And another thing...

And another thing...

um...


Never mind. I forgot.

Status Report

Since the last time I posted, I have been asked the question four times, twice by the same person, the second time two days after the first.

Yeah, yeah, I can hear yuh sayin it: "Get over it, jerk!"

But something is wrong here, either with humanity or with me, or both. And I need to hang tough with my analysis. Anyway, when I was asked for the second time by the same person within two days, here's how the rest of the conversation went.

"I feel like a miserable, grotesque failure maggot. Thank you for asking."

"What?! That's not the answer I was expecting."

"Really, what answer were you expecting?"

"Well, I don't know... Usually...um..."

"Now, you feel a little nervous and anxious, right?"

"Yeah, just a little."

"And I'm the one who caused your discomfort, right?"

"Mmm Hmmm."

"And it doesn't help that I'm big and old and overweight and loud, does it?"

"Umm, no."

"Do you consider yourself an empowered woman?"

"HUH!?"

"See, I'm just what I said I am."

***

Okay, so I'm not generally likeable, I admit it. But I ask the question again: Isn't it possible that some unlikeable people are on earth to stir us up a bit and make us reconsider things we take for granted? Isn't that what makes some people unlikeable? Is always being able to take the same things for granted more important than *anything*? Is never having to feel uncomfortable more important than *anything*?

Why is it that just about everyone who, in the last 10 years, has said they were nervous around me, has been the same politically liberal adult females who, in other contexts, made such a big deal about how empowered they were?

Right. So now I'm a misogynist, right?

There goes that sexism in language again. There's a word for hating women - "misogyny" - but the equivalent word for men - "misanthropy" - means hatred for all human beings. I guess hating men is not a condition that requires being labeled.

***

You Know You're Ready to Move to the Seattle Area When, #1: You know you're ready to move to the Seattle area when you only like masculinity when it is exhibited my females, and femininity when it is exhibited by the U.S. military.

Fine, thanks. And how are you?

Lost In, and Hidden By, the Election

What will be the deciding factor in the neck 'n neck presidential election of 2004? So many people have been spending so much energy saying so many of the same old slogans to so many habitual "undecideds” that a lot of really important stuff has got to be getting lost in the rhetorical shuffle.

Possibility #1. The election will be decided on issues and substance (if "our" guy wins)
Possibility #2. The election will be decided on charming deception (if "their" guy wins)

Those are the two main schools of thought. Here's another, one that gets virtually no attention at all in the world of public policy hype. This election, as well as several if not all previous ones, might just be decided by - please! I beg for your brief indulgence - spirits.

That word usually hides more han it shows because, like the words flu and religion, it has too many possible definitions. It appears in front of liquor stores, as in "Wine and Spirits." It is heard at high school pep rallies, which are now called "spirit rallies." Or we hear that someone has a lot of "spirit," as in spunk or energy. Then of course, there are the TV preachers with their Holy and various unholy spirits. But what possible place do spirits have in presidential politics?

There are some provocative common threads in the examples just offered. The boozer becomes, in various combinations, looser, sillier, angrier, less bothered, more confident and eventually, sleepy. Significantly, the condition is not simply physical, emotional or intellectual. The effect of drinking alcohol is what we might call a wholistic one. Alcohol gets to your essence, wherever that is. We might say that alcohol changes one's "spirit" - one’s indefinable center of gravity. That is why it is called a spirit. To drink it is to, let us say, invite in a new spirit, perhaps along with a new year.

Likewise with a pep rally; what is going on there? Through various chants, called cheers, mildly ritualistic bodily movements, and inspirational speeches, students drum up a sort of group identity and group focus which motivates them to action, which often has something to do with defeating the other team (!). Much of the affect is conscious and planned, but as with alcohol, there is a great deal going on beneath the surface as well. Though pep rallies are usually harmless, it is worth noting that, down through history, similar behaviors have sometimes created volatile mobs.

In short , the affect is not unlike that produced by alcohol, except that the energies or forces are of a different kind. Still, the general tone of the psyche is changed: thoughts are gathered and focused in a certain direction, strong feelings are stirred, and certain inhibitions are dispensed with.

With all that in mind, here is a possible contemporary definition for the word spirit, one that accounts for the whole range of nuanced meaning, whether referring to alcohol, pep rallies, energetic children, TV preachers or psychologists.

Spirits are any of various powerful, largely subconscious attitudes or impulses within people that, crossing ordinary physical, psychological or social boundaries, express themselves inevitably in one’s behavior.

