In this era of so-called "reality television" where non-actors are prompted to act out impossible plots invariably involving dismay at the prospect of being "voted" off an island or out of a dysfunctional living group, the dramatic comedy about a high-class escort, Secret Diary of a Call Girl, is catching a lot of flak for being "unrealistic."

Of course. Because we all know the "truth" about prostitution is that most hookers are addicted to drugs, beaten by their pimps and unhappy in their lives.

Really? And how do we know this?

There aren't any solid statistics mind you. The studies on prostitution never access the thousands of highly paid and well educated people who choose the profession of escorting. Instead, researchers prefer to focus on the 10% minority - street prostitutes. Ensuring even more bias, the street prostitutes who are interviewed are usually in crisis and either incarcerated or seeking assistance in one form or another. Not exactly the stuff that random samples are made of. But it does pander to the prevailing prejudices about prostitution.

Leave it to the British to bring us a light hearted approach to the world's oldest profession. Although Secret Diary of a Call Girl was not produced in this country, US viewing audiences are apparently ready for a less uptight take on sex for money. Showtime's debut of this sexy tale netted nearly a million viewers.

As a former high-end escort, I am happy to report that the show is mostly accurate. It reminds me of the early days of my career, when I was still charging by the hour and just beginning to explore the concept of accompanying my clients to dinner, parties, business travel, etc. Billy Piper (the British actor who plays the happy hooker Hannah) does an excellent job of capturing the fun and fascination which permeate a working girl's first brush with all that cash and male adoration.

Of course complications come with the fact that it is still an illegal profession in most countries and it violates favorite taboos of family and friends. But at this stage of Hannah's career, she is keeping her profession a secret and she has yet to deal with the stinging rejection with which society in general and loved ones in particular can and will punish a prostitute.

Since this a comedy, I am comfortable with that omission. If I ever get the chance to produce my dramatic screenplay about prostitution, it will include the side which isn't funny or fun as well as the glamorous and exciting aspects. After all, a drama is meant to create a more balanced view of its subjects. But I am taking great delight in reliving the sheer joy of being paid for sex which Secret Diary of a Call Girl presents without apology.

It is a refreshing, realistic - if not completely balanced - presentation of life for many quite satisfied and successful service providers.

PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recently released shocking statistics to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Out of the over 3000 dogs and cats entrusted to PeTA for adoption by pet owners in 2006, almost every one of them was murdered by PeTA instead.

Some of you might think my use of the word "murder" is a bit sensationalistic. But I think it is more than appropriate given we are talking about PeTA - the same organization whose favorite battle cry is "meat is murder."

You can read the disturbing data for yourself by visiting the Virginia Department of Agriculture's website at this address:
http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bi ... ;year=2006

Lest we be tempted to excuse this outrageous violation of public trust as a "necessary evil" due to pet overpopulation and limited funding, we need only compare PeTA's performance with that of other humane organizations in the same state. The average euthanasia rate in 2006 for other humane societies in Virginia was just 34.7 per cent. PeTA outperformed these organizations with a whopping 97.4 per cent! Apparently when it comes to killing dogs and cats, no body does it better than PeTA.

PeTA raised more than $31 million in 2006. The unsuspecting public continues to send their contributions to PeTA with the expectation that their dollars will go to save lives. Little do they know they are funding a genocide whose ultimate goal is the elimination of all companion animals. You see, PeTA hates pets.

If PeTA co-founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk, has her way, you won't be allowed to share your life with a dog or cat. Toward that end, she has launched an assault to exterminate as many dogs and cats as she can get her hypocritical hands on.

You see, I use to be a PeTA supporter and every month I read the magazine my membership entitled me to. From the fog of my initial enthusiasm about saving the animals and punishing big business, I began to detect an underlying sentiment which I hoped I was imagining.

In response to the Katrina catastrophe, Newkirk quipped that many times the kindest response to a homeless dog or cat is to euthanize it. I might have bought her rhetoric but I was also supporting Best Friends Animal Society in Arizona and they have a no-kill policy. Pets were being rescued and reunited with their owners by Best Friends, while PeTA complained. PeTA's complaint? Those dogs and cats should have been "put out of their misery."

A year later, two PeTA employees were brought up on 21 felony counts of animal cruelty, 7 counts of littering and 3 counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. You see, it is actually standard PeTA practice to pick up pets at the pet owners' homes with promises of finding them good homes. Once the PeTA van pulls around the corner and out of sight, they simply stick a needle of sodium penabarbitol in the hapless dogs and cats entrusted to their care, then stuff their dead bodies into trash bags. The only aspect of this scenario which Ingrid Newkirk objected to was that the dead bodies were dumped into a garbage dumpster. Again, Ingrid Newkirk wants to kill your cats and dogs. But she IS sorry for littering.

