A Close Call at the Mall

I hated to do it, go to the mall that is, but then I remembered the torturous time I had last summer…while desperately trying to find a cotton skirt in the sweltering July heat. It was like, I don’t know… like trying to find a real life Waldo in the mall. I learned that looking for something summery light and cotton to purchase after May is a joke, (not to mention being the butt of other people’s); especially if your criteria are to like it AND have it actually fit you. There it was…early July and every store I visited was already stocked with winter clothing. I remember the small shops I visited… the sales person always looking at me with a “you poor pathetic thing” smile as if I had just asked them for loose change and they told me begging is not allowed in their stores.
Eventually, after way too much effort, I did find one skirt that fit: a muddy brownish green rayon skirt, I bought it out of desperation, overpaid, wore it once and stuffed it in my closet, where it will now stay until I give it away, but only after the allotted amount of years pass, so as to assuaged any guilty feelings I may have about wastefulness.

I’d like to believe I learned something from that ordeal and so I did it…yesterday I ventured out to the mall.
I hate going to the mall, any mall. I get a sick, light-headed feeling even before I open that big glass door to the front entrance and that Body Shop mixture of toxic scents come wafting out at me, I’m on sensory overload just thinking about it.

There I was… a fisherman faced with an ocean full of fish, not knowing which one to catch first. I filled my arms with all I could carry of summer skirts, blouses, pants and bathing suits, determine to make this event as fruitful as possible: if only to avoid having to return any time soon.
Realizing I could only ever take 6 items at a time into the dressing room, I started to remember how this process is not without pain, but how much pain, I never fully anticipated.
Just being naked under those fluorescent lights with mirrors all around is traumatic enough, but as I started to squeeze into clothing that was too small or just too tight in all the wrong places, I began to realize that this winter, like many others, hadn’t gone by without leaving it’s mark. It all came crashing down on me, I’m in my late 40’s, I haven’t been working out much, haven’t shopped for clothes in quite a while, have gained weight (the word flabby keeps popping in my head, ugh!) and now I’m trying on summer clothes that don’t fit, all in all a recipe for disaster. Then the infamous bathing suit scene threw me over the edge. I was mortified.

I started fantasizing about stabbing myself with a plastic hanger, if only I could kill myself just to let everyone understand the depths of my horror and depression. I started imagining blood seeping out of the dressing room into the corridor, and the news headlines that night: “Women in her 40’s devastated-unable to find any clothes that fit, looked fat in everything she tried on… kills herself under fluorescent lights at the Mall today-Tonight on Eyewitness news at 11."

I felt betrayed…how could my mate be so adoring of me? How can he be so attracted to me, hot for me all the time? Didn’t he notice how much weight I’ve gained? Couldn’t he see the cellulite developing on all parts of my body? My body seems to have deceived me, or have I deceived my body? I couldn’t think straight. I had to do something immediately.

I regrouped; I went back out there and replaced all the clothes I had with larger sizes, some much larger, so that they were so big I started to feel thinner, the trick worked, at least temporarily to get me through this ordeal. I started trying on clothes that made me feel thinner, I ignored the size and went for what I felt and looked good in. Once I realized that a major part of the devastation was about not fitting in the clothes I wanted to fit in, partly because I simply refused to even look at larger sizes, things started to calm down a bit. I took a deep breath and kept looking. After many hours of talking (and dressing) myself out of suicide, I eventually found some things I actually liked. I once again made a vow to start exercising more and eating lighter…luckily I made it through this time.
Sorry 11’oclock news, you’ll have to stick with the political sex scandals for now.
P.S I found this picture as I was cleaning up today, it was done by my 6 year old daughter a few months ago. I don't know exactly what she meant to convey but it is amazing how it illustrates just what I was feeling yesterday at the mall...the universe has a sense of humor afterall.