What will decide the election? The answer might just have something to do with spirits. The election of a president does not seem to be all that rational or conscious a process - for anyone. If it is so rational, why do most people say they hate negative campaigning when the professionals know negative campaigning “works”? Why would it be so important, as it clearly is, for media types to repeat the same talking points over and over again long after we can repeat them in our sleep? How could there be so many undecided voters when the two candidates seem so diametrically opposed? What makes otherwise normal people stand in the rain on freeway overpasses, waving and holding up signs, when all of us, no matter who we vote for, always end up disillusioned a year later? How can we get so excited about lawyers, who we despise and ridicule on a daily basis, just because they want to run for office and become even more unaccountable?

Without our conscious participation, we are imbibing some mysterious booze; we are surrounding ourselves with some covert pep rally. Is there a better way to explain the most disturbing fact of every election season - that with almost no thought at all, most of us are automatically certain that our own point of view is best, yet all we know of the other side are the usual over-simplifications, half-truths and bogeymen. Would we allow ourselves such blatant stupidity in any other area of our lives (not including sex)?

It's not a conspiracy, not in the usual sense of the term, because everyone - everyone - is being fooled by it. Through our choice of television shows, films, magazines, websites, books, music, school and church, through our chosen friends and social environments and workplaces - we are each spirited in some relentless direction.

Everything else is just the necessary habitual distraction we call our daily lives.

Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved

Fat and Happy

Yesterday, the question came from the girl behind the desk at my athletic club. "How are you today?" She was so bright and cheery and pretty and young and healthy and filled with hope and life. I don't think I was ever any two of those things at the same time, even thirty years ago, when I was approximately her age. (I'm quite sure I've *never* been pretty.)

My answer this time was "fat and happy," which usually produces a chuckle. I may be projecting my own self-negation, but I usually hear, included in that chuckle, the idea coming back at me, "That's for sure . . . although I'm not sure about the 'happy' part."

I forget why I started saying that - "fat and happy" - a long time ago. I'm almost never what you would really call "happy." I'm usually satisfied with "not pessimistic at the moment." But if I *was* feeling happy, as I said in an earlier entry to this blog, the question, "How are you today" would quickly wipe the smile off of my face, since I would immediately start analyzing my emotional condition and would no doubt find something wrong with it. Then I'd quickly get angry about shallow things that people say because they feel uncomfortable with a simple, "Hello."

Anyway, it's all called a "poor self-image" - which, at almost 50 years old, I definitely have to hide almost all the time because it is not acceptable.

Is a poor self-image really that bad a thing? Not at all, if the only alternative is to be deluded and arrogant and calling it self-confidence or "liking one's self." It never fails: whenever I hear someone say, "I like myself," it always seems like there's something uncomfortable that is being avoided.

Isn't it possible to like yourself and still be a dick?

Isn't it possible to have a poor self-image and yet be quite likeable?

The latter is certainly true. All of the people I have loved the most have been people that have had a habit of self-questioning, a habit that even got a bit morbid on occasion. And come to think of it, people who are always certain about their own rightness or value really do tend to create a lot of trouble for other people. Frustration if nothing else.

Here's a thought. Maybe we all, to some degree, have a poor self-image that we try, to some degree, to hide from by always being sure of ourself whenever we're in conflict with someone else? Sounds like a contradiction, but I think not.

I think I say "fat and happy" because, on some level, I'm trying to come to grips with the seeming contradiction - to be, as the psychologists say, "integrated." Maybe if you could hate yourself and love yourself at the same time, could sort of have a wedding and marry them and watch the couple live happily ever after, maybe that would be what Jesus meant by, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Or what Horace meant when he said (Epistles, I.iv.13), "If you want a good laugh, you will come and find me fat and sleek, in excellent condition, one of Epicurus' herd of pigs."

Or maybe you had to be there.

If you are integrated, you are probably less likely to overeat.

"Fine, thanks, and how are you?"

Making Hostility and Intolerance Look Like Compassion and Tolerance

Ahh, what games we play with ourselves in our minds. And they get so complicated. No wonder we usually walk around in a state of being fooled. Here's an example.

I am "tolerant" and "compassionate" - let us say - because I believe that the church should give official blessing to gay marriage, and because I believe that women should be "empowered" (only, of course, as that word is defined by the NOW, the NEA and at Evergreen State College), and because I am "against war," and because I want all races and ethnicities to live together in harmony and celebrate diversity.

Gosh! How tolerant I am! How compassionate! How I love peace and justice!

Here's the problem: What is usually going on underneath the rhetoric is that what I *really* treasure - above everything else - is my own pseudo-religious left-of-center ("liberal") viewpoint. And who I *really* tolerate (that is, easily like, with no effort) are all those people who agree with me and therefore affirm my sense of myself. And, hey! Look! The people who seem to agree with me most are usually gay, lesbian, non-white, feminist and poor.