That's when I began to realize that Ingrid Newkirk believes that being a pet - a well-fed, much loved member of a human family - is a form of misery which should be eliminated. While PeTA preaches the evils of meat, leather, circus animals, zoos, etc.; PeTA quietly wages a war against having pets. Anything short of living free and in the wild is considered a violation of animal rights.

Somehow, in an effort to return all animals to their wild state, PeTA actually justifies murder and genocide of domestic animals labeling it the "kindest thing" they can do. Of course PeTA won't come right out and admit they want to murder your pets. That could take a big bite out of the millions of dollars they are raking in every year.

But actions speak louder than words and it's time we got wise to PeTA.

Oh and I still believe in saving the animals and punishing big business. While I eat meat and have pets (if you ask my dog, he would tell you that he has me) - things which offend some people - my efforts and charitable contributions go toward saving the lives of dogs and cats as well as endangered species. I also take great care to buy my meat from organic and sustainable sources. If you are also interested in saving lives and ending suffering, you might want to check out these worthy organizations. Not a single one of them kills puppies or kittens - and they could use your support in making this a better world for all of us.

http://www.bestfriends.org/

http://www.hfa.org/

http://www.nrdc.org/

Michelle Horn plays the helpless sister in the movie Hostage

Apparently I didn’t have anything better to do the other day, or maybe I was just looking for some brain candy to afford a few minutes respite from my work-aholism. Either way, I spent more than a few minutes watching the televised version of Bruce Willis’ Hostage. About 30 minutes into the movie, I realized I had seen it before. Not this 2005 version, mind you, but the plot was a worn out resurrection of many movies I have seen before. Our male hero experiences predictable problems on the home-front as a by-product of his macho attitude and his round-the-clock devotion to his work. Alienated from his family, he dives deeper into his role as the only policeman who can rescue other men’s families.

The family of the moment contains a criminal daddy played by Kevin Pollak who bites it early in the drama. With the only potentially competent adult male murdered and no longer a threat to our hero’s deeds of courage, the little boy steps in to be the brains of the family and Bruce’s partner in heroism. His older sister is too busy being stupid and slutty to afford any relief from this male dominated dream of ultimate chivalry. In between mind-numbingly predictable scenes where the boy and Bruce coordinate their master plan to overcome the bad guys, Bruce’s movie wife (played by Serena Scott Thomas) performs a few seconds of hysteria before we cut back to the men’s work. Hollywood has no problem feeding us scenarios about little boys from five to ten who are capable of things no adult woman is allowed to accomplish in the same movie.

There is a plethora of similar theatrical fare usually christened “Action/Adventure” movies. I was thinking there must be a more accurate term – one which would prepare the viewer for preposterous and predictable plot lines as well as the blazing bullets and crashing cars. Then it occurred to me we could call them “Prick Flicks!” You know, the male version of “Chick Flicks.” But a quick check on Google led me to Gloria Steinem’s July 11, 2007 posting. Turns out she beat me to the punch and that’s just fine. I will leave you with an appropriate quote from Ms. Steinem along with my thanks to her for remaining sharply tuned to our culture’s need for a less biased view of the feminine contributions to it:

"So what exactly is a 'chick flick?' I think you and I could probably agree that it has more dialogue than special effects, more relationships than violence, and relies for its suspense on how people live instead of how they die. . . .

"Just as there are 'novelists' and then 'women novelists,' there are 'movies' and then 'chick flicks.' Whoever is in power takes over the noun -- and the norm -- while the less powerful get an adjective.

[from Gloria Steinem’s July 11, 2007 blog: A Modest Proposal. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gloria-st ... 55772.html]

Some words are thrown around without an experiential grasp of their original meaning. Context and intent are everything yet such subtle qualities our current culture makes few allowances for.

Take the word “detachment” for instance. While it may seem like a potentially cold and unfeeling state of affairs, that is not the hoped for emotional state. Instead detachment encourages us to recognize we do not have the power to control other people – even and especially people we are passionately and lovingly connected to. Detachment is NOT a quality endorsing a lack of compassion. Detachment challenges us to love deeply AND give up our expectations of control. When detachment is truly achieved, MORE emotions are the result – NOT less.

Is there someone you need to detach from? Chances are you feel VERY connected to this person – too connected. You flinch and hold your breath at their every action or word. You feel controlled by them because you care so much. Feelings such as these are common when we love another and yet these feelings are not love. This is where detachment comes in.

By teaching ourselves to recognize our separate identity and our lack of control over others, we gradually learn to detach. Detachment gives us the space to function as individuals while we love.

On the other hand, apathy is a defense mechanism which creates a lack of feeling. Apathy does not love or feel passionate or experience deep emotions. Apathy leads to inactivity because when we are apathetic we simply do not care enough to take action.

Sometimes we confuse our defense mechanism of apathy for our intended state of detachment. It can take a little experience with these two states of mind before you readily distinguish between the two. For myself, I find there are layers of anger and grief behind my apathy. Apathy is after all a lie. Everyone cares about something – if nothing more than themselves. So apathy is a way of posing or fronