My Big Fat Wonderful World

Italy Lust

For nine months I have looked forward to being in Italy this week. If all had gone well I’d be joining in the celebration of a friend’s 60th birthday. He’d rented a villa in Sorrento and invited people from Maui and all over the mainland; thirty plus people convening on the Amalfi coast for fun and great food. The generous birthday boy has hired a chef to prepare the repasts three nights in a glorious row following the gang’s daily outings to Capri, Pompeii, Naples. The party-goers will spend at least one day at the local cooking school. I was really looking forward to it but the reality now is that I’ll miss it all.

Since I’ve made the decision not to go, I’m feeling sorry for myself. I can’t believe I was invited to such a dream trip and I didn't take advantage of the opportunity. I’m going to have to settle with transmissions from the front to satisfy my vicarious longing but listening to stories from the fringe really isn’t my style.

I’ll admit there is nothing I resent more than being left out of the party. Then again, being denied real Italian food possibly ranks even higher. I realize suddenly that I have to come up with something compensatory to avoid a sense of bitter remorse.

I started my damage control by ordering Lou Malnati’s Pizza online. I willingly paid the $25 dollars extra shipping to get it to Maui frozen by this weekend. It’s not Italian pizza but it’s the best pizza I can have shipped to the Hawaiian islands. Since I'm from Chicago it has the added advantage of being both a taste of home and the best pizza I can muster outside of Italy.

Nevertheless, when I think of real pizza I’m reminded of the little place in Naples where pizza was actually invented. This restaurant serves Pizza Margarita, pizza of the queen, the only real pizza according to the Napolitano. The waiter there treated me like I was Princess Diana. He flirted, teased, gave me an apron with a suggestive drawing on it. He took me into the kitchen and introduced me to the chef and owner. I have a picture of the incident-- me all glowing and embarrassed by so much attention. I recount all this because most importantly this was home to the best pizza in the world - one of the things I am missing it this week. Did I say that already?

While I was in Sorrento a few years back I caught a news article in the local paper that reported the local chefs were campaigning to legally restrict the ingredients used in pizza. If the chef in the local cooks' association had their way anything other than buffalo mozzarella made from the milk of the water buffalo at the foothills of Vesuvius, sliced plum tomatoes grown under the Naples sun, and fresh basil could no longer be dubbed “pizza.” Use any other ingredients, anywhere in the world and you would be fined for false advertising.

I thought it all pretty comical but the furror indicated to me that people in Naples have obviously had it up to here with people putting whatever they want on dough and calling it pizza. One chef was quoted in the article as saying, “Who puts pineapple on pizza? That’s blasphemy! That’s not pizza, that’s cake!” It’s probably reasonable to expect jail time for those of us who put ham and pineapple on pizza, no matter how you slice it.

The protective fervor Italians have for their recipes and traditions is heartwarming. I suppose that is what makes their cooking the most favored cuisine the world over. If you’ve ever watched a truly good Italian cook you’ll notice, unlike the French, who are very precise in their measure and method, Italians are more concerned with the overall outcome. In their fashion and their cooking the French may be more refined in some ways but the Italians are definitely sexier. That’s because to have really good sex and be a really good cook you have to be willing to get a little messy. You have to take chances. You follow certain prescribed rules but you also have to break away from them to suit your own palate and your mood. The Italians are experts at caring deeply about certain things that matter and not caring at all about things that don't- - at just the right time, as it suits the situation.

It's what Italians call la dolce vita, enjoying life in all it's marvelous messiness. Next to missing the big party of a certain birthday boy, it is the Italian attitude and philosophy of life I will miss most about not being in Italy this week. Which is also the reason the party was hosted in that far off place, I suppose.

Cheers to you, Mitch!

Islam Inside Out

There is an email circulating that attempts to explain the Islamic extremist's motivation. The claim is that inherent to Islamic belief anyone not a Muslim is consider an infidel and targeted for destruction.

I recently visited Istanbul and toured many mosques. I saw all these lovely people dedicated to prayer, the giving of alms, cleanliness and ritual. Intrigued to learn more about the religion behind these devotions, I found a book, rather basic, entitled, "Religions of the World." In it, I read about the history of Islam, who started it, how it developed, and the nature of its basic tenets. I felt rather ashamed that I'd not known more than the most essential facts about this major religion - didn't even know in which era it had sprung forth.

Now I know. And from what I can tell from the unbiased report in the text, the religion of Islam is based pretty closely in the laws of the nomadic tribes of the desert - just as early Christianity was based closely on Judaism which is also based pretty closely to the laws of the nomadic desert life. Survival in the desert is tricky - and the nomadic people lacking a firm and secure home base, adapted some "rules" that by today's modern industrialized standards appear to be pretty darn brutal. That’s what they had to be in order to survive. Just as all our ancient ancestors had to be. Everyone alive today had an ancient great-great-great-great (and so on for about a million generations) who was able to inflict the killing blow. The one he killed has no ancestor...that’s survival of the fittest.

So, I supposed we should lighten up when tempted to claim any holier than thou attitude toward people who seem a little more in touch with their inner brutality. It wasn't so many generations ago that all of us could make that claim. It's just that we in the West and industrialized "advanced" civilizations have turned our basic instincts to other things. Football, boardrooms battles of the will, road rage?

We substitute these things because long ago the great profits (I mean prophets) came along telling us we should abandon those primitive urges. When Moses came down from the mount and proclaimed that God told him from henceforth "thou shalt not kill" I imagine a few timid hands shooting up from the crowd to ask, "Uh, certainly there's some exceptions to that rule, right?" Because the law of the desert says that if someone kills someone in your family or clan, you are obligated to return the favor. Obligated. You have no choice. The wheels are in motion. It's the survival code of the dessert. This tablet of rules Moses presented was asking people to suddenly think entirely outside that box.

Everyone outside this desert code of honor today will say, "but that's completely insane! How will you ever stop the cycle? One kills, obligating another killing, obligating the killing in return... ad nauseum." And they would be right to come to this conclusion. It's insane, yet it's essentially human in motivation, albeit rather primitive. Survival. I will interject here that I in no way advocate this approach to conflict resolution. I merely use it to illustrate human beings’ most primitive, basic, primal, instinctive urges.

So back to the prophets. First Moses, and a major paradigm shift by bringing the Word of God to the Jewish people; then Jesus with the New Word for the Jewish people (his followers, of course, would become Christians, named after Christ and his teachings) followed by Mohammad, who founded the Islamic faith in the 600's A.D.. Islam is considered the third and final Abrahamic religion, after Judaism and Christianity. From a clan perspective, all members of these three religions originated from the house of Abraham.

Here's the thing I find interesting. Even though God clearly told Moses to tell his people to stop killing, committing adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, all those human instincts, humans just can't give up their instincts without a LOT of help and behavior modification. To become the "good" (GOD) people God seems to want us to become, we must turn in the face of the very nature He gave us. That presents a major internal conflict – the great conflict of good and evil. We want to obey the laws of God, so we tend to want to twist them around a little to suit our desires from time to time. Even the leaders of institutionalized religions do this. That's why Jesus argued with the Rabbis and threw the money changers out of the temple. Even they apparently hadn't really "gotten it" when Moses handed down his rules from the mount. Or so a follower of Jesus would interpret this.

So Jesus comes and offers some alternative plan for action. He shocks his people by suggesting they should turn the other cheek rather than retaliate to offense and attack. He strongly suggests they should take a new approach and turn inward rather than outward. He gains a lot of followers based on this philosophy - because although it's difficult, it seems to make sense to certain people. But it’s hard to change, so a lot of ritual is required to keep people on the straight and narrow.

The new early Christians, being converted Jews, clung to many of their traditions and ritual behaviors. You can’t change everything overnight! As the religion expanded across the region, the behaviors and traditions of newly converted pagans also influence and infused the new institution of Christianity; which sometimes caused some problems (and eventually lead to the split into Protestantism).

So along comes Mohammed and he sees all this conflict between Jews and Christians, and invading barbarians and pagans and he offers a new solution and even more ritualized behaviors. You can read about the basic tenets of this religion here but what's most important to know is that although all religions are based in love and charity and the word from their prophets, they are also all interpreted by flawed human beings who just may challenge and twist those truths to accommodate the justification that will allow them to follow their instinctive warring ways. Humans can't seem to get away from the tendency to be competitive to the point of waging war – often even in their own households.

It occurs to me that any religion that claims some sort of exclusivity of rights, allows its members to feel superior to others, professes to have primary rights to "paradise", or encourages its members to ostracize (or even to destroy) anyone who is a non-believer is anti-thetical to the basic principles of spirituality and love. It occurs to me, that for a religion to promote separation and ultimately - hatred of the "other" - is the ultimate hypocrisy and to some degree, a crime against humanity.

Unfortunately, that applies to a number of religions. They come into existence to help their members find unity and understanding, when in practice, directed by humans with infallibilities, they grow to foster the basic instinctive human inclination to gather in clans and war with other clans. Since it became socially unacceptable to war simply because you want the other clan's "stuff," we substitute a more socially acceptable motivation for taking someone else's stuff - and called it the holy war, or a war of principle, or philosophy or the fight for democracy or to defend a purportedly superior belief system. You get my drift. It's the basic human power struggle and battle of wills.

It's also still war and it's all still motivated by very basic and primal human drives to conquer and destroy (whether physically or philosophically) anyone outside the clan. These survival instincts are built into us and even when it’s not really necessary to war outside the clan, when we have all we really need to begin with, the urge wells up and off Johnny goes marching. Most nineteen year old boys and their commanders, older men who emotionally may not have grown much past nineteen because they found a career of tapping into their most primal motivations (and either get paid well for it or entitled to keep the riches of the plunder), continue to fuel and justify this ancient primal need. (Admittedly, not all military commanders are overgrown boys, bear with my generalizations here.) Some of us try to stop them from their destructive rallies, most of us let them go, realizing it's probably futile -- and dangerous -- to intervene.

Women don't share this instinct to fight, well, not physically anyway. Interestingly, somewhere along the line this balanced perspective of the Christ having both a feminine (Sophia, or wisdom) along with the male characteristics, was conveniently dropped from the Christian doctrine somewhere along the way. We don't hear or see the seven female disciples of Jesus (I'd love to see Mel make a movie of THAT). But this feminine balance is essential if followers are to tap into the full meaning of that religion. So I've gone from the comparisons of the Abrahamic religions to this loss of the feminine balance, as I believe the loss of that is inherently behind many of the problems in today's world.

Women's role in society is maternal, nurturing, providing the balance to this struggle for human survival. The story of the Wisdom of Solomon could not have been told if the father had disputed the claim to the child. The feminine energy tempers the basic human instinct to fight and kill. In war, women view the enemy boy who is hurt as another mother's son. Women view any child who is harmed as their own child. Women can find no justification for killing (unless they are admittedly insane) unless they are first-handedly protecting their own children from attack.

So, a religion, an institution, a society, a government, that tries to eradicate the balance of the feminine energy in their eco-system is repeatedly doomed to fail. In a nutshell, that's what I see happening too often.

I believe in all the truths laid out by the great religions and their prophets. I believe love is our Savior. I believe the only real value in applying religious or spiritual principles is personal, to improve the individual. Like ripples in the pond, the individual’s change and growth is simultaneously a universal one. I accept that every individual is where they are on their own path, and I grant them the compassion, love and respect to be there, even as I encourage them to develop themselves further to become more deeply rooted in the arms of Love.

So although it is wise to keep informed on the world’s activities, I would suggest resisting the urge to become trapped by it. What can we do? Jump on a bandwagon? Add to the unrest?

I recommend turning off the CNN reports. Instead, take that time to meditate on yourself as an individual. Trade in your SUV for a hybrid. Reduce your consumption. Be more generous. There is really only one thing in life you can control – and that is your own behavior. From what I can tell, that’s really at the heart of what every great prophet has come to tell us.

Personally, I’d still rather listen to them than anyone else.

Company

Living in a resort community, I often hear the murmured comments of my colleagues who frequently host out of town visitors in their Maui homes. Hosting is a double edged sword, as we all know. We want to be hospitable, to enjoy extended visits with our cherished friends, and to be good sports. But there is no doubt that such extensions of our hospitality are stretched at times when other people invade our private quarters. It's only human to occasionally react in less than gracious ways. ;)

The lyrics to this song represent the part of the host experience that every so often leaves us feeling like a tea kettle about to boil. Take it in the spirit intended - I'm offering my colleagues a chance to blow off a little steam while reading or singing this. After all, I said it; they only thought it!

Company

I’m not sure how to say this
And protect your tender feelings
I admit at times I can be rather gruff

But to all our many house guests
You should know my head is reeling
And I really do believe I’ve had enough.

Company! It’s been too much!
Though I love you so, old such and such,
After three days fish start stinking
And by gosh it’s got me thinking
Before I get worked up and start to scream and shout
It might be time we asked our house guests to get out.

Company! You come to stay
Problem is, you don’t go away!
First we show you all the sites
Then you monopolize our nights
Now I hope you’ll start to see what experts think.
That, like fish, after three days guests start to stink.

Company! You love the sun.
Our swimming pool is so much fun.
A free vacation, you can’t beat it
So please don’t force me to repeat it
When I dream longingly of my sweet honeymoon
I do believe it’s time you called the Ritz and booked a room!

Company! Please understand,
I’ve tried to be a patient man
But when my routine's disrupted
My sense of order gets corrupted
And you should know irregularity takes a toll
So for my sanity's sake why don't you take a stroll?

Company! Don’t get me wrong
It’s not as if you’ve stayed too long.
The first week was quite delightful
It’s now week six and I’ve grown spiteful
I can’t quite even find the time to go and take a ----- run!
And as welcomes go let’s just say that yours is done.

Privacy! Is what I lack,
My constitution’s out of whack
It’s time that I fought back for what’s mine
So will you please stay elsewhere the next time!
Don’t take offense at all these honest things I say
Don’t go away upset or mad –
Just go away!

Placebo Me

You know the old saying, "must be something in the water?" There may be more to that than you think.

It seems as if it's daily "news" that science comes out with further proof of the theories featured in the film "What the Bleep Do We Know Anyway?" If you've seen the film you'll know of the experiment where a scientist printed different words on a bottle of water and found the words actually impacted the molecular structure of the water depending upon their meaning. When I heard that, I thought in practical terms - I wondered if the word had been printed in a foreign language would the bottle have understood it? Does water speak different languages depending on its heritage and origin? Or did it matter the language itself, since the effect of the word on the water seemed more a result of the intention the word inspired from the human who spoke or wrote the word. Does that make sense? Gosh, I hope so. Don't make me explain it again.

The whole point of "What the Bleep.." is that science is constantly proving up the validity of much of the same ancient wisdom that science had formerly rejected as poppycock. Seems the ancients understood something on a deeper, more poignant level that actually was never in defiance of the laws of nature. Although for a while there science was expanding our understanding of things using the increasing power of technology and observation. Many of those leaps and bounds appeared to negate long-held beliefs as mere mythology. So it's interesting to see that when we look a just little deeper into the matter it seems after all that it IS wise to keep praying and filling our heads with good intentions - because it works! Science formerly told us it shouldn't work, but now they are coming around to see that it does. You know that saying about a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing? We learned about atoms and molecules and germs and realized they were running the show rather than forces our ancestors believed in. But what about the space between the atoms in the molecules? What about all the things we haven't yet discovered? I predict we will end up full circle on all this because that has also been predicted throughout the ages in myth and legend.

I was watching an enlighting program this morning - a lecture given by Dr. Serge Kahili King wherein he stated, "if someone wanted to really make a fortune he'd bottle placebos since they have accomplished more cures than all the drugs on the market put together." In essence, if you believe something will do you good, it will.

So it seems the rituals and wives tales that supposedly cured ailments in the past were actually based less in metaphysics than on quantum physics.

Anyway, if water changes its structure and power merely from the influence of human intention, then I suppose if we all thought real hard on anything we could move mountains. We could lower the temperature of the oceans and end global warming or anything else we need and want to accomplish. Not by magic and waving a wand, but by being intentional about how we live. It seems a worthwhile practice to mind your intentions it having been proven scientifically to have dramatic impact.

If they help to expand this awareness, I give those marketers and entrepreneurs credit for coming up with the peace, love, fortune and happiness infused water. But I'm not giving them my money. I'm more inclined to write my own words on my water bottle. I'm sure that doing so myself will bprove to be much more inspirational to the water.

Got A.D.D.? Get Cartoon Network

This article This landed in my inbox today and set me to thinking. It was just the other day that our middle school kids reported that they figured about half their classmates supposedly suffered from ADD. I had to ask myself how could it be that half the population has ADD? Has ADD now become a state of normalcy? And if so, how can we continue to deem it a “disorder?”

I suspect that it’s more likely that parents hold such high expectations for their children nowadays that anyone who isn’t absolutely focused, restrained, disciplined and motivated by society’s acceptable means may be termed difficult. They are too smart for boring classrooms, too creative for the inside the box thinking we demand of nearly everyone currently. Of course, I’m not saying in many instances the diagnosis of A.D.D. isn’t legitimate.

The author of the article, a noted M.D., suggests a sense of detachment lies at the bottom of it all, caused by our technological, info-tainment society where newscasters report horrific details of current events then shift light-heartedly into banter about sports and weather, as if no emotion is the best emotional response to what is going on around us. We mistake the proclamations made by a TV actor playing the role of president as policy. The author suggests we no longer know the difference between fact and fiction and take our cues from performers as to how we ourselves should behave and respond to real life.

According to the author, the kid used as example in this article, supposedly marked with A.D.D. and an identity disorder that leaves him on the “outside looking in,” is a result of all this packaged identity that pours out of the media. But I’m not sure I buy into that theory entirely, with all due respect to the esteemed professional who suggests it.

My generation grew up on TV, watching Leave It to Beaver and Gunsmoke, but at a certain age we learned to realize the difference between pretend and real. It seems to me that no matter what’s put before you on the media the bigger issue to developing a true sense of your own identity is to have the freedom to learn for yourself who you are by trying things and finding out what you care about and enjoy. Perhaps this kid just hasn’t found his outlet yet. Maybe he’s torn between pleasing his parents’ model of what he should be and gaining his friend’s acceptance in expressing his true self. How many people are allowed that freedom these days? Who has a chance when the minute you step outside the box you are put on drugs to curb the urge?

All kids want to fit in, most teenagers in particular. But I find that the range of acceptable is becoming so narrow that we send kids to therapists and put them on Prozac the minute they stray from the narrow confines of what constitutes “success” and living up to their presumed potential – which translates to our expectations.

Take me for example, and no, I’ve never taken prescription drugs. But I have been accused of being slightly weird so I can relate my own experience to the kid in the article.

Having been so very productive and creative lately – writing those scripts and developing products and such – I find myself suddenly in a self-imposed lull. I, like all sane humans, must do this from time to time in order to fan the flames later. If you keep running at such a high burn level it’s pretty obvious that you will – well, burn out. So here I am trying to avoid burn-out and finding I’m rather bored as a result. Instead of relishing the time off, lingering over a book or movie, splashing in the ocean and feeling good about the glorious freedom I’ve allowed myself, I feel a little addled, unfulfilled, and restless. As if I had ADD. Maybe I’m depressed…

Or, perhaps it’s just the result of the uncomfortable feeling that comes from having been constantly stimulated for so long. If I were a kid, I’d be required to suffer this imposition regularly; in the classroom, at the dinner table, on a bus, in church. I’d find myself getting fidgety when nothing much was going on. My brain would wander, searching for the high-level stimulation to which it has become accustomed, which it now prefers. I’d start throwing spitballs or shuffling or swaying – as I do in the grocery store checkout line even today. And my parents would tell me to stop it right now.

So like me, ADD kids may run from activity to activity, distraction to attraction to find at some point in the process they will either suffer burn-out, exhaustion or suffer boredom. In fact, most things in their lives may come across as boring and uninspiring. Often times when really restricted, the kid turns to drugs or alcohol to further numb the creative urges that find no home. Personally, I’ve chosen instead to just keep creating – and try not to let anyone stop me. I’m an adult now, so I can do that most of the time. But kids can’t.

I know it’s not just me feeling this way and I seriously doubt I would clinically qualify as having ADD. The cycle and its resulting trials appear to be society wide.

Have we lost our comfort level with those who are a little different? Where other society’s seem to embrace certain eccentricities, we blast them. Unless they happen to make a fortune with their weirdness, like Bill Gates or George Lucas – in which case they are heroes. (But still weird.) How do they handle this in other societies? What of those elements that having us flocking to Europe so we can sit at cafes and while away the hours sans guilt? I’ve noticed in Europe that there’s a much broader array of dress, mannerisms, quirkiness. We have to go overseas to indulge ourselves this way because if we do this at home we’d be called shiftless and odd, if not by our neighbors and bosses, then by our inner critics.

But those kids of ours - relentlessly playing video games and goofing up and making a mess and spinning around for no good reason at all but to get dizzy - they must have A.D.D. I think we simply envy their freedom. That’s why we give them pills to snatch that pure freedom away. We calm them down; make them get back to work; show them how hard it is to get to where we got. Nose to the grindstone.

I wonder if Europeans suffer from rampant A.D.D? Are they uncomfortable whiling away the hours doing rather mindless things that won’t add up on their resume or account in their paychecks? Don’t they feel ashamed shutting their louvers from 1-5 p.m. and letting all that potential business go to waste while they – ulp - nap? We Americans work, work, work to get more, more, more and have less, less, less when we actually get to where we thought we were going. And we are surprised the kids reject this notion of life?

At what point will the inevitable depression sink in as they, too, are caught in a meaningless quest plugged along by pills and promises? When the truth is, as my wise coach pointed out to me today, the happiness is always right there in the doing. Right there in spinning ‘round watching the clouds and carving images in the dirt with the toe of your shoe. Right there in the moment of creation. What comes from it later is just gravy, or merely to put gravy on the table.

This tells me that if you are not engaged in the very thing makes you happy in the doing, good luck, because the satisfaction and happiness likely won’t come later on either. Maybe the pride and sense of accomplishment will. After all, you worked so hard and deserve to be commended, but unless you loved what you were doing all along it’s very unlikely the payoff will make up for it. Perhaps this is what kids know and we’ve too often forgotten.

But there’s another aspect to this. We all need a story to tell and share. When kids spend a huge amount of time in a virtual world, to whom do they tell their story? What do they deliver over the dinner table when the question is posed, “so what did you do today?”

So Cut to the Chase
In another in-box notice from the wonderful webzine called “Conversation Matters,” I am reminded of the power of mini-stories. Over time, from Plato to Jesus, the power of relating a concept or idea via a proverb, story or myth, is the most powerful because people love to hear stories. They want to be reminded that someone else out there has experienced similar things. That’s why when you try to teach a lesson to a kid, or an adult for that matter, a story almost always illustrates the matter better. “Let me tell you what happened to so-and-so when he tried that…”

So why don’t we follow the example of the great masters and teach and share more via stories? Perhaps we’ve decided that stories take too long. But a good story is brief – two minutes max. Teaching kids directly, giving them instructions, problems, and tasks is likely not as effective in gaining their true involvement and attention as good, efficient story telling.

So many of the things my kids impress me with - insights, awareness, melodies of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, all the things I know I never introduced to them directly but they somehow know - they’ve learned from TV and video games, and very occasionally, from real life. They seldom note an unexpected bit of knowledge was gleaned from a lecture or a textbook. “I saw a special on TV,” or “It was on Cartoon Network” are more likely their cited footnotes. But we must be watching and playing the same things to have a connection to “what they are doing.”

In an interview recently, Sting cited the myriad entertainment choices we now have as a major loss to society – we are lost in the vastness of the former gathering place. Long ago we sat around a campfire and listened. Then we gathered at great coliseums to watch together. In our generation, we gathered round three channels of technology – the TV – and at least experienced as a family together this virtual fantasy where we learned things, directly or not. We had a basis for connection.

But what are your kids doing? How can they share the gains they made on a video game over the family dinner when their parents have no clue? What are our alternatives? If man lost his connection to his meaning when society shifted from agricultural – where the results were real and authentic – to industrial – where at least there was a product at the end of the day, where is our connection to one another in the age of technology?

As novelist John Steinbeck wrote, "We are lonesome
animals. We spend all of our life trying to be less lonesome.
One of our ancient methods is to tell a story begging the
listener to say - and to feel - 'Yes, that is the way it is,
or at least that is the way I feel it. You're not as alone
as you thought.'"

Maybe we may need more means to connect together in ways that all members of the family and society can tap into and be entertained. And it’s true that while everyone is off in their own corner tapping away at a keyboard, there’s not much interaction going on.

Which reminds me, I have to go…

Intelligent Design

An article running on today's news states that a fifty one percent majority of Americans dismiss the theory of evolution. Of those who accept it, only fifteen percent believe we evolved at nature's whim rather than the direct design of God.
Hmmmm....

If that's true, I've got some questions for God, then. Like what took You so long? And why did You leave us with this appendix that serves no purpose but to occasionally burst? Why did You create a race of little people only to wipe them out later? Or a race of very large people who ended up not being able to survive the heat? Investigations show that, indeed, such people once existed on earth.

Why didn't God just plunk down Adam and Eve in perfect Barbie and Ken form (or Lau and Chun form) and let us "evolve" from there into genius' and supermodels all? In religious questioning I've always found at this point someone brings up the "devil" to explain things if they get messed up - when nothing else explains the contradictions in God's creation. But wasn't Lucifer a creation of God, too? Oh, do you think this could be allegorical for the good and evil in all of us?

Which then swings to the topic of "free will" which suddenly assigns man with enormous personal responsibility when the theory of creation falls short to explain such contradictions. We want to believe in God, but we want control, too.

Isn't it uncanny that such similar creation theories, myths and stories exist in nearly all cultures regardless of whether or not they acknowledge a One True God of the Bible? The Bible did not invent the Creation theory. What makes it more reliable than the theories of the ancient Polynesians or tribal Africans? Jesus wasn't around during the time it was written and as I understood the meaning of Jesus' work on earth, it was at least partly to clear up a few things in the way the Old Testament was being interpreted by His people - the Jews.

Jesus was Jewish, but He renounced certain icons and misunderstandings held noble and dear to the hearts of His own people, only to be accused of blasphemy and wickedness. He told the people it really didn't matter which expensive dove they brought to sacrifice at the Temple, or where they sat in the Synagogue, or how rich and powerful they were. The concept that the pauper and Samaritan were the same in the eyes of the Father was novel to the Jewish understanding of the Bible back then. They had taken things written a bit too literally.

Jesus angered the Rabbis with many such clarifications. I suppose, like the Popes who came later, it was to their better interest to have the followers believe they would get to heaven faster by showering their leaders with precious gifts. But Jesus became most furious himself when He found His people using the Temple as a trading post. If you've ever been to the Vatican, you can see how utterly ironic and convuluted a Religion supposedly based upon these novel teachings of Jesus became. Same story, different century.

Perhaps, like the Jews during Jesus' day, many Christians likewise hold on to what they believe are "truths," however they've been communicated throughout the ages or corrupted by interpretations and translations. We pick our truths, apparently, just as we always have, even in the face of clear and present evidence to the contrary. Reading the message board posts following the release of this "news" about evolution vs. intelligent design, you can see very few people seem to understand the real purpose of their beliefs. Love. Spirit. Acceptance. Out of the world.

Jesus said, "My Kingdom is not of this world." "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's." Consistently He differentiated between the two when the common man attempted to get satisfaction regarding some worldly issue based on Jesus' preachings. "No," He would say when asked about taxes or the behavior of a vile neighbor, "That's not really my concern." I love Jesus for that.

Jesus focused on the spirit, nothing more, nothing less. He tried to tell other religious leaders they should be doing only that as well. The most important part of our existence lies beyond our senses - beyond life as we know it. Concern with our body, the physical world, what evolves on earth, seems to have been left to something else. Jesus said it Himself. God concerns himself with love and spirit. Not evolution. Not "intelligent" design. Intelligence is the work of the brain. God just is. No brain. Tough concept. I don't get it entirely, because I, too, am so grounded in my physical intelligent self, but I sense a glimmer that can see past this and into what could be meant by God.

I've got more questions. If we are the result of "intelligent" design by a Great Spiritual entity, why are we "programed" to eat as much as we can when it's too much for us to handle? Why are we prone to addictions when it's so bad for us? Why do men inherently seek to procreate even when it goes against the rules and norms of modern society, never mind the biblical statements against such behavior in the context of marriage? Why didn't God just pick one single race and stick with it so we wouldn't have to deal with prejudice and bigotry? Why can some people understand complex theories and others simply reject what doesn't suit their own personal needs? At what point in time did God supposedly "design" man then let nature take it from there? Post neanderthal? Cro-magnum? When? At what point along the way?

In general, I don't understand the conflict. I realize that people really don't like their cherished notions challenged by science. Galileo was spared a death penalty when he claimed the Earth was not the center of the universe only because he had friends in the Vatican and he was a devout Christian. Thus, his heresy presented too great a conundrum. It wouldn't be right to have him killed. So the church leaders created a loophole in his case. Others, of course, were not so fortunate. Back then, it seemed utterly threatening to the concept of the church and God to make such a shift in thinking. But the belief inGod survived that vicious attack of scientific proof. What about the theory of evolution? What does it threaten?

If science and the elements and quantum physics and virus' and natural disasters are made by God, and I presume by God we mean the supreme maker of all things, then why would those aspects of creation and how they go about their business possibly be in conflict with this God's overall universal design? Why, when we discover something new and learn that perhaps the stars aren't, after all, little dancing pictures of the Gods or Goddesses, or that perhaps witches are not causing the plague but rather virus' and bacteria, we manage to abandon parts of the false paradigms previously prescribed, but not quite all of it? We cling to those that still serve our purposes - but why bother?

What difference does it make in the arena of religious beliefs how animals and man evolved besides inquiry and curiosity? Man is an animal in the scientific description of such and would thus be held to similar "rules" of development and behavior. Is this so offensive? If so, why? Isn't man a creation of God? Aren't the birds. And no, birds won't immediately switch into whales - a ridiculous example someone used to support the evolution theory - but evidence reveals dolphins may have once been land mammals - with finger bones in the fins very similar to our own hands. Dolphins communicate and intuit. I personally am happy to acknowledge this kinship with all animals and take no offense at the suggestion I may just be another split off the old block whether it's a whale, ape or lizard. What makes man so high and mighty besides their own egotistical need to believe such?

Yet, all religions teach that the spirit is all that supposedly matters in the end. Does your animal qualify? Does it feel love? Does it seem to sense your feelings? Do cats to go heaven? What do we know? Love is all there is in the end - and we call that force "God." Why not leave it at that. God does the love thing, and the world of nature that he created takes care of the rest. It changes and evolves and we do, too, along with the physical world. Which will come to a crashing end just as it began - someday. And we, as individuals and species, will cease to exist in physical form - just as we came from nothing but a grand natural design that turned sperm and egg into us.

So whatever form we take on earth - however that form is represented - is a moot matter anyway. To that, whether or not you believe God plunked down man quite suddenly millions and gazillions of years after he decided to create a universe and subsequently an earth formed of molten gasses (yes this planet was happenstance but a singular creature that inhabits it is not?!) and of all his miraculous creations decided to empower that one single being with reason and thought that consistently attempts to defy the logic of the rest of the evidence based in the universe to date - doesn't really matter much.

We're here. We really don't know why or how. We've chosen for the most part to assign the undetermined aspects of our understanding of our existence to a being known as God, something, someone for which we have no evidence besides a feeling deep in our hearts. Similar to love, yes. This supreme Being appears to us totally contradictory most of the time. As does love. He spares us every once in a while, but damns us to pain at other times, and we aptly construct a rationale as to why in the face of that overwhelming contradiction. We have given God human attributes of what we experience as love and our physical life because that's the best we can do. People have tried over the ages, both wise and wacky people, to explain how they think it might be. But no book or treaty or philosophy really nails it because like Tau - if you try to define it, you lose it. Like a rainbow. Like humility.

So what's all the talk about? I accept scientific discovery as just that - discovery and investigation. It's only what we think we know to date. Theories that just years ago were accepted as fact are being debunked all the time. I accept religious theory the same way. All the things we can't understand we assign as the work of God. God has reasons. I sure hope and believe He does. But I don't believe his concerns or reasons have much to do with our physical experience.

But man has made this mistake (IMHO) throughout the ages. On one hand he insists the spirit and the great eternal is the most important thing, then pretends at whim that God is interested in whether or not you win the lottery or your theory is better than someone else's. Poppycock! God has much better things to do. Like plead for your soul.

There may be a reason we fight so hard to hold fast to our preconceived ideas but mostly it seems for our own amusement. I like the bumper sticker that says "your dogma just ran over my Karma." :) I always hope these things lead to bigger, more useful discoveries where we might honestly find the focus on our spirit and soul and realize love really IS all there is.

Meanwhile, we are the most amazing creatures, I'll give us that.

Box Office Bonanza

How to Restore Sagging Box Office Revenues

Hollywood should listen to me. I have the answer to their recent spate of bad box office numbers - and no, it's not the old "just make better movies" (which is the old Woody Allen-esque answer to the great question of who am I and why am I here.) My idea is much more simple and potentially lucrative.

First you should know that Hollywood searches desperately for great material to produce into movies. Since it's not easy to recognize great material, Hollywood relies to heavily on past great material to show them the way. But anything which is remade or repackaged can't possibly have the same great results as it did the first time. (Note: Herbie the Love Bug, among others). It's like telling a great joke again at a party or doing anything unique and fresh and unexpected. When it's done, it's done and won't ever be the same again. The other issue is that once a studio owns the material, it can repackage it and not have to pay again for rights and a new script. Now you and I know that Herbie the Love Bug was really cute in the '60's when we were all very stupid, but it's not so cute anymore. Is anyone surprised this was not such a big hit besides the studio who financed it?

Hollywood takes huge financial gambles on things they can only hope will have stellar results far down the road. With so many factors weighing in - including tempermental zeitgeist, which is so unpredictable, it's a very tough call and one I wouldn't even want to gamble on.

I mean if someone approached me and asked if I wanted to invest in a film about - well, anything!- I'd start getting the willies. That's why indies are much more popular these days. Independent film makers have proven you can make a good movie with little money and then even if it's not all that great, you aren't out too much.

Or do they just not make 'em like the used to? I am a huge fan of four star things in general and rather than squander too much time on less than fabulous films, I often resort to watching an old favorite when it shows up on TMC. I've made it a goal to see the top 500 movies ever made, even when the subject matter doesn't grab me like "Force One from Navaronne" or "North by Northwest."

So, the point is, the other night this classic, Grand Hotel with Garbo no less, shows up on my TV. And it doesn't hit me as all that terrific. I'm suspicious that many old classics would not be all that well received if they were made today, unfortunately. We have so many choices in what we see and do that it's become very, very difficult without exceptionally stunning material and performers to have a hit on your hands. You know, like Desperate Housewives and Survivor proves.

Okay, I'm being a little sacastic. Sexy soap operas, just like tell-all news sheets for inquiring minds and things in brown wrappers will always will always grab the golden entertainment ring because there's a broad audience for such things. But hitting the right chord that resonates with the average Joe and the entertainment sophisticate and critic - that's a very different story.

Exacerbate this whole challenge with the interference of internet, DVD's, digital cable, HDTV and you see that going to the movies has changed from a Saturday night staple to a take it or leave it option. I don't even seem to make it to the movies to see things I really want to see! I catch more movies on airplanes and in hotel rooms than anywhere else. Which leads me to believe that direct-to-DVD or internet streaming is not such a bad thing at all.

Now here's my idea. Not long ago during a flight to LA from Maui, I found myself shedding a few heartfelt tears while watching a movie I would never ever bother to watch or react to were I not in the air. I mentioned this phenomena to some friends. We concluded in our very unscientific study that in truth, there is something about being in the airplane, high above the earth, away from your family, in a somewhat subconscious but none-the-less heightened sense of jeapordy, with strange oxygen levels circulating in your sluggish blood, that makes everything seem more sentimental and heightens your emotions. Since the main purpose of movies is to make you feel emotion - bingo! There you have it. The winning formula.

There's no real need to make more emotional movies (and that includes hilarity as well as drama). All promoters have to do is recreate that airplane aura in movie theaters. If they could only make something happen in that theater that would draw people back again and again no matter what drek or treacle is playing, audiences would have an experience worth remembering. And they'd tell all their friends about it. And hey, you can't get that on internet or pay for view!

If you're thinking this sounds a little like Total Recall where you get an IV instead of taking a fabulous vacation, I know it does. But since our brains don't know the difference, why not?

Well, it's just an idea...

Dear Mom and Dad

Dear Mom and Dad,

Well, I can’t believe all that’s happening. Last week I went to San Diego to the film festival and was inspired by some pretty cool films and the fact their directors are so young these days.
This really drives home the point there ain’t much time left to get to all the dreams I’ve put aside. It sort of pisses me off that it’s taken me so long to get the nerve to even approach this field from the side by writing screenplays but I'm having so much fun with it, who cares? I found a number of people who seemed interested in reading my screenplays, so that's great. I don't even care whether or not they like 'em, that's how much I enjoy writing these stories. If they like them, that's just frosting.

It’s the strangest thing though – back when I was in college I always wanted to write plays but being no Arthur Miller, I just figured I’d be a secretary instead. I mean, I figured everyone looked at a situation and conjured up a “what if” then took it a step further in their minds and then spent the next five or ten minutes imagining the movie they’d write about that guy over there with a look on his face so poignant and painful that you just know there is a great story behind it. Yes, I imagined everyone did this so I thought little of the fact that I spent an inordinate amount of time in my head. If I hadn’t been so clever otherwise, I’d have flunked out of everything as a result of this preoccupation. As it was, I only just forgot where I put my purse or left the keys. Because I was somewhat inept when it came to math because it did not allow me to make up stories about the numbers (though I tried, believe me) I figured being a secretary was probably a decent alternative – at least for a few years. The job gave me lots of free time at my desk to make up things.

It’s also occurred to me again recently at the Film Festival that I would have, in fact, adored being an actress. The trouble was, as it still is, I feared the life and exposure that being an actress would bring. Even in college it just seemed to me that too many show biz people were entirely too weird for my blood. Having to spend the majority of my time in their company would surely mess me up further than I already was. They were all doing the story drama in their heads thing, too, so how would I know what was and wasn’t if they were the only people I spent my time with? I mean, it is little wonder so many of those Hollywood types get messed up. I knew all along I couldn’t handle it. I'd be the first one flipping out on the movie set and hypervenhilating in the trailer.

So I nixed the actress thing and just became a mom instead where pretending that I was really hurt, angry, sullen, shocked, bemused came in handy for entertaining babies and toddlers. I always refused to get botox because it would ruin my “you’ve really done it now” look so necessary for getting my sons to behave. (Now that they are older, of course, botox is a possibility since I've permanently implated that expression on my brow line.)

I’m telling you the truth though, I do think I could have been a really good actress as long as they didn’t ask me to do accents. In theater classes that was my undoing – the accents. I was trying out for Oliver once and was asked to do the accent. The cockney came out cold and I sounded like a Bollywood soap star instead of Nancy, which required I flee the stage in tears. “I’ll never be an actress!” I lamented, sobbing into my future co-star's shoulder, proving right there that I needed some sort of outlet for my dramatic soul. But acting would not be it.

Not then, anyway. But I’ve been thinking lately that now that I’m older and not so vulnerable and realizing that dreams are there for the taking no matter when you finally take them, I’m wondering if I couldn’t just nab a little part in an indie film and put that scowl I’ve perfected over the years to really good use.

I’d like to play the scary lady who lives in the woods and tends to her antique doll collection and garden with great precision while all the kids in the area think she’s really way out there when all she really wants is someone to see her for who she truly is because after suffering all those heartaches and setbacks in her life her brilliant mind has gone somewhat to fodder but her heart still paints in the broad strokes of a child so all it will take is a kid to unlock the …

Wait. Maybe I’ll just write the part I want to play for my big debut. That's an idea.

The real point of all this is that it is so exciting to just go for it while you still can. Maybe it's especially better when you are getting older, because then you know you don't have forever and the fact you are just doing it is so freakin’ exhilarating that I have a feeling one thing leads to another and teaches you at long last that you should never, ever lose touch with your dreams and never, ever let being afraid keep you from pursuing them.

Lately it seems to me that fact is life’s only true story.

Beauty, Schmeuty

Speaking of beauty, have you noticed a trend lately that has marketers extolling the virtues of "real women" as opposed to unrealistically beautiful and skinny models? From Dove soap to chic jeans, Nordstrom to Macy's, we see more older and "average" women selling products.

The shift to hiring more "natural" models is in response to the critics, of course, women themselves who moaned and complained that for some reason seeing pictures of unrealistically gorgeous models made them feel worse about themselves. I don't personally understand this reasoning. In the same way that I don't feel bad about not being a better actress when I watch a Meryl Streep movie since I'm not an actress, why would I feel bad about not being a fashion model when I see one in a catalog?

Okay, so I digress again with my ridiculous logic. The truth is, most women carry a little sense of insecurity at times and the air-brushed, cameo smooth skin of the fifteen year old fashion model apparently sends them running to the shrink in tears. Sometimes the pressure even turns them into fashion victims, plastic surgery-addicted, anorexics. I think most of us can handle seeing pretty young things draped in the stuff we are considering buying for ourselves and can make the switch in our minds between them in it and us in it. But what do I know?

The retailers and marketers have responded to the criticism and now give us their new approach in campaigns celebrating our various shapes and sizes, ages and complexions. The question now - is it working? Personally, I seem to like carrying around a little fantasy in my head because when I see the older dumpier models in Nordstrom, even the beautiful lady with the perfect gray pageboy - you know the one - I don't really want to relate to her. I don't like seeing the truth so blantantly revealed via this model's widened frame of how I'll also look in my new Eileeen Fisher style "let's try to hide the extra few pounds with fabric" pantsuit. No, I do not like it at all.

To explain why I don't respond to this, I'm going to take a chance here and draw another analogy. Say you are in a hotel room and are flipping through the channels and Whoa! There is the sort of video playing you don't typically rent at home but hey, there it is and it's pretty darned ... interesting. You know the type I mean? Okay, let's say now that the star of said video is pretty well... endowed. This often makes the whole thing even more...interesting. And, what is the result of said visual? Would you say to yourself, "well that might have had some impact on me had only the actress/actor had a more "natural" figure to which I could relate?" I don't think so...

In a similar way, fashion shoots are only meant to be so much seduction, allowing us to relate to the beauty in the photo. That may not be us, but it could us in our fantasy. How many women related to Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally?" Just about everyone I know, regardless of their age or level of beauty. We have the ability to project ourselves into the image presented, whether on screen, TV or in print, and are happy in the fantasy in conjures of our being a young, cute, perky thing. I think that's fine.

I don't believe we should take these things seriously or personally. Like my therapist once suggested, just go with the fantasy and you'll do fine. I'm kidding of course. No one had to tell me that.

I'll hire a consultant who looks like me, buy bathroom cleaner from a woman my age, trust a cook with my wardrobe, but I want my fashion ladies to be better, prettier, slimmer and more glamorous than I. I mean, that's why I buy fashion - to look more glamorous than I am! But how do you respond to the new approach in advertising?

Take a peak at this video and peer into the mind of the female consumer. Turns out she is as picky about her fashion respresentatives as she is about her best friend.

This little video tells the story.

Hold on to Your Handbag!

Well, ladies, fasten your pocketbooks because I’m about to take you on another thrilling internet shopping trip for items that will enhance your well-being, restore your youth and impress the people on your gift list. Don’t believe me? Ha! Just read on.

Last I looked, Crabtree and Evelyn was hosting a sale that included some lovely hostess gift items. I mean these are things I would love to receive any day, whether or not you’ve been invited to my house for dinner. Ahem. Hint, hint. (As you may all know my birthday is up coming soon..) Much cuter than the croaky frogs that pose in the road and play in my yard are these frog shaped soaps for the powder room. (No, they won’t give your guests warts but they will give them a chuckle.)

I love glass that washes up from the sea. These scented seaglass and seashell potpourri are always nice to have on hand. They don’t collect as much dust as the traditional potpourri made of leaves and herbs. Plus, they are more modern and hip to have around. These burn sticks allow you to sit outside in these beautiful late summer evenings without the pesky mosquitoes and gnats. They are scented with citronella to deter insects and infused with lavender to make them more appealing to you. From Macy’s I found this Rub Away Bar bar that’s supposed to eliminate odors caused by onion and garlic. The great thing about it is that it looks cool on your kitchen counter and it won’t ever leave drippy residue in the soap dish.

At www.beauty.com you can find Philosophy’s Margarita in a shower, the perfect indulgence before a night out on the town. Since the eyes have it, here’s a new mascara from Prescriptives worth trying out. It claims to offer the look of false eyelashes in a tube and is as close as you can get to falsies without the glue. Mac has an eye shadow that is smooth as silk, keeps pure color and never cakes. Plus, if you use a wet brush it doubles as eyeliner. It comes is dozens of gorgeous shades. But best of all is their new gel eyeliner. You have to try  gel eyeliner. After years of fussing with everything from pencils to cake eyeliner, I find this version to be the most user-friendly. Be sure to use a top quality eyeliner brush, of course.

My personal favorite make-up line of all time is YSL. Everyone uses their fabulous touche eclat which now comes in three shades. The color palette offered by YSL seems particularly well-suited to blonds and redheads but don’t let that stop you trying it if you happen to be brunette. For instance, the touché éclat click-pen fun-to-use applicator has been applied to lip gloss which comes in very cool colors and is absolutely not sticky or messy.

Clarins’ new face bronzer claims to begin self-tanning’s new era. The marketing copy claims, “As refreshing as water and gentle as a milk, this scientifically advanced formula sweeps onto skin like a whisper with either a cotton pad or fingertips for an amazingly, natural-looking tan every time. Color shows smoothly, swiftly – never turns streaky, so skin looks remarkably radiant for days.” Sounds good to me.

I tried the new Neutrogena self-tanner sold at Costco for a song. This version goes on like any moisturizer, making it practical to use post shower. It dries fast and delivers only a very light coloring as it develops in a few hours. The product is called “build a tan” because by applying a number of light layers you avoid the streaking and staining usually associated with self-tanners.  My husband commented that the color looks very natural, too. Best of all, it makes my skin feel smoother and softer.

I also took a flyer on Avon's new anti-cellulite cream. Marketing copy promises it: Reduces "jiggle" by tightening skin in the abdomen area, improving skin's firmness. Reduces sagging by tightening skin to help reshape and mold the buttocks. Restores youthful body contours. For self-tanner and anti-cellulite in one product you might want to try Big Skinny Philosophy’s product which does both at once.

While I’m waiting for the cream to have it’s effect after 4-6 weeks of daily use on my thighs, I’m up for an immediate “lift.” Have you noticed the proliferation of butt-enhancing jeans that have hit the market? Well, if you haven’t, you should know they are out there if you want a little “boost” to your self-esteem. Some suggested brands are listed on this website: Fabric of Our Lives. Even such classy retailer as Saks and Nordstrom's are promoting their booty-bobbing jean options like these “not your daughter’s jeans” which lift your rear and flatten your tummy. At Neiman’s the search for rear assets provided multiple options shown here: most of which promise to improve your back view.

To make your legs look longer in any jean you may want to pump it up by wearing high heels. If high heels tend to be uncomfortable try using these Foot Petals , which keep your foot from sliding forward and cramping your toes so you can dance all night.

As soon as I run out of the many eye creams and potions I have collected recently, I’m going to try Eyecicles , which claim to rid the eyes of fine lines, wrinkles, puffiness and dark circles. Considering you likely have a number of different products to address each of these concerns, the $105 price tag isn't so steep. But please let me know if you try this product. At that price I want reassurance that it actually does what it claims.

I’ve never been a fan of powder blushes especially since the horrendous trend of the 80’s that encouraged women to “contour” their faces using light and dark powders. The results were almost as awful as brown lipliner was to the '90's. I find gel blushes look more natural, especially if you don’t use foundation or face powder. My favorite version of blush is Delux Beauty's stick blush. Recently I discovered Avon has a lower priced alternative  that comes packaged in a cute little stick in nice colors.

I think I’ve given you enough to work with for this month. If all these new products found you shopping ‘till you drop and your newfound self-esteem had you partying till you’re pooped, recover in these slippers.  Curl up and send me a note on which of the products you found most helpful and any suggestions you’d like to share.

Peace, love and rock and roll.