Why, it works out perfectly! I get to feel superior and good and righteous and compassionate without ever having to consider those people who I would truly find *INTOLERABLE*, namely:

Gay Republicans
Black Conservatives
Men Who are not Ashamed of their John Wayne side
Females who feel completely fulfilled as wives and mothers
Those damned fundamentalists
SUV Owners
Anyone with a job in "big business"
Anyone with a job at an oil company

When I hate such people, it is not because I'm hateful or intolerant or lacking compassion or wish injustices upon them, it is because they alone - a very small and very dangerous minority - are keeping the rest of us from replanting the Garden of Eden.

I don't "hate" such people. I just don't need to take them into account while I am patting myself on the back for being so compassionate.

Today's Status

My intent with this blog site is to add to it every time someone asks me "How are you doing?" or "How are you?" or "How have you been?" or one of the other variations. It happened yesterday. I told the person to visit my website whenever s/he was really interested in a real answer to the question. Then we went on to have a significant half-hour conversation about more important things. In other words, my plan worked! So, to be true to my commitment to say how I'm doing:

-Very excited about the imminent publication of my book, Little Crucifixions.
-Very excited about the slightly less imminent release of my new music cd, "Love Goes On.
-Both to be available by the end of the year; I'm sure of it.
-Speaking of releases, go to Brianregan.com to see if his new comedy video is available yet. He is not only the funniest person who has ever lived; I believe there is something truly redemptive in his humor. You don't just laugh - you become more content with life. And that is no small service to mankind!
-"Mankind" - there it is. Will any reader of this blog ever read the word "mankind" and be " " " reminded " " " of what a sexist culture we live in? Sheesh! Can someone say "agenda addiction"? Try therapy.
-Someone told me that if pewpower.com gains any popularity at all, people will assume I'm behind it, and I'll never again be invited to speak at a church. Well, that is a danger, yes. But by the way, there are still plenty of churches out there that *really* *do* want to face the hard stuff.
-Right?
-I think I'm going to learn about locksmithing - in order to assist a great guy who works at that job locally.
-Emotions: I still cover the emotional geomorphology pretty completely in a given month. No change there. Eventually, you live so long on the earth that just about any regularly occuring sorrow is something of a comfort - just because it occurs regularly.
-Hey! Angela, Heather, Gabby, Jason, Fergus, Otis, Dani, Pat, Daniel, and all you others (you know who you are): I miss our togetherness. Anybody up for a reunion at the end of the year?
-I'm too fat and I hate myself for it; but evidently not enough to stop eating so much.
Okay now, bye bye then.

Regarding David Brame

Background:

January 17, 2002 News Item: David Brame Becomes Tacoma’s New Police Chief

April 27, 2004: David Brame Fatally Shoots His Wife and Himself, in a Public Parking Lot; the Investigation Begins


***


Long after the tragedy, do you ever catch yourself thinking again about David Brame? Back in September, a local opinion writer wrote, “...there must never be another police chief like David Brame.” Pretty obvious, but one question should not go away: why do conspicuous red flags like those in the Brame case go unrecognized or ignored?


The aforementioned writer responded with reference to Brame’s “various masks.” True again, but the haunting realization is this: everyone wears various masks. Every person you come in contact with today will keep uncomfortable aspects about him- or herself hidden from you. The fact should not produce paranoia, but neither should it be taken lightly.


Masks are unavoidable; a functioning society depends on citizens who do not act out their darkest impulses. The problem is that, in some ways, we are more dependent on falsehood than we care to admit. A police chief kills his wife and himself in a public parking lot, happy marriages suddenly end in divorce, well-adjusted teens suddenly commit crimes, the neighbor down the street suddenly commits suicide, riots break out in peace-loving Seattle.


Why do such events shock us? Because the unspoken agreement of virtually all our social interactions is: at all costs, avoid uncomfortable conversations. “I didn’t want to hurt their feelings... It’s none of my business... Don’t rock the boat... Who am I to judge?” Our everyday language is filled with the habitual slogans of willful ignorance.


Thus, those who are truly evil - “The People of the Lie,” in Scott Peck’s insightful phrase - do their deeds under the radar until some shocking event forces the blindfold from our faces.


Why does the Brame tragedy still haunt the most thoughtful among us? The same question can be asked about Sept. 11, O.J. Simpson, or dozens of other events that “shocked” us, then quickly became yesterday’s news. We know that it is only a matter of time before the next surprise eruption of violence. If we have the courage to look into our own habits, we know something else: we know that we avoid speaking up or acting against smaller evils when we notice them, when they can still be corrected with relatively conventional resources. Therefore, to one degree or another, we are complicit in the next shocking headline. That is an extremely uncomfortable idea. Who among us has the courage to chew on it for a while?


Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved