Friday, August 23, 2013

Press Release: The Launch of Carey 5.0

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Announcing the Launch of Carey 5.0

The Old and Familiar has been Updated and Improved for the 21st Century.

Los Angeles, CA - August 24, 2013

After fifty years of excellent service, we are proud to announce the newest edition of the Carey. Old features that you know and depend upon have been retained while improvements have been made to optimize the Carey for the 21st Century. Now is the time to get re-acquainted with the Carey.

While we have made pain-staking improvements with every model of the Carey over the past fifty years, the new 5.0 series has been developed to excite. Most of the flaws, inconsistencies and system failures have been re-engineered in this new model. Extensive customer feedback, focus group testing and examination of past failures have been incorporated into the making of this new model. This Carey is free of overheating as some earlier models and also the tendency to freeze and become unresponsive. While we continue to deny that the Carey ever actually exploded, we have taken safeguards to insure that this will never happen again.

The operating system of this new Carey has been enhanced for greater interconnectivity. The external packaging has been re-designed with a classic/aged look. While this new model of Carey might lack some of the resilience, stamina and mobility of the earlier models, these features have been traded for greater dependability, an enhanced consumer interface and wifi.

We are confident that you will enjoy this new model over some of the less than successful upgrades such as Carey 1.3-1.5, 2.1-2.3, 2.9, 3.1-3.3 and most of the 4.0 series. The 5.0 series surpasses the 4.0 series in originality and style. This new and improved model retains those features that you most appreciate in the Carey while bringing back some of the idiosyncratic and some might say lovable “quirky” aspects of earlier models.

[DISCLAIMER: C’mon folks it’s a Carey. It’s not a German Heinrich, French Gilles, or a Japanese Tanaka. If that’s what you are expecting, you are looking in the wrong place. This is a good, old reliable American-Made Carey. You can look at a newer American Devon or an Ethan, but why not stick with a name you trust? A Carey.]

Get re-acquainted with the new Carey today!

CONTACT:
Carey Corp.


END

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Thoughts on Much Ado about Nothing and The Great Gatsby

Thoughts on Much Ado about Nothing and The Great Gatsby

[I’m not planning on becoming a film critic, but I saw a few movies that inspired thought. During this busy work season, it is what I can muster.]

Joss Whedon took some time off last year between filming and editing the highest grossing film of all time, The Avengers. He gathered his friends and industry colleagues and filmed a production of Shakespeare’s Much ado about Nothing. The film has arrived in theaters.
The production reminds me of a story line in a book I’m rereading, Barry Unsworth’s Sacred Hunger.  In the book the young adult children of wealthy early 18th century English merchants gather in the gardens of an estate to put on a production of The Tempest.  The film has the feeling of being a pastime, something to do in between real work. And for these film stars, this is what it was.
Don’t think that I’m poo pooing the production. The lightness of approach works for this play. The serious matters of war, marriage and career remain on the periphery of the goings on in the play/film. The real traumas are as the title tells us, Much Ado about Nothing. The lightness of playing emphasizes the effervescent nothingness of this war of words and self-made distress of courtship. Though the speaking of the text could be richer, the players often find moments true to being in love.
In so many ways, the production fits the play better than an over wrought serious and respectful approach to the play.  It feels more authentic than a bunch of Brits in period costumes making a masterpiece.
Contemporary dress and hand held cameras shooting in black and white with anachronistic elements of smart phones, ipods and limousines make the place the world, if not the world of the play, in the 21st century. It serves to makes Elizabethan values of dueling for honor and virginity as quaint relics of a time past. It reminded me how the world has moved on from a culture of conversation and accepted social mores.
Watching the film was a lovely Friday night diversion. Yet I knew, it was Much Ado about Nothing.

I eagerly attended Baz Luhrmann’s take on The Great Gatsby this week. As I suspected before going, it is best to approach it as his take on the great novel rather than expecting a definitive production.

I would call it decidedly post-Modern. Its excess and preference for style over substance are embraced with self consciousness. When facing a choice between a stripped down moment of honesty and an overblown flashy explosion of color and sound with a not-so- subtle wink at the audience, Baz and the film always pick the latter. Not that these are bad choices.  The film is fun and the excesses are in keeping with the opulence and exuberance of the Jazz Age.

Baz Luhrmann is our Busby Berkeley.

The style works to reveal a difference between the age of Fitzgerald and our own. Both eras embrace excess. The twenties seem naïve and careless. They seem unaware that they are dancing their way into the ruin of the Depression and the Second World War. The film seems to know that the excesses and recklessness of our own era are embraced with a full knowledge of our imminent destruction. While we might pacify ourselves with hope of a better tomorrow, we don’t really believe in our potential salvation. We know we are dancing off the cliff of our destruction. And, we don’t care.

(Spoiler alert: Haven’t you read Gatsby yet?)

Gatsby tells the story of an ambitious man who fell in love with an enchanting woman above his station. He remakes himself and earns the wealth he covets to become what he thinks he must be to deserve her. In the end, the differences in class remain. Their love can’t compete.

It is a funny story for America, an Anti-American Dream tale. No matter how much wealth you attain, you cannot shift your place in the social structure. (Is this not Don Draper’s story in Mad Men?) You can become successful, but you can’t change.

There is also a note in the film that speaks to the cancer of excess and ambition. Our American drive to attain infects us. At one moment I wonder if we are conscious of this impact and at another moment I know we know that what we are doing is destroying us and still don’t change.  We, like Gatsby, can’t change our fundamental core.


My desire for Gatsby or Much Ado to be more grounded or to face/deal with the truth of our time is contradictory to very nature of our time. While we dance to the apocalypse, we hold out a fraction of hope that some of us might evolve enough to keep us from destruction. Though, in our hearts, we know we are doomed.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Fact or Symbol? Where does the Truth Lie?


Fact or Symbol? Where does the Truth Lie?

[Sorry for the delay in posting. It is the busy season. I’m working on a long piece about Shakespeare’s Folio that is taking a while to bake.]

A few weekends ago, I came home after a pub crawl with a friend. I flipped on HBO to watch a few minutes of ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER. I expected to dismiss it as crap in a few minutes and paddle off to bed. To my surprise, I watched and enjoyed the entire film. And, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it.

If you haven’t heard of it, the feature film is a mashup of Lincoln’s biography and vampires. The movie is based on a book by the same name written by Seth Grahame-Smith, who first gained literary fame (or infamy) with his best selling mashup PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES. VAMPIRE HUNTER imagines an America infested with vampires ruling the south to feed off of the African slave trade. Who’d have thought that the American Civil War was fought to defeat the rising power of Vampires? 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is schlock. It is full of dramatic impossibilities: physics, history, storytelling, psychology, you name it. However, the way it is telling this story is brilliant. Mr. Grahame-Smith and the filmmakers are telling the story of Lincoln, slavery and the civil war through parallel truths.

They tell the historical/biographical story of Abraham Lincoln, his rise to the presidency and Civil War. It contains his origin and early traumas; his struggle to become a lawyer and rise in society; his courtship and marriage to Mary Todd[i]; his turn to politics, the brutality of the Civil War; the death of his son; the decision to free the slaves; and the success at Gettysburg that led to winning the war. The film, more or less[ii], follows Lincoln’s actual story. It is his factual truth.

At the same time, the writer and filmmakers tell Abraham Lincoln’s story in symbolic and mythic language. Vampires are used as a metaphor for the evil perpetuated by the culture of slavery. The vampires feeding on the blood of the slaves is a metaphor of how slavery was feeding on the lives of the Africans and infecting the entire nation. The ax swinging Lincoln is driven to fight and end this evil.  When he discovers that there is little he can do with his ax, he runs for office and becomes the President.  He leads the country in the fight against the evil of the vampires who would take the southern states as their own sovereign blood-sucking nation. 

This mashup of fact and symbol effectively (ok, that might be a stretch) speaks the truth using our opposing world views. The two sides of our brain approach and create the world with opposing systems. The left brain seeing everything one at a time sees the world as concrete, objective fact. The right brain seeing everything all at once sees the world through a symbolic, subjective lens. This mashup gives us a vision of the world where both truths are the same and different.

We experience our world as both concrete and imaginative, both factual and symbolic, both real and illusory at the same moment. This is the challenge of the 21st Century. We must learn to live in these two conflicting visions of our world simultaneously and fluidly.

The truth of this film in many ways exceeds the more critically acclaimed film LINCOLN by Steven Spielberg. And, it’s a lot more fun.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER is grade D schlock. And yet, it speaks a greater truth and helps us to experience our world as it is.




[i]               As I write this, there is a large piece of furniture, called a secretary, looming in my office. It was once owned by Mary Todd Lincoln. Adele, my wife, inherited it from her paternal grandmother, Adeline Cabot, who was distantly related to Mary Todd Lincoln.

[ii]               I’m no Lincoln historian. I’m sure those that are would definitively say the film was less, much less, historically accurate. My point is that the facts are in the realm that most reasonably educated folk would know about Lincoln’s life.

Monday, April 22, 2013

Is your Gun a Tool, a Weapon or a Stand-In for something else?


Is your Gun a Tool, a Weapon or a Stand-In for Something Else?

[I thought I was done with my Violence Series, but this topic question came up.[i] For more in the series go to Violence in Entertainment]

Listening to those defending their supposed right to keep guns without any hint of regulation, I begin to wonder what purpose that gun is intended to serve. Is their gun a tool, a weapon or a stand-in for something else?[ii]

A tool is an implement, usually held in the hand, used as a means of accomplishing a task. It is an extension of the arm of the user. It expands the ability of the user. You can dig without a shovel, but it is more efficient with a shovel. A gun can also be a tool. It expands the user’s ability to hunt or defend oneself.[iii]

A weapon exists to inflict damage or harm on living beings, structures or systems. A stick, hammer or fork can become a weapon, though the word weapon is really reserved for those devices designed and constructed with the sole intent of inflicting damage. A difference between a tool and a weapon is the potentiality to do harm. It is a potential that not only expands the user’s ability but also lives outside the user.[iv] A favorite phrase is: “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Yes, in all but the rarest cases the gun will not fire itself. Yet, this statement minimizes the inherent power and potentiality of a weapon. And, the more lethal, the more firepower the more inherent power the weapon has. [v]

A weapon contains the potential to inflict harm beyond its parts. Pistols, Rifles and Assault Weapons become a stand in or a symbol for much more. This symbolism is what is at stake in the gun control debate.[vi] The right to bear arms, own a personal arsenal of guns, or National Rifle Association’s insistence on absolutely no gun control has more to do with symbolism than real threat. The other sides’ assumptions about guns and gun owners are also mired in thick symbolism.

Guns make you feel powerful. There’s no way to get around it.[vii] When you hold a gun, the power transfers to you, changes you. It goes beyond the boost a tool gives to a user. The potential power of a gun is perceptively transferred to the gun user. This tool power and potential weapon power conjoin with a symbolic power amplifying the user’s psyche. You feel more powerful, invincible and dominant. You feel in control. You feel an increased sense of individuality, independence and sovereignty. You are master of your world.

This country was taken by force from those who lived here before. The possession of firearms was important to the Europeans ability to conquer the Native Americans. The United States were born when citizens used their fire arms to overthrow a repressive government. We were brought up on the Patriot myth along with the myth of the lone gunman. He had his horse, his pistol and rifle. This gave him independence and power. Guns become an emblem or token of being in power and independent. Having powerful guns and an arsenal of weapons inflates the individuals sense of his own self worth and power.

While we might not have an immediate need for a well regulated militia, the Twenty-first century has hazards that demand the hoarding of weapons. Leaving the Modern era and venturing into what is coming Next, structures and norms that developed from the advent of humans through the last four centuries are breaking down. Power structures that have been firmly in the hands of the European male are shifting. The transition from the agrarian to the industrial has lead to the new knowledge age and is transitioning again. Women and minorities are finding equality with the white patriarchy. This is particularly frightening to previously dominant white, Anglo-Saxon, rural males. Dramatic change encourages the challenged to hunker down and defend their rights. The feeling is that their group is being marginalized in this society. The hoarding of guns compensates for a perceived loss of power and autonomy. The fear is that the change will cause their very death. It is working on a mythic level that is unconscious to those who are experiencing it.

Rising minorities and women are also arming themselves. The guns become their tools to force the change more quickly.

The lack of a clear Rite of Passage for our youth is also adding to the obsession with guns and violence. Our youth, both male and female, no longer have a trial to transition from children to adults. While it is hard to advocate for universal military draft or another war that conscripts the majority of youth, in the past the military aided in this transition in the same way primitive societies set Rites of Passage for their adolescents.

Change is coming. The Destroyer archetype is active. In our mythic journey, we must all take a turn as the Destroyer. The Destroyer ultimately brings about change, growth, metamorphosis. And yet, change is initially met with fear and fighting. When confronted by the need to change there are a couple of ways to dance with Destroyer. One way is through personnel destruction leading to addiction to food, sex, alcohol or drugs. Another way is through subjugation to a higher being, belief or religion larger than you. Another way is to identify with the Destroyer by embracing weapons. While the call is to embrace the change with acceptance and humility, the journey through the Destroyer Archetype contains levels of personal and societal destruction. An association with weapons feeds the journey through the Destroyer. The hope is that the individual journeying through the Destroyer Archetype accepts mortality and change before being destroyed.

If these very real fears were not active, we have compounded the fear and the supposed solution by becoming expert at selling the power and titillation of guns. It is easy to indict the entertainment industry for ramping up the symbolism of firearms. However, I think the greatest culprit might be capitalism and its favorite squeeze, advertising. We sell guns as freedom, manhood and individual strength with the idea of guns. We have become expert at selling the symbolism of firearms to ourselves.[viii]

Years ago, I picked up a .357 Magnum Revolver. I remember thinking, it’s so heavy. It was. It was so much more than tool or a weapon. It had power and holding it, I had power. It was a symbol and stand in for something else.




[i]               This post has a lot of endnotes. I tried to keep the argument barreling forward without running off on tangents, but this issue is so complex I kept veering off. Below are whole sections that I removed from the main:

[ii]               I wrote this next bit for a previous post, I re-post it as an endnote since it is fundamental to my stance on this topic: Ok, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What I don’t get is that the Second Amendment doesn’t actually allow individuals to freely own and possess Arms. It allows for well regulated Militias to keep and bear Arms. The Bill of Rights doesn’t give me the right to have an arsenal of guns that are not regulated. However, I do have the right to participate in a community Militia with the sole purpose of maintaining a free state. This gives the militia the responsibility and authority to own and store arms, which would include guns, rocket launchers, tanks, F-16 fighter planes, and possibly nukes. These are to be used against enemies foreign and domestic, including a tyrannical government if necessary. (The bar for a Tyrannical Government would have to be one that defies the rule of law. Which no matter how much I hated the outcome of Bush v. Gore or the Tea Partiers want to accuse Obama to taking away their government, we haven’t seen the breakdown of the rule of law.) To protect our freedoms, our militias should be as well armed as our army. You might remember that the Revolutionary War began when the British sought to capture the armories at Concord and Lexington. The Civil War was fought by armies made up of state militias. I don’t want or see a need to have a gun in my house, but I would support and pay monthly dues to arm the well regulated Culver City Progressive militia as a deterrent to an overreaching government that would take away our freedoms.

In 2008, the Supreme Court made a decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller. It reinterpreted the Second Amendment to allow the individual’s right to keep and bear arms outside of participation in a militia. In my opinion this decision was one of the most egregious examples of the Court revisionism. It was a five four decision written by Scalia. While he accuses liberal justices of activism, he rewrites the Bill of Rights claiming he knows the mind of the authors.

We have to get a license for practically everything we do that could cause harm to others, why not firearms? A safety class, test, insurance and penalties for misuse would be in order. Those Congressmen and the NRA who ignore the term “well regulated” are the ones misreading their beloved 2nd Amendment.

[iii]              For a hunter, the gun is a tool to hunt. If the task is to kill the deer for food, a rifle is an efficient tool. While some folks want to ban hunting (and I feel that hunting with a long bow evens the playing field and makes it more sporting), few people argue with the utilitarian use of firearms. Of course the weapon should have a reasonable utilitarian function. We don’t allow fishing with explosives. An assault weapon with a hundred round clip seems to be unreasonable when hunting deer. If you need that kind of firepower to kill a deer, you might work on our skills before hunting.

[iv]              As a director of plays for the theatre, I was taught and quickly learned that a weapon, a gun or a knife, became another actor in the play. Once introduced to the stage, it either had to be used or had to be removed. A person couldn’t carry it or it couldn’t just sit on a table without drawing constant attention. A weapon holds presence. The saying goes: Don’t bring a weapon onstage unless you plan to use it.

[v]               A weapon is in some sense neutral in that it can be used for good or bad, and yet in either case its purpose is to harm and destroy. Exponentially, more gun deaths occur in the home from accidents, self-inflicted wounds and shootings by family members than intruders being shot in self defense. When you invite a weapon into your home you embrace the power of that weapon and accept the risk it will be used against you and your family.

[vi]              This is an idea that I care about, but it worked its way out of the main narrative: I think guns should be more well regulated. The right to own a gun should be considered a privilege, a right that can and should be revoked if the citizen does not use it responsibly. We already have many laws that support this idea. We do this in most states with criminals and the mentally unstable. Those who reject any gun control like to say it is a “right to bear arms, not a privilege.” They try to differentiate owning a gun from driving license or a getting a license to hunt or fish.

I believe our rights are privileges with responsibilities. Freedom is taken from those who cannot obey the laws in the form of being sent to prison. This expands past the 2nd Amendment. The rights of Free Speech and Religion should be afforded to all who respect the rights of others to have free speech and freedom of religion. This is my problem with some recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the one that upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest at the funerals of American servicemen. They are the radical group that believes that America’s support of Gay rights is damning our country. At the foundation of their religious belief is there very insistence that others cannot hold their own opposing beliefs. I appreciate that barring speech is a proverbial slippery slope, but in America I believe you should be afforded free speech only when you respect the free speech of others. Similarly, my decision to not have a gun in my home should not impinge on your right to responsibly bear arms, however your right to own guns shouldn’t impinge on my right to life and liberty.

[vii]             It’s funny, as theater person most of my experience with guns has been with props, often real guns made safe to shoot only blanks. There is even a power when you hold an “impotent” weapon. Doing different plays, I’ve worked with flintlocks, muskets, a blunderbuss, shotguns, rifles, M-16s, MAC 10s, AR-15s, AK47s and all manner of pistols. They each hold a different power, but it always felt as if it transferred to me. Holding real weapons blend a mixture of excitement and apprehension. The idea that you can pull the trigger here and something can explode over there is cool, like the first time I rode a bike down a hill or drove a fast car. Guns give an experience of power. 

[viii]            This is the advertisement for the rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook Massacre:

Friday, March 29, 2013

Table of Essays


Table of Essays

Below is a list of the essays I’ve written for this blog. Having found yourself on this blog, there might be other topics that I’ve written that would interest you.

I appreciate your attention and responses. Some people have had trouble subscribing and leaving comments. Please, please contact me at cupton8@gmail.com if you have any challenges or you want to continue the conversation offline.

Thank you, Carey Upton


The Making of the Modern
Employing the “to be or not to be” speech from Hamlet, I make a case for how Shakespeare created the Modern and how it points toward the Next
To be OR Not to be: How Shakespeare Charted the Path to the Modern 09/14/12
Ay, there's the point: The Bad Quarto of Hamlet 09/15/12

Left and Right Brain
A series about how the two sides of our forebrain causing our way of thinking and has created human culture and is leading us to the Next
How Left v. Right Brain Dominance has Created our World
Brain Architecture/Function Simplified and Caveats
0: The Primitive Era
1: The End of the Classical Era and 2: The Dark and Medieval Ages
3: The Renaissance and the coming Modern
3: The Modern and 3 to 4: The Modern Era and the coming Next
3 to 4: Transitioning from the Modern to the Next and 4: The Next
Consilience 11/14/12

Theatre Then and Now
A series on how theatre changed through the Modern era and how we need to reclaim what has been lost to create a 21st Century theatre
   Modern Theatre begins with a series of Lies that the audience must embrace to be entertained
   How theatre was in the Elizabethan era as opposed to now
Realism in the Theatre: an outtake 10/02/12
   Why we got Realism and how it killed the theatre
   The most important element to reclaim
Why this Play? 01/12/13
   When doing Shakespeare you need something more than a great concept
   The forgotten moment in our past the split entertainment and art

Entertainment Violence
A series of how portrayed violence affects actual violence
Introduces the topic and discusses how previous cultures have included violence in their entertainment
Surveys when portrayed violence is beneficial
A consideration on our innate ability to respond to danger
Profiles the people who can’t manage entertainment violence and how our brains are causing this disjunction
   Wraps up the conversation with a looking at the degree of violence in our society and the role of the media

Political Writing
   An essay about David Petraeus and the tendency for good leaders to abuse their positions as told through the King David and Bathsheba Bible story
   Prior to the 2012 election, this is about how the dominant half of our brain leads us to vote
   How Democrats and Republicans had had contrasting world views as they approached the 2012    election

Shakespeare and his Plays
A collection of essays about Shakespeare’s Plays
   My speculation on the Authorship debate
As You Like It: What if Orlando Knew 11/12/12

Assorted Essays
Jump the Gun 2/10/13
   An essay about knowing the future told through the Abraham & Sarah story from the Bible.
Random Thoughts 12/04/12
   A quote from Homeland, the devil on your shoulder and religion
Lost Sight 11/12/12
   Losing my glasses and second sight





Thursday, March 28, 2013

Do we live in a Violent Society?

Do we live in a Violent Society?

[This is the fifth essay on violence in entertainment. This is probably the last for a while. They are not sequential, so you can read them in any order. For those left brain linear types, the first essay is Violence in Entertainment.]

Is our society violent? Many people would scream a loud “Yes!” Most perceive our society as being more violent than it was before and getting worse. We are convinced society had to be less violent than now, like some folk's nostalgic memory of the 1950s.

I would argue that there is a big difference between the actual danger and risk factors of living in our time and our perception of violence. Based on crime statistics, our society is less violent than any time or culture in the history of humanity. The problem is that we are sold violence and fear to keep us excited, afraid and frozen.

A violent society must be measured on actual violence rather than perceived risk. What is the true potential that you or your family will be directly impacted by a physically violent act this year? For most people reading this blog, the odds are very low; extremely low. As in, what percentage of people that you personally know have been injured or killed by a violent act?

I appreciate and do not negate that there are actually violent communities, areas of cities and countries; places where the risk of being personally affected by violence is high. Most of us are able to choose to not live in those places.

Our challenge seems to be the perception of violence. I look to the news media. They more than report the violence in our society. They exalt in it, sell it, market it and addict us to it. They play on our need to know while engaging our fear. In the past thirty years, the rise of cable news and the 24 hour news cycle have increased the coverage of violent act; Breaking News! The salacious obsession with violence is driven by the commercial benefits. While I wish that our society prized reports of positive change or even deep investigative reporting of the negative practices of government and corporations, all media outlets know that violence and often petty violence sales.

Unlike entertainment violence which helps to temper our own violent impulses. I don’t see the benefit of the expanded and heightened coverage of violent acts. I believe the coverage of violent acts does far more to encourage others to act violently than all of the entertainment violence combined. What’s funny is that when someone shoots up a school or a movie theatre, the news media begins seventy-two hour hyped-up coverage trying to seek out the cause. They indict the usual suspects of movies, television, video games, music, guns, schools and parents as the source of violence in our society. However, they never admit that their coverage of violence is an accomplice in the violence.

Conclusion
Given a choice we would prefer to live in a society that was free from actual and entertainment violence. It’s a hard ask because we humans still have a deep impulse for being violent. For the most part, our entertainment violence has helped to pacify these impulses. However, the amount of time we spend engaged in entertainment and the amount of portrayed violence we experience has risen exponentially in the past couple of decades. At the same time, the media coverage of actual violence raised our fear levels and the perception of daily risk. The availability of weapons that can damage and kill more quickly and effectively than knives, clubs and spears has made the violence done more lethal. Lastly and more importantly, our brains and world views are in conflict undermining our ability to manage our impulse for violence.

At this turning point, I suspect things will get worse (i.e., more acts of violence, more hyped coverage, an increased arms race and body count in our entertainment) prior to getting better. Until we can live in the opposites created by the two worldviews of our brain, the conflict will act out in real life and internally. Until we find the peace of balance, we will continue to experience the violence in our world.

Sidenote
OK, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[i]

What I don’t get is that the Second Amendment doesn’t actually allow individuals to freely own and possess Arms. What it allows for are well regulated Militias to keep and bear Arms. The words I cling to are: regulated, Militia and Arms. The Constitution doesn’t give me the right to have an arsenal of guns that are not regulated. However, I do have the right to participate in a community Militia with the sole purpose of maintaining a free state. This gives the militia the responsibility and authority to own and store arms, which would include guns, rocket launchers, tanks, F-16 fighter planes, and possibly nukes. These are to be used against enemies foreign and domestic, including a tyrannical government if necessary. (The bar for a Tyrannical Government would have to include defying the rule of law. Which no matter how much I hate the outcome of Bush v. Gore in 2000 or the Tea Partiers want to accuse Obama to taking away their government, we aren’t seeing the overrule of the rule of law.) To protect our freedoms, our militias should be as well armed as our army. You might remember that the Revolutionary War began when the British sought to capture the armories at Concord and Lexington. The Civil War was fought by armies made up state militias. I don’t want to have a gun in my house, but I would support and pay monthly dues to arm the well regulated Culver City Progressive militia as a deterrent to an overreaching government that would take away our freedoms.

Even if you want to read that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right arm themselves and have these weapons at home, then there is nothing well regulated about a system that lets anyone buy an assault weapon with a fifty round clip. We have to get a license for practically everything we do that could cause harm to others, why not firearms? A safety class, test, insurance and penalties for misuse would be in order. Those Congressmen and the NRA who ignore the term “well regulated” are the ones denying the Constitution.

One last question:
Is the lack of a vibrant dramatic form of entertainment in the Islamic countries causing a greater impetus for violence?



[i]               Let’s try to paraphrase this convoluted sentence. When I teach Shakespeare I teach that a convoluted sentence demonstrates confusion in the thoughts of the speaker. I believe this is what was happening when this amendment was being written. The new country’s existence was due to the armed militias and their having arms. However, the Founding Fathers must have been somewhat wary of everyone having guns. I think this created the confusion and cognitive disconnect. The sentence could read: (Congress and the government) shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the purpose of) maintaining a well regulated militia. This is necessary to secure a free state.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Your Brain on Violence: The Movement toward Connection or Isolation


Your Brain on Violence: The Movement toward Connection or Isolation

[This has become the fourth essay on violence in our culture and entertainment. I wrote a tanget Fight, Flight, Freeze (or Flirt)) last week. This essay follows: Violence in Entertainment and When Entertainment Violence Works. The next essay should be: Do we live in a Violent Society? Unless I change my mind or go off on another tangent.]

Not everyone can handle violence in entertainment. I use the word “handle” broadly to mean: deal with, be immune to, ignore, enjoy, viscerally respond to, or mentally differentiate between real and simulated violence. For some people entertainment violence overwhelms them or disengages them. There seems to be an increase in those who can’t handle portrayed violence. That’s creating a problem.

Response to violence seems to sit on a spectrum passing from those who feel too much to those who have become numb to the violence. This spectrum is shaped like a classic bell curve with the majority of people in the middle having what might be called a healthy relationship to entertainment violence. (I’ll circle back to that phrase.) The challenge is that our bell curve is beginning to peal with the people on the edges who cannot manage the violence in entertainment.

On one side the curve declines to a very small number of people whose response to violence inspires them to be violent. On the other side, the curve declines to a small number of people who are traumatized (or re-traumatized) by viewing violence. While this seems most obvious on the side of the curve where young men commit unspeakably violent acts, there is also significant damage on the side of the curve where people are hyper-sensitive to portrayed violence. It seems that these two groups are growing in new recruits.

I contend that the conflict between the two hemispheres of our brains is causing this rise. Our forebrain is divided into two hemispheres which are physically similar but operate in a vastly different manner from each other. The right hemisphere thinks all-at-one-time, it specializes in visio-spatial processing, external stimuli and emotions. The left hemisphere thinks in a one-at-a-time manner and specializes in the symbols, abstraction and internal stimuli. [For more information on two sides of our brains, please see my series on the The Teeter Totter of our Brains] The two hemispheres of our brain are in conflict in our culture as we transition to what is coming next. This cognitive dissonance is causing some people to choose sides. They depend more fully on one side of their brain over the other, losing the intended relative balance between the two. They unconsciously buy into the world view of one side of their brain over the other.

A feature of right brain thinking is to see ourselves as interconnected and part of the whole of all existence. The right brain does not see itself as an individual, it emphases its place in the community. It manages most of the emotions, other than anger. Hyper-sensitive individuals over empathize with others and perceive the violence is happening to them directly. This might be natural preference or caused by some kind of trauma.[i] Entertainment violence feels real and the people or animals who are being harmed feel real and in some unexplainable way a part of them. They have a hard time differentiating between what is real and what is fiction. Awareness of this proclivity causes many to avoid these activities. In the extreme, even a glimpse of portrayed violence overloads the emotional and empathetic response causing the person to become numb or shut down. In some cases, the person harms themselves and others feeling like an animal trapped desperate for their lives.

On the left side of the brain, abstract thinking creates an idea that the self is the only entity in the universe. More than the self, the brain itself is the only reality. The external world, the other people, and the very chair you are sitting on are projections of the brains reality. The non-reality of media entertainment suggests this experience of the world and video games confirm it. Individuals who have deeply gone over to the left side negate the right brain’s experience of the world and that there is an external world. This disassociation tells this person that those injured by violence are not real. Empathy is shut down, because others are merely abstractions. This response joins with the emotions primarily managed by the left brain, anger and fear. I think this is what is occurring in those individuals who have taken guns and killed so many people.

I can’t confirm that the escalation in entertainment violence is directly causing the rise of people on hemispheric extremes. The ongoing conflict between and polarization of the two sides of our brain is a product of our transition from the Modern era to what is coming Next. However, I know that the increase in portrayed violence is a contributing impact on the few. The “cure” for individuals and our culture is to continue to find the balance between the two hemispheres. We need to be able to live in the middle of the two vital world views the sides of our brains, live between the opposites.

Violence in Entertainment is helpful to our society. It helps us experience, learn from and participate in our impulse for violence without being violent. Without it, we couldn’t live in cities and we wouldn’t be civilized. But, how much and what kind of portrayed violence is healthy for individuals and our society? I feel as if we have lost the balance in portrayed violence in the same way we have lost the balanced relationship between the two sides of our brain. If we can’t right the system, we will have more people who can’t handle violence and we will all experience more actual violence.




[i]               I believe that post-traumatic stress disorder involves a skewed relationship of the two hemispheres of the brain, though I don’t have the science or research to make any substantial claims. My intuition tells me it is related and possible therapies could be honed by paying attention to the two hemispheres.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Fight, Flight, Freeze (or Flirt)


Fight, Flight, Freeze (or Flirt)

[This is one of those tangents I spoke about. It relates to the question of violence in our society. It is an impression, rather than a completed solution or suggestion. For the beginning of the series go to Violence in Entertainment][i]

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, there is increased discussion on what to do when there is an “active shooter” on campus. The accepted procedure is to Lock Down: everyone goes in a classroom, locks the door, covers the windows, hides and remains quiet until the police tell you all is clear.[ii] They followed this procedure at Sandy Hook and it has been followed at many other school shootings with disastrous results for rooms the shooter entered.

Experts in preparedness are now considering other strategies when a shooter is on campus. One strategy is to flee, just run. Studies show an untrained shooter with a hand gun will miss a still target four out ten times. The same shooter will miss a moving target, especially one running away, nine out of ten times. So it seems it is better to run, climb out the window and flee.[iii]

Another strategy that is being touted is to fight. If a shooter enters a room, all of the occupants should throw what they can at the shooter and charge him en masse. The idea is that some will still be shot and die, but less than if you just hide. Also, you will neutralize the shooter. We respect the heroic actions of those on United Airlines Flight 93 who took out the hijackers rather than have their plane crash into the White House or Capital. This strategy is also behind the incredible idea to arm teachers with guns.[iv]

Experts are now touting the new phrase “run, hide or fight”. I say touting, because none of these experts will go so far as recommending or advocating for any other procedure than the lock down. The variables are too many, the liability too great to be the one that says to run, then be the cause of students being killed while running away.

This suggestion might be right for adults who have the right and responsibility to make their own decisions. However in a school setting where the teacher has responsibility for a class on minors, it is different. If the teacher tells the class to run, she/he has lost the control or ability to lead the class. The police tactical units will be hindered from stopping a shooter when the campus is filled with running students. And, how would anyone know that there is not a second or third shooter. It is also difficult to imagine telling a classroom of second graders to attack or storm a shooter as he comes through the classroom door. An even worse scenario is the parents who are telling their children to ignore the teachers.

The biggest challenge with these alternative strategies is that it requires a momentary decision. Which do you do? How do you guide your students to safety? Do you run, hide or fight? Do you tell your class to run, hide or fight? How does the teacher decide? How can you train the teachers what to do? There are too many variables. It is impossible develop a workable decision tree as a person in this situation lacks sufficient knowledge to make decisions.

Knowing what to do in a situation such as this would require us to connect to our most primal instincts. Teachers and students would be required to acknowledge, respect and include their deepest physical and emotional impulses in the decision process. This is not what is taught in our educational system.

We, along with all organisms on this planet, have a highly developed response to danger: Fight, Flight or Freeze. It is instinctual and learned behavior, or I would say honed behavior since we can develop the ability to adhere to instinct or to purposefully ignore it. Our Sympathetic Nervous System kicks in increasing our ability to act and limiting the use of systems not required to save and protect us.

Like “run, hide or fight”, our fight, flight or freeze response is programmed to protect us. At the very possibility of danger, we become hyper-aware. Our blood and adrenalin go to our senses to hear, see, feel and smell the danger. To freeze or become still is often the first response. We initially freeze or go quiet to heighten our awareness of the exact danger. If the threat passes, we resume our previous way of being. Sometimes to freeze and remain frozen is the best course of action. Freezing is a way of acknowledging ones inability to fight or escape the danger. For many animals, this is their best and preferred action, playing possum or pretending to be dead.[v] For most species, the freeze is only a preamble to take in more information. A lock down is a freeze, you play "dead" or absent to not attract attention of the hunter. It’s interesting that the lock down is the first and last prescribed response to danger in a school setting. It suggests that all other options, i.e. running, fighting or gathering more information, are not viable.

After an initial freeze to identify the threat, most choose their moment and flee. Flight is a good alternative. It takes you out of the danger. I imagine the rabbit hearing my dog in the grass. He initially freezes to determine the direction the danger is coming, then at the best moment sprints out of danger. This is an instinctual response rather than a cognitive analysis. It is something to be known using different ways of knowing than reason.

Most animals and humans will only turn to fight as a last resort. Many will never choose to fight. If the only remaining choice is to fight then we must train for that potential. Being pack animals, we learned many tens of thousands of years ago that the best defense is to fight as a pack rather than as a lone individual. Fighting for the group seems counter-intuitive to our ‘me, myself and I’ culture. It seems easier to sacrifice the young, old or infirmed rather than to risk an attack as a group. However, we know innately that the group can defeat any individual. 

When I talk about the fight, flight or freeze impulse, my wife Adele always adds “or flirt.” I’ve also heard “fawn” and “fool around” as other options. While these tactics might not work on an active shooter, aggression and violence can be subverted by kindness, distraction or absurdity. In our Modern society, these high level tactics are often used with more success than the big three. This has to do with flipping the status. By lowering your status, you reduce yourself as a threat. It also has to do with play. We are playful creatures. If we can engage the other in play, we have the potential to change the dynamic of competition.  

I wonder if by teaching the fight, flight, freeze and flirt tactics of safety preparedness we could better prepare for other challenges in our more day to day life. I don’t know what actions to recommend to someone confronted with real danger, but I suspect that we know innately more than we think and the challenge is to use that knowing.




[i]               My current day job is with a school district. I manage the facility use, including performances, filming, special events, joint use of athletic facilities, leases, etc. I sit on the District Safety Committee. While I sometimes think my interest in disaster preparedness has more to do with my wish for cataclysmic change than my interest is protecting people, I know I’m passionate about being prepared. As part of the Safety Committee, we spend a lot of time discussing the worst case scenarios and asking how the District can be more prepared.

[ii]               I am a big advocate for distinguishing between a Lockdown and to Shelter in Place. When you lockdown, you lock the door and hide. It is used when there is an imminent and immediate threat. Sheltering in Place is used when the threat is near but not imminent. It means you stay in the building or on campus, but can still go to the bathroom and you don’t need to hide under your desk. I think we overuse the lockdown, when a shelter in place would suffice.

[iii]              This statistic and strategy is diminished when the shooter has a rapid fire assault weapon and a 100 plus ammo clip. This is one reason I support some gun control. Give us a fighting chance. It is also why I respect bow hunters as being more sporting.

[iv]              The idea of arming teachers is stupid. The number of students killed by psychopaths and mass murderers would pale in comparison with the number of accidental shootings if all teachers were armed. As a society we don’t pay properly to educate our children, do you really think we will properly fund, train and support teachers being armed? Not to mention how this would change the entire nature and dynamic of the educational relationship.

[v]               Having been threatened by an opossum while driving down a street one night, I know they employ other strategies than just playing dead.