Deal Breakers

This subject of “deal breakers”, something we just couldn’t tolerate in our mates, is fascinating to me. I have been having an ongoing discussion with my mate about these, and how we both define them.
They can be extremely subjective, and say so much about a person. They can be anything: from not wanting to tongue kiss, being over involved in one’s family of origin, to rage issues. Then there’s the added decision about what stage in the relationship these things would actually “break the deal.” Presumably, the early stages of a relationship are when they all surface and deals are broken left and right...I guess that’s called “dating”.
For the sake of clarity, let’s jump ahead to being with a person a few years or more…maybe even after having a few children.
What about someone unwillingly to do any work on themselves and rejects the whole idea of therapy, someone who becomes a religious zealot, or who doesn’t communicate directly, someone who is no longer interested in making love? We each have our own personal thresholds of tolerance for other people’s shortcomings. Some people even consider gaining a little weight to be a deal breaker. Whew! That’s clearly not one of ours!
The Spitzer case brings up one of the more obvious questions; a romp or two (or 20…) in the hay, or an affair with the added in-love feelings attached. There is no question in my mind that the latter is more the deal breaker. Now, I know I wouldn’t be thrilled if I was Mrs. Spitzer, in fact, that 8 year prostitution foray is more of an indication of a pathology than anything to do with love or real sex. Bill Clinton also had (has) one of those impulse disorders’ that’s not really about what it seems to be.
Circumstances can really play a part in all of this, too. If my mate told me he had a fling while he was traveling and away from me for a while, that would be cause for a different level of upset than if he said he was having an ongoing affair with our neighbor.I don’t believe any of us are without issues. We all have disorders of one type or another, but those are not the deal breakers in and of themselves. For me, the real deal breaker has always been when someone is unwilling to see themselves, and can’t or won’t work on their issues. When a person is ready, willing and able to change, there’s always hope.
They can be extremely subjective, and say so much about a person. They can be anything: from not wanting to tongue kiss, being over involved in one’s family of origin, to rage issues. Then there’s the added decision about what stage in the relationship these things would actually “break the deal.” Presumably, the early stages of a relationship are when they all surface and deals are broken left and right. I guess that’s called “dating”.
For the sake of clarity, let’s jump ahead to being with a person a few years or more…maybe even after having a few children.
What about someone unwillingly to do any work on themselves and rejects the whole idea of therapy, someone who becomes a religious zealot, or who doesn’t communicate directly, someone who is no longer interested in making love? We each have our own personal thresholds of tolerance for other people’s shortcomings. Some people even consider gaining a little weight to be a deal breaker. Whew! That’s clearly not one of ours!

The Spitzer case brings up one of the more obvious questions; a romp or two (or 20…) in the hay, or an affair with the added in-love feelings attached. There is no question in my mind that the latter is more the deal breaker. Now, I know I wouldn’t be thrilled if I was Mrs. Spitzer, in fact, that 8 year prostitution foray is more of an indication of a pathology than anything to do with love or real sex. Bill Clinton also had (has) one of those impulse disorders’ that’s not really about what it seems to be.

Circumstances can really play a part in all of this, too. If my mate told me he had a fling while he was traveling and away from me for a while, that would be cause for a different level of upset than if he said he was having an ongoing affair with our neighbor.I don’t believe any of us are without issues. We all have disorders of one type or another, but those are not the deal breakers in and of themselves. For me, the real deal breaker has always been when someone is unwilling to see themselves, and can’t or won’t work on their issues. When a person is ready, willing and able to change, there’s always hope.

For more on this subject read the article entitled "What Are the Dealbreakers?" http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/11/31_11_what_are_smartmoms.html

A Beautiful Piece from "Full Permission Living"

