010
(in no particular order)First:
New report showing US Prohibition Doesn’t Work, Regulation Needed
Look, we need to get a handle on this, and putting your head down and running into a problem fixes nothing, it breaks things. We need intelligent thought, not 1950s style mentality, useless punishment paradigms.
Among the report’s findings:
* The annual overall budget for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy increased by more than 600%; growing from approximately $1.5 billion in 1981 to more than $18 billion in 2002 (the last year reliable figures were available).
* Between 1990 and 2006, cannabis-related arrests increased by 150%, while cannabis seizures increased by more than 400%.
* The estimated retail cost of cannabis decreased from $37 per gram in 1990 to $15 per gram in 2007.
* Cannabis has remained almost “universally available” to American youth during the last 30 years of prohibition.
- and now, the report itself.
And finally, that top ten list:
1. NEW JERSEY LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA
2010 started with
a bang when New Jersey's outgoing Democratic governor signed a bill that made
New Jersey the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana. (Unfortunately, the
new Republican governor has conspired with his state health department to delay
and subvert the new law from taking effect and -- now one year later --
patients still do not have legal access to medical marijuana.)
2. WASHINGTON,
D.C. LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Voters in our
nation's capital passed a medical marijuana initiative with 69% of the vote in
November 1998. After Congress blocked that law from taking effect 11 years in a
row, Congress finally removed the federal ban in the fall of 2009, and in 2010
the D.C. City Council passed legislation to implement the local law. While the
D.C. law is more restrictive than we'd like, five medical marijuana
dispensaries will be opening up within a short cab ride of Capitol Hill by the
middle of 2011.
3. ARIZONA
LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA
By a mere 50.13%
to 49.87% margin, Arizona voters passed MPP's medical marijuana initiative in
November, making Arizona the 15th state to legalize medical marijuana. As a
result, approximately 125 dispensaries will open up around the state by
mid-2011. This campaign was successful despite severely limited resources, with
MPP spending only $0.10 for each Arizona resident.
4. CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE DEMONSTRATES RECORD SUPPORT FOR LEGALIZATION
While Prop. 19
failed at the polls on Election Day, this ballot initiative still represents
significant progress for our movement. First, the initiative received the
highest level of support (46.54%) of any of the eight legalization initiatives
ever to be placed on a statewide ballot. Second, the initiative received
support from mainstream political institutions, such as the California
affiliates of the NAACP and SEIU, the Latino Voters League, the National Latino
Officers Association, and the National Black Police Association. Third, the
initiative generated gobs of in-state and national news coverage, making
marijuana legalization a respectable topic of political debate. Fourth, the
campaign inspired the local governments and voters of three cities to pass laws
that will automatically tax marijuana sales once they are legal under state
law.
5.
MARIJUANA-FRIENDLY GOVERNORS ELECTED IN THREE STATES
For the first time
in memory, three gubernatorial candidates who are well known to be supportive
of decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing medical marijuana were elected on
the same day -- Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Dan Malloy (D-CT), and Peter Shumlin
(D-VT). As a result, all three states are likely to pass favorable legislation
in 2011.
6. THREE STATES
REGULATE/EXPAND MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS
While state
governments sometimes tweak their existing medical marijuana laws, Colorado's
government did much more than that in 2010 when it passed a new law for issuing
approximately 2,000 licenses to medical marijuana retailers, growers, and
kitchens; as a result, medical marijuana businesses are now scattered around
the state like pharmacies. Also, Maine's health department issued regulations
to establish eight medical marijuana dispensaries, building on the MPP-authored
ballot initiative that Mainers passed with nearly 59% of the vote in November
2009. And, to close out 2010, New Mexico's health department increased the
number of dispensaries in the state to 25.
7. LOCAL
INITIATIVE VICTORIES IN FOUR STATES
In Massachusetts,
voters in nine legislative districts passed initiatives recommending that
medical marijuana be legalized on the state level; in another nine legislative
districts, Massachusetts voters recommended that marijuana be legalized
entirely. In Wisconsin, voters in two local jurisdictions urged their state
legislature to legalize medical marijuana. In California, voters in two cities
blocked dispensaries from being banned. And in Colorado, voters in 8 cities and
counties voted to allow dispensaries (this overt support is significant, even
though voters in another 34 Colorado municipalities decided to ban
dispensaries).
8. VETERANS
AFFAIRS RECOGNIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA
For the first time
since 1978, a federal agency recognized marijuana's therapeutic value when the
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs issued a new policy in 2010, stating that
veterans who use medical marijuana legally under state law would no longer be denied
other prescription medications or treatments.
9. TWO GOOD COURT
DECISIONS IN CALIFORNIA
In the
"Anaheim" case, a California appellate court found that federal law
doesn't prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana
dispensaries. And in a separate case, a California superior court blocked an
L.A. City Council ordinance that would have wiped out most dispensaries in the
second largest city in the U.S. (Neither case has reached its final conclusion
yet, however.)
10. CALIFORNIA
IMPROVES EXISTING DECRIMINALIZATION LAW
In 1975,
California decriminalized marijuana, meaning that people who were apprehended
with up to an ounce of marijuana could not face jail time. In 2010, the
California government improved this law by changing marijuana possession from a
criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction, meaning that -- in addition to not
facing jail time -- small-time marijuana offenders will no longer have to
appear before a judge, pay court costs or hire a lawyer, or get stuck with a
criminal record.
From MPP.org
Morton Subotnick - The Wild Bull
Back in the 1968, I found an album of experimental synthesizer music by Morton Subotnick, called the Wild Bull (Released 1968 on Nonesuch ).
I found this album fascinating.I listened to it hundreds of times over those next years. No one else would listen to it. I played it for my older brother (seven years older) who only shook his head and said, "Its cool but I really don't know what to do with it." I was sad but continued my life long search for music out of the norm. I've always cherished this piece over that of all other avant garde music efforts.
I shared this with my kids a while back. My son doesn't remember, but it was longer back for him than my daughter who is several years younger than he is. She remembers it. The other day she called me to tell me she stopped in a record store and randomly asked the owner if he knew of Subotnick. He said yes, and he was a fan; and that he'd seen him in 2009 in Seattle, performing The Wild Bull live. I checked and he is now out of country until at least 2012, living and performing in Europe. I was both sad and excited to hear this news. She also told me that the owner has an album coming in next week that he will hold for her, for $12. She is pretty excited about it.
I have always sought out the unusual, the gems in the folds of the velvet, or the sandpaper and have tried to share these things with my kids. They knew of Eraserhead, David Lynch's monumental and bizarre film, long before any of their friends (and yes, they were by then old enough to be watching it, although I understand my son's mother let him watch Clive Barker's, Hellraiser and other such films, long before I would have which explains many of his nightmares after he started living with me again after he was five; we split when he was four). And plenty of other movies, music and art, too. It was my deepest desire to not have them stuck in any one genre of art, and I appear to have succeeded. They are both also, very artistic, in both the visual and audio mediums. I couldn't be more proud, really.
From the back of the LP sleeve:
"The first side of this record was almost complete when I came across "The Wild Bull", I was very impressed by the poem and quickly began to feel an affinity between the poem and the composition I was working on -- in fact, the first three notes of the work seemed to me a kind of human/wild-bull moan--and later I added a human breathing sound to one of the notes.
"There was never an attempt to 'portray' the poem (I don't think music is about that), but at the same time it became harder and harder to disassociate myself from the pathos and restrained cry of personal loss which spoke to me from such a distant point in time. The state of mind which the poem evoked became intimately tangled with the state of mind my own composition was evoking in me. To title the work after the poem seemed natural and to offer the poem seems equally natural." - Morton Subotnick
From Julian Cope:
"Following up Subotnick’s debut album, “Silver Apples of the Moon” was a record that was in many ways its twin partner: Titled “The Wild Bull”, it was commissioned by Nonesuch Records, executed on the newly-created Buchla synthesizer, sequenced into two parts (“Side One” and “Side Two”) totaling a length just under a half an hour and loosely inspired by poetry from the pre-technological past of humanity. But the similarities quickly end there, because whereas his previous album was based on the verse of Yeats and underlined by glittering displays of avant-garde freakouts and peaceful planetary soliloquies, on “The Wild Bull” Subotnick was touched with an inspiration far removed in both time and space and one infinitely darker than the space between the planets: namely, with a Sumerian poem cuneiformed into wet tablets sometime around 1700BC, from which “The Wild Bull” takes its title.
"A simple lament for the dead, “The Wild Bull” is a mournful indictment of mankind’s third oldest profession: soldier. And although Subotnick states in the liner notes that “there was never an attempt to ‘portray’ the poem” what was finally conceived was probably from a far deeper subconscious level. And since Subotnick was influenced by Marshall McLuhan (who stated in his 1967 book “The Medium Is The Massage” that “electric circuitry...[is]...an extension of the central nervous system”) it’s highly likely that to anyone with a heart and a pair of ears that “The Wild Bull” is nothing less than a harrowing statement on the experience of war and its inevitable aftermath. It is deeply evocative as it burrows and runs through the full gamut and gauntlet of sensations of human war, followed by those experienced within the folds of its eternal camp follower, death."
Here is a link to an interview with Morton Subotnick by SoundTree (www.soundtree.com) presented by Dr. Jim Franke. Subotnick to me, was always this icon, this master; like he was some kind of Mozart to me. In listening to him in this interview, it really moved him more into just a guy that is really good with form and structure. A very strange thing. I always had looked back on him and his work from when I was a kid, as this iconic kind of person and thing. And now, as we are here in the future, I see he is a man, just like anyone else. So funny.
Here is Morton talking about using surround sound software for composing.
Here is the poem the piece is based upon:
THE WILD BULL
The wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more
the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more,
Dumuzi, the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more,
the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more.
O you wild bull, how fast you sleep!
How fast sleep ewe and lamb!
O you wild bull, how fast you sleep!
How fast sleep goat and kid!
I will ask the hills and the valleys,
I will ask the hills of the Bison:
"Where is the young man, my husband?"
I will say,
"He whom I no longer serve food"
I will say,
"He whom I no longer give to drink"
I will say,
"And my lovely maids"
I will say,
"And my lovely young men?"
"The Bison has taken thy husband away,
up into the mountains!"
"The Bison has taken thy young man away,
up into the mountains!"
"Bison of the mountains, with the mottled eyes!
Bison of the mountains, with the crushing teeth!
Bison!-He sleeps sweetly, he sleeps sweetly,
He whom I no longer serve sleeps sweetly,
He whom I no longer give to drink sleeps sweetly,
My lovely maids sleep sweetly,
My lovely young men sleep sweetly!"
"My young man who perished from me
(at the hands of) your men,
My young Ababa who perished from me
(at the hands of) your men,
Will never more calm me (with) his loving glance
Will never more unfasten his lovely bright clasp
(at night)
On his couch you made the jackals lie down,
In my husband's fold you made the raven dwell,
His reed pipe-the wind plays it,
My husband's songs-the north wind sings them."
Sumerian, c. 1700 BC, translated by Thorkild Jacobsen.
I shared this with my kids a while back. My son doesn't remember, but it was longer back for him than my daughter who is several years younger than he is. She remembers it. The other day she called me to tell me she stopped in a record store and randomly asked the owner if he knew of Subotnick. He said yes, and he was a fan; and that he'd seen him in 2009 in Seattle, performing The Wild Bull live. I checked and he is now out of country until at least 2012, living and performing in Europe. I was both sad and excited to hear this news. She also told me that the owner has an album coming in next week that he will hold for her, for $12. She is pretty excited about it.
I have always sought out the unusual, the gems in the folds of the velvet, or the sandpaper and have tried to share these things with my kids. They knew of Eraserhead, David Lynch's monumental and bizarre film, long before any of their friends (and yes, they were by then old enough to be watching it, although I understand my son's mother let him watch Clive Barker's, Hellraiser and other such films, long before I would have which explains many of his nightmares after he started living with me again after he was five; we split when he was four). And plenty of other movies, music and art, too. It was my deepest desire to not have them stuck in any one genre of art, and I appear to have succeeded. They are both also, very artistic, in both the visual and audio mediums. I couldn't be more proud, really.
From the back of the LP sleeve:
"The first side of this record was almost complete when I came across "The Wild Bull", I was very impressed by the poem and quickly began to feel an affinity between the poem and the composition I was working on -- in fact, the first three notes of the work seemed to me a kind of human/wild-bull moan--and later I added a human breathing sound to one of the notes.
"There was never an attempt to 'portray' the poem (I don't think music is about that), but at the same time it became harder and harder to disassociate myself from the pathos and restrained cry of personal loss which spoke to me from such a distant point in time. The state of mind which the poem evoked became intimately tangled with the state of mind my own composition was evoking in me. To title the work after the poem seemed natural and to offer the poem seems equally natural." - Morton Subotnick
From Julian Cope:
"Following up Subotnick’s debut album, “Silver Apples of the Moon” was a record that was in many ways its twin partner: Titled “The Wild Bull”, it was commissioned by Nonesuch Records, executed on the newly-created Buchla synthesizer, sequenced into two parts (“Side One” and “Side Two”) totaling a length just under a half an hour and loosely inspired by poetry from the pre-technological past of humanity. But the similarities quickly end there, because whereas his previous album was based on the verse of Yeats and underlined by glittering displays of avant-garde freakouts and peaceful planetary soliloquies, on “The Wild Bull” Subotnick was touched with an inspiration far removed in both time and space and one infinitely darker than the space between the planets: namely, with a Sumerian poem cuneiformed into wet tablets sometime around 1700BC, from which “The Wild Bull” takes its title.
"A simple lament for the dead, “The Wild Bull” is a mournful indictment of mankind’s third oldest profession: soldier. And although Subotnick states in the liner notes that “there was never an attempt to ‘portray’ the poem” what was finally conceived was probably from a far deeper subconscious level. And since Subotnick was influenced by Marshall McLuhan (who stated in his 1967 book “The Medium Is The Massage” that “electric circuitry...[is]...an extension of the central nervous system”) it’s highly likely that to anyone with a heart and a pair of ears that “The Wild Bull” is nothing less than a harrowing statement on the experience of war and its inevitable aftermath. It is deeply evocative as it burrows and runs through the full gamut and gauntlet of sensations of human war, followed by those experienced within the folds of its eternal camp follower, death."
Here is a link to an interview with Morton Subotnick by SoundTree (www.soundtree.com) presented by Dr. Jim Franke. Subotnick to me, was always this icon, this master; like he was some kind of Mozart to me. In listening to him in this interview, it really moved him more into just a guy that is really good with form and structure. A very strange thing. I always had looked back on him and his work from when I was a kid, as this iconic kind of person and thing. And now, as we are here in the future, I see he is a man, just like anyone else. So funny.
Here is Morton talking about using surround sound software for composing.
Here is the poem the piece is based upon:
THE WILD BULL
The wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more
the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more,
Dumuzi, the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more,
the wild bull, who has lain down, lives no more.
O you wild bull, how fast you sleep!
How fast sleep ewe and lamb!
O you wild bull, how fast you sleep!
How fast sleep goat and kid!
I will ask the hills and the valleys,
I will ask the hills of the Bison:
"Where is the young man, my husband?"
I will say,
"He whom I no longer serve food"
I will say,
"He whom I no longer give to drink"
I will say,
"And my lovely maids"
I will say,
"And my lovely young men?"
"The Bison has taken thy husband away,
up into the mountains!"
"The Bison has taken thy young man away,
up into the mountains!"
"Bison of the mountains, with the mottled eyes!
Bison of the mountains, with the crushing teeth!
Bison!-He sleeps sweetly, he sleeps sweetly,
He whom I no longer serve sleeps sweetly,
He whom I no longer give to drink sleeps sweetly,
My lovely maids sleep sweetly,
My lovely young men sleep sweetly!"
"My young man who perished from me
(at the hands of) your men,
My young Ababa who perished from me
(at the hands of) your men,
Will never more calm me (with) his loving glance
Will never more unfasten his lovely bright clasp
(at night)
On his couch you made the jackals lie down,
In my husband's fold you made the raven dwell,
His reed pipe-the wind plays it,
My husband's songs-the north wind sings them."
Sumerian, c. 1700 BC, translated by Thorkild Jacobsen.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Using Terms - asexual, sexuality, sensuality, attractiveness
The following sprouts into several different directions, bare with me.
My son and I had a discussion the other day over the term "asexual". I was preparing my blog on Emilie Autumn, a self proclaimed asexual, though she seems to be attracted to the same things in women I am, and she has also said she mostly likes androgyny (she had been asked about whether she liked David Bowie) and my son was arguing the definition of that term, asexual. He was also arguing that many words in common usage are incorrect in the way to which people claim to define them.
His comment brought up the term asexual as it related to plants. I then pointed out that plants are quite different from people. Also that the term asexual relates to plants differently that it does to people. For people it relates more to the functional aspects of the organism, but not the mental, emotional aspects. And there are gray areas.
This type of thing is also so true of so many other terms, their meanings and how they are used in conversation. I think it explains why we have so many arguments where no one is the winner. We are too frequently shifting paradigms of logic, meanings of terms, orientations, genres, phylums, etc., and not considering how in some cases, some words or even metaphors simply do not work toward some object of discussion.
This also got me to thinking about Emilie Autumn and what is attractive about her, her costumes, and even her troupe's physical movements on stage.
It used to be quite common for women to be sent to a "finishing school" to learn proper etiquette, movement, bearing, etc. That has stopped for several reasons. One of which being that women no longer understood why they should have to go to a school such as that, and men didn't. They strove for equality after all, right?
And its long been known that in achieving equality, women have lost something. Why? Because, they felt and perhaps rightly so, that they needed to BE like MEN in order to be EQUAL to men.
What they missed out on at that point, was that they have, not more, that they have to work on, though that was the case at one point, but rather that they have access to more, than men do; more in the way of action, bearing, attitude and such. To be sure, they have more tools int he toolbox than men do and they have thrown away the toolbox. Surely, men who have a certain bearing, will go further in life, than those who do not, unless they can make up for it in certain ways like overachieving. Exactly, what women have opted for.
Its much the same with attractiveness. Attractive people do go further in life than unattractive people.
Attractiveness is actually misunderstood. It refers to people being "attracted" to someone, not that they are pretty, or handsome. Attractiveness cover beauty and charisma and is something we all want, or need. Those who do not have it, or have the opposite of it, generally resent it; lacking it, that is. But attractiveness is necessary to move forward, to achieve the above average, to get the most from what you have.
When a woman knows how to move beyond what the human form does simply from growing up, she becomes more attractive. Like with men, if they are clumsy, they are unattractive, if they are assured in movement, attitude, women (and men too) like them more. Watching Emilie Autumn and especially her cohort, Veronica (and Katy Perry does this sometimes too), exemplifies this. Many look to this kind of behavior and slough it off as pretentious, or shallow. But they are missing the point. Surely, to over do it, is to be too obvious; but to use it properly, is very effective.
"A witty woman is a treasure; a witty beauty is a power."- George Meredith
In women going for equality to men years ago, they have lost some of what they had available to them that is so effective to their achieving more in their endeavors. This is something that is now looked down upon, as manipulative and banal. Mostly from men's feelings, as they known damn well they can be manipulated by a "woman's wiles". Also, by women who can not perform in such a way, as they, again, resent it. But we actually do these kinds of things anyway, its Human nature and its just that we now think we should only use, what we have grown up naturally with. Which is really kind of ridiculous. To hone one's natural abilities is only smart. To think that you can only use what you already have, is foolish.
Don't we go to college to hone what we already have? Aren't we taught manners as children to enhance our social standing, our acceptance in groups and at events; to learn more, to learn to be more functional?
Why are the capabilities of gender, any different? Why argue that gender has no difference?
What I'm saying for women is the same for men. I am just not as well versed in what it is that men can learn to enhance their natural attractiveness. For one thing, women's capabilities in that area are simply far more known and talked about. Men's loss I'm sure. For women, in becoming more equal to men, they have started more to act like them, to move like them. How, is that a good thing? Why would a woman think that in being more manlike, she is more attractive? And yes, again, we all want to be more attractive. EVERYONE. An author wants to be more attractive, so they sell more books. An engineer wants to be more attractive to get better jobs, make more money, get better projects to work on. And so on. Again, attractiveness is not just about looking good physically, but that certainly helps. Why is this so difficult for us to accept, or even consider?
Its because of the "me" generations. The consideration of only what things mean oriented to oneself and not as they are oriented to others, which is actually the concern. In communication, its not about you talking at someone, its about your getting them to understand you. A completely different thing.
I've noticed that in other, mostly Asian cultures, this understanding is still quite prevalent. Especially in some countries, like Thailand. I was at a party a few years ago with Vietnamese and Thai ladies attending, among others. I had always thought the Viet ladies were very elegant (that means, flowing, patient in movement, delicate). But in meeting the Thai ladies, I was quite surprised and found I enjoyed being their company very much. That is not to take away from the other who were there, but to add to what the Thai ladies had going for them.