Fear Versus Love
I watched a funny movie last night that I haven't seen in a long time - "Defending Your Life," starring Albert Brooks and Merryl Streep. It's about two people who recently died and had to make their cases to the heavenly powers that be as to whether they would be allowed to stay in Heaven, or needed to be returned once again to live another lifetime on Earth. The determining factor on which the two would be judged was how well they learned to manage and overcome fear.I found this quite fascinating. Fear. Not anger or greed or selfishness, but fear as the mortal sin that could prevent one from moving on to eternal bliss. I got it. Yes, fear. Why? Because fear, not hate, is the true opposite of love. In all disciplines of true understanding, be they spiritual or psychological, fear is understood to be the antithesis of love. Hate is an ugly, distorted expression, to be sure, but fear is what prevents love its expression and therefore leads to hate. Love and hate are both based upon self-identification. In other words, you do not bother to love or hate someone you cannot identify with at all. In fact, you often love or hate another individual because the person evokes in you glimpses of yourself. And in the other person, you sense your own potential. In his or her eyes you see what you can be. But... you must first love yourself before you can love another. You cannot hate yourself and love anyone else, and as I discussed in my recent blog entry, "Full Permission Loving," love is the thing we all fear the most. (See that entry for the reason why we fear love so intensely.)Lately, I am struck by how much hatred has begun to infuse our public discourse around the presidential campaign, and in particular, how much hatred is being directed at the least hateful candidate, Barack Obama. Spewing so much less vitriol than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain, Obama is spreading a message of unity and hope, and yet to watch the two other candidates and the far right pundits and talking heads, you'd think he was the devil incarnate. Why do they fear him, and therefore hate him, so much? Is there something so insidious about Mr. Obama that I am somehow missing, even after thirty years of studying the nature of human beings as a psychotherapist and sociologist? Is Barack Obama really the Antichrist? Or could it be that perhaps those individuals who hate him have become so fearful of facing how separated they've become from their own best potential, so unable to inspire anything but negativity, anger and despair in others, and so removed from their genuine capacity to love, except abstractly of course, like loving the flag or the cross or the "troops," that they must seek to denigrate and destroy anyone who puts forth a message that is positive and loving? We've been here before haven't we? Martin Luther King, the Kennedy's, Ghandi, and of course, Jesus himself, all messengers of hope and unity, all brutally murdered for delivering that message. King himself once said this: "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true."I can't predict what will happen in the public square as this election year progresses. As a species, the human race seems to barely be in its adolescence developmentally, and we know how that goes so often. Maybe these more optimistic words by MLK can offer us some solace: "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.

Look Who's Talking

When I heard the news yesterday about Elliot Spitzer, the governor of New York, being caught in a “sex ring” scandal I thought he was more deeply involved: running it, pimping women, making large sums of money, etc. Then when I heard he was just a customer I thought, oh so what…isn’t this the oldest profession known to man? Do we all need to know about this man’s intimate life, let alone persecute him for these offenses?

But then it dawned on me: this was Eliot Spitzer, the same New York attorney general that was busting prostitution rings and running a campaign about what's "right and wrong" not too long ago. Why is it that we can now bet on these politicians, the ones that “dost protest too much” to break the rules they so adamantly defend?

To quote Nora Ephron from her article in the Huffington Post Eliot Spitzer: The Short Goodbye:

“This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy.”

After the likes of Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Pastor Ted Haggard et al, the next time we hear a politician, or anyone for that matter, going on a little too emphatically about “immoral” behaviour, we should look a little more closely at who's doing the talking.

Regarding the recent comments on "Drugs vs Therapy " dated 2/24/08

I want to respond by posting them outright, and saying that your comments are all appreciated and well taken. I do understand that there are those circumstances in which psychotropic drugs are useful, if not necessary, to work through debilitating pain and possible suicidal or homicidal tendencies, although I do believe that these situations are more the exception than the rule.

Larry David on Hillary

Everyone needs to read this article by Larry David written on the Huffington post about Hillary entitled "On The Red Phone"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html
He sums it up beautifully;

Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

The Primary Fear Factor

I suppose if I were just getting involved in this presidential race, just starting to listen to the political debates, hearing the speeches and information from the media for the first time, I might have a different view.
It's too late for that; I have been a groupie since "day one", not the one Hillary so often speaks of, but the one back in early 2007 when we started to hear the nascent rumblings of Hillary Clinton intentions to run for President.
Since then I have watched, read and listened, to practically every word uttered regarding this race for presidency.
Although I have respect and admiration for Hillary, with the added pride of possibly having our first women president, I eventually chose to support Barack Obama. This choice was based on what I saw as his "holistic" approach to politics, his ability to inspire, and the fact that he brings more of a change to politics and has fewer entanglements with "special interests".
I happen to believe these special interests are the biggest culprits of all and the reason this country is where it is today. President Bush's et al involvement with special interest groups is the largest barrier to any real change. A real change can only come about if we are not wedded to big business, special interests and cronyism.

Which brings me to this moment and how I see the current state of the democratic race unraveling.

Tonight Barack still leads in delegates and the popular vote overall although his momentum has slowed with Hillary winning Ohio and Texas. I believe the main reason Barack Obama's momentum has been stunted at all is because of the negative ads and campaigning by Hillary Clinton, in short: her manipulation of our emotions. Most of the attacks (if not all) made were unfounded yet hurt Obama, these ads were based on fear and a way of denigrating him, it's said that she has "thrown all but the kitchen sink" at her opponent.
What’s interesting is: that at the same time Barack is just now starting to position himself as the anti John McCain candidate, Hillary is running as the anti Barack Obama candidate even aligning herself with John McCain against Barack. I believe this will weaken the democrat’s chance of winning the presidency.

It looks as if Hillary Clinton has no interest in turning away from the attack she has waged against her democratic opponent. In our society if you are on the attack you look like the fighter, a large number of voters who made up their minds in the last week were influenced by these ads, not for their truths, but for what they invoked: fear.

It’s frustrating to think that we can be so easily manipulated, that fear is such a motivator in this country, even after we’ve all seen what damage can be done, i.e. the Iraq war, when we let it influence our decisions. Sadly, it seems that he or she who stirs up the most doubt and fear seems to gain the most control. I don't believe Obama should need, or even wants, to start upping the attack on Hillary Clinton, that is partly why I am supporting him, but will this hurt him?

Whether or not Obama or Clinton become the nominee, we should never lose sight of the fact that the world is paying attention to what we do and how we conduct ourselves with one another, is this really the message we want to send?
Could we please rise above the name-calling, fear invoking, unfounded attacks and start to focus on the real issues that affect all of us?

Superdelegates? Is that one word?

If you're anything like me, it's been vague and confusing trying to understand this process of how the "superdelegate" thing works, but the more I understand the more ridiculous it sounds. These SD's are elected officials that actually end up deciding who will be the democratic nominee if neither canidate wins enough (at least 2,025) "regular" delegates in the primary election. This scenrio seems all too inevitable in the Clinton-Obama democratic primary. The problem I see with this process is that SD's don't have to vote the poplular vote so it's possible that special interests may once again take control of our decisions.
Here's some interesting articles I thought I'd share;

In the Wasington Post today Dan Balz wrote in response to the question;

Will Obama Catch Clinton Among Superdelegates?

"Yes -- if he keeps winning. Clinton has clear advantages in this battle for party insiders and has used them to build up an early lead. At this point, however, the superdelegates are likely to wait to see how the nomination battle unfolds, at least over the next month.

There are about 800 such delegates, and about half of them are still uncommitted. They may hold the balance of power in determining the nomination, given the fact that it will be difficult for either candidate to reach the 2,025-delegate threshold needed to win the nomination based on the results of remaining contests"

.

I found this article illuminating by Ari Emanuel, posted on the Hufington Post, in it he talks about the super delegates and how his brother happens to be one;

"My brother Rahm Emanuel is a superdelegate. I love my brother, and I trust my brother. But I gave up letting my brother dictate my life since he determined whether he got the top or bottom bunk in our bedroom back in Chicago.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don't trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee -- and, therefore, most likely the next president of the United States.

I want voters to make that decision. The superdelegates, my brother included, have not been elected by anybody to name the nominee. They've either been appointed by the Party or, as in my brother's case, have automatically inherited the role simply because they are elected officials. This isn't the place to debate the entire history of superdelegates. Suffice it to say, however, they were created by the Party machine decades ago for the express purpose of giving Party insiders the ability to thwart the popular will.

After what Democrats went through in Florida in 2000, we should be the first to reject any such funny business. We should be as opposed to superdelegates changing the course of an election as we were to the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush president.

The right thing for my brother, and all the other superdelegates to do, is to support the decision of the voters. Whichever candidate has won the most delegates going into the national convention should be granted the endorsement of the superdelegates. Period. And we should put pressure on them to agree to do so now -- before the jockeying, lobbying, and infighting get really ugly, as they inevitably will.

Likewise, Democrats must firmly oppose any shenanigans regarding delegates from Michigan and Florida. The party and the candidates all agreed that the delegates coming out of those states would not be seated. Unringing that bell after the fact and by fiat would be an outrage. We have only two legitimate options when it comes to Florida and Michigan: either we stick by the original agreement. Or we organize new elections in those states this summer in which both the Obama and Clinton campaigns can evenly compete.

After the democracy-snubbing arrogance of the Bush years, the last thing Democrats should be doing is wavering on our democratic principles on these issues. No super-power granted to superdelegates. And no backroom fudging on Florida and Michigan. Are you listening, bro?"