Why? Because of how relaxed they made me feel in their movement, their attitude. Around men, I feel normal, to be sure. But around women, how they move in a more refined, shall we say, fashion, I feel that I can relax even more, to let my guard down, to not feel, like I need to be on guard or overly attentive to the point of not relaxing. See what I'm saying? People always take this as a sexual function. But though it can cross over into that, really its a basic function of fight or flight. I have no feeling of needing to fight, or flight, just to stay put and relax.
Now a days I notice that being around most women, I feel kind of the same as around men. Like they are equal to the men. Yea for women's equality. Boo for women being just like men. I do feel more or less relaxed, but not really. Of course, after a few drinks you can feel relaxed with anyone, but after a few minutes around someone who simply moves well, it has the same affect as alcohol, without the down side. Surely, I don't feel so comfortable around men like this, who act let's say, effeminate, and I'd again feel on guard. But if they act refined, think perhaps, Buddhist monk, then I can feel relaxed.
This all comes back to how we use terms. Things aren't always what they seem. And we really need to pay attention to that. Because, I do think, we will get along so much better for it.
My son and I had a discussion the other day over the term "asexual". I was preparing my blog on Emilie Autumn, a self proclaimed asexual, though she seems to be attracted to the same things in women I am, and she has also said she mostly likes androgyny (she had been asked about whether she liked David Bowie) and my son was arguing the definition of that term, asexual. He was also arguing that many words in common usage are incorrect in the way to which people claim to define them.
His comment brought up the term asexual as it related to plants. I then pointed out that plants are quite different from people. Also that the term asexual relates to plants differently that it does to people. For people it relates more to the functional aspects of the organism, but not the mental, emotional aspects. And there are gray areas.
This type of thing is also so true of so many other terms, their meanings and how they are used in conversation. I think it explains why we have so many arguments where no one is the winner. We are too frequently shifting paradigms of logic, meanings of terms, orientations, genres, phylums, etc., and not considering how in some cases, some words or even metaphors simply do not work toward some object of discussion.
This also got me to thinking about Emilie Autumn and what is attractive about her, her costumes, and even her troupe's physical movements on stage.
It used to be quite common for women to be sent to a "finishing school" to learn proper etiquette, movement, bearing, etc. That has stopped for several reasons. One of which being that women no longer understood why they should have to go to a school such as that, and men didn't. They strove for equality after all, right?
And its long been known that in achieving equality, women have lost something. Why? Because, they felt and perhaps rightly so, that they needed to BE like MEN in order to be EQUAL to men.
What they missed out on at that point, was that they have, not more, that they have to work on, though that was the case at one point, but rather that they have access to more, than men do; more in the way of action, bearing, attitude and such. To be sure, they have more tools int he toolbox than men do and they have thrown away the toolbox. Surely, men who have a certain bearing, will go further in life, than those who do not, unless they can make up for it in certain ways like overachieving. Exactly, what women have opted for.
Its much the same with attractiveness. Attractive people do go further in life than unattractive people.
Attractiveness is actually misunderstood. It refers to people being "attracted" to someone, not that they are pretty, or handsome. Attractiveness cover beauty and charisma and is something we all want, or need. Those who do not have it, or have the opposite of it, generally resent it; lacking it, that is. But attractiveness is necessary to move forward, to achieve the above average, to get the most from what you have.
When a woman knows how to move beyond what the human form does simply from growing up, she becomes more attractive. Like with men, if they are clumsy, they are unattractive, if they are assured in movement, attitude, women (and men too) like them more. Watching Emilie Autumn and especially her cohort, Veronica (and Katy Perry does this sometimes too), exemplifies this. Many look to this kind of behavior and slough it off as pretentious, or shallow. But they are missing the point. Surely, to over do it, is to be too obvious; but to use it properly, is very effective.
"A witty woman is a treasure; a witty beauty is a power."- George Meredith
In women going for equality to men years ago, they have lost some of what they had available to them that is so effective to their achieving more in their endeavors. This is something that is now looked down upon, as manipulative and banal. Mostly from men's feelings, as they known damn well they can be manipulated by a "woman's wiles". Also, by women who can not perform in such a way, as they, again, resent it. But we actually do these kinds of things anyway, its Human nature and its just that we now think we should only use, what we have grown up naturally with. Which is really kind of ridiculous. To hone one's natural abilities is only smart. To think that you can only use what you already have, is foolish.
Don't we go to college to hone what we already have? Aren't we taught manners as children to enhance our social standing, our acceptance in groups and at events; to learn more, to learn to be more functional?
Why are the capabilities of gender, any different? Why argue that gender has no difference?
What I'm saying for women is the same for men. I am just not as well versed in what it is that men can learn to enhance their natural attractiveness. For one thing, women's capabilities in that area are simply far more known and talked about. Men's loss I'm sure. For women, in becoming more equal to men, they have started more to act like them, to move like them. How, is that a good thing? Why would a woman think that in being more manlike, she is more attractive? And yes, again, we all want to be more attractive. EVERYONE. An author wants to be more attractive, so they sell more books. An engineer wants to be more attractive to get better jobs, make more money, get better projects to work on. And so on. Again, attractiveness is not just about looking good physically, but that certainly helps. Why is this so difficult for us to accept, or even consider?
Its because of the "me" generations. The consideration of only what things mean oriented to oneself and not as they are oriented to others, which is actually the concern. In communication, its not about you talking at someone, its about your getting them to understand you. A completely different thing.
I've noticed that in other, mostly Asian cultures, this understanding is still quite prevalent. Especially in some countries, like Thailand. I was at a party a few years ago with Vietnamese and Thai ladies attending, among others. I had always thought the Viet ladies were very elegant (that means, flowing, patient in movement, delicate). But in meeting the Thai ladies, I was quite surprised and found I enjoyed being their company very much. That is not to take away from the other who were there, but to add to what the Thai ladies had going for them.
Why? Because of how relaxed they made me feel in their movement, their attitude. Around men, I feel normal, to be sure. But around women, how they move in a more refined, shall we say, fashion, I feel that I can relax even more, to let my guard down, to not feel, like I need to be on guard or overly attentive to the point of not relaxing. See what I'm saying? People always take this as a sexual function. But though it can cross over into that, really its a basic function of fight or flight. I have no feeling of needing to fight, or flight, just to stay put and relax.
Now a days I notice that being around most women, I feel kind of the same as around men. Like they are equal to the men. Yea for women's equality. Boo for women being just like men. I do feel more or less relaxed, but not really. Of course, after a few drinks you can feel relaxed with anyone, but after a few minutes around someone who simply moves well, it has the same affect as alcohol, without the down side. Surely, I don't feel so comfortable around men like this, who act let's say, effeminate, and I'd again feel on guard. But if they act refined, think perhaps, Buddhist monk, then I can feel relaxed.
This all comes back to how we use terms. Things aren't always what they seem. And we really need to pay attention to that. Because, I do think, we will get along so much better for it.
Music range, how far do you roll?
I've said before that I have a wide range of musical tastes that goes back to the 60s when I was a kid.
In that grouping I would put, Morton Subotnik, Wendy (Walter) Carlos, Glenn Gould, and in later years, Brian Eno, David Byrne, Philip Glass (and others) with such works of theirs as, The Wild Bull, Switched on Bach, Bach Piano Fugues, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, and Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance, respectively, and only to name a few. Of course, I also liked contemporary rock music of those times, Cream, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zepplin, Jethro Tull, on and on....
To say the least, my friends thought I was nuts when we were kids. But I've always searched out the Avant Garde, the unusual, the intellectually stimulating, even if I didn't at first (or ever) understand it.
This all came from a conversation with my mother's mother. My Grandmother once told me to always stretch oneself intellectually, to have friends that were above your intellectual capacity, to strive to be more educated. She told me that when you read a book for enjoyment, the next book should be one you don't quite understand in reading it. Or that at least every second or third book should be one that is hard for you to read, to understand; and in that way, you will eventually grow to understand, you will become more intelligent. Don't be afraid to look up words, to ask, to seek understanding.
The same goes, as I translated it, for music. And I've appreciated that greatly ever since. There was a time when I was only into rock. I was a rock snob, this was mostly my teen years. But when I was alone, I listened to all kinds of music and I continued to expand that vocabulary over the years. I still don't care much for Country, or easy listening or smooth jazz. But other than that, I'm good. Still, if its very good quality of any one of those areas I don't care for, I can appreciate it.
I also like a lot of the standard generally accepted music, just like anyone else. But stretching oneself is always a good thing. My kids are great for showing me where I'm falling down on that. Its both irritating at times and rewarding. Because its so easy for us to fall into complacency.
So ask yourself, in the area of music (and other things), just how far do YOU roll?
In that grouping I would put, Morton Subotnik, Wendy (Walter) Carlos, Glenn Gould, and in later years, Brian Eno, David Byrne, Philip Glass (and others) with such works of theirs as, The Wild Bull, Switched on Bach, Bach Piano Fugues, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, and Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance, respectively, and only to name a few. Of course, I also liked contemporary rock music of those times, Cream, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zepplin, Jethro Tull, on and on....
To say the least, my friends thought I was nuts when we were kids. But I've always searched out the Avant Garde, the unusual, the intellectually stimulating, even if I didn't at first (or ever) understand it.
This all came from a conversation with my mother's mother. My Grandmother once told me to always stretch oneself intellectually, to have friends that were above your intellectual capacity, to strive to be more educated. She told me that when you read a book for enjoyment, the next book should be one you don't quite understand in reading it. Or that at least every second or third book should be one that is hard for you to read, to understand; and in that way, you will eventually grow to understand, you will become more intelligent. Don't be afraid to look up words, to ask, to seek understanding.
The same goes, as I translated it, for music. And I've appreciated that greatly ever since. There was a time when I was only into rock. I was a rock snob, this was mostly my teen years. But when I was alone, I listened to all kinds of music and I continued to expand that vocabulary over the years. I still don't care much for Country, or easy listening or smooth jazz. But other than that, I'm good. Still, if its very good quality of any one of those areas I don't care for, I can appreciate it.
I also like a lot of the standard generally accepted music, just like anyone else. But stretching oneself is always a good thing. My kids are great for showing me where I'm falling down on that. Its both irritating at times and rewarding. Because its so easy for us to fall into complacency.
So ask yourself, in the area of music (and other things), just how far do YOU roll?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Gladio
In 1990 the existence of stay behind, Gladio secrets forces, who were hidden among the populations in Europe was made public. However, I never heard about this, until now. This seems to me, to be something that people should at very least, be made aware of.
On connaît dans nos colonnes le Dr. Daniele Ganser, qui travaille en Suisse, au Centre des Études de Sécuriuté de l’Institut Fédéral Suisse de Technologie de Zurich.
http://chakidor.aceboard.fr/13668-4732-17867-0-from-gladio.ht
Ganser: "Well, first I checked how NATO, the CIA, and MI6 reacted in 1990, because that was the year when Gladio's existence was revealed to the public. As for NATO, first they came out in a press conference declaring: NATO has never engaged in secret warfare; unorthodox warfare is none of our business. But the next day, they had another NATO spokesman declaring: What had been said the previous day is wrong, but we cannot provide further information, because it's all classified. So, NATO in 1990 actually admitted that they had engaged in secret warfare, but refused to provide any details."
It would seem that some of those forces, turned against the countries they were put in place to protect.Not untypical, putting elite forces secreted among a populace, to use their skills to better their situation. But it means those who put them there have a higher degree of responsibility to monitor them, if nothing else.
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=19591
http://insurrectiondaily.blogspot.com/2009/06/operation-gladio-nato-state-terrorism.html
http://chakidor.aceboard.fr/13668-4732-17867-0-from-gladio.htm
On connaît dans nos colonnes le Dr. Daniele Ganser, qui travaille en Suisse, au Centre des Études de Sécuriuté de l’Institut Fédéral Suisse de Technologie de Zurich.
http://chakidor.aceboard.fr/13668-4732-17867-0-from-gladio.ht
Ganser: "Well, first I checked how NATO, the CIA, and MI6 reacted in 1990, because that was the year when Gladio's existence was revealed to the public. As for NATO, first they came out in a press conference declaring: NATO has never engaged in secret warfare; unorthodox warfare is none of our business. But the next day, they had another NATO spokesman declaring: What had been said the previous day is wrong, but we cannot provide further information, because it's all classified. So, NATO in 1990 actually admitted that they had engaged in secret warfare, but refused to provide any details."
It would seem that some of those forces, turned against the countries they were put in place to protect.Not untypical, putting elite forces secreted among a populace, to use their skills to better their situation. But it means those who put them there have a higher degree of responsibility to monitor them, if nothing else.
http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=19591
http://insurrectiondaily.blogspot.com/2009/06/operation-gladio-nato-state-terrorism.html
http://chakidor.aceboard.fr/13668-4732-17867-0-from-gladio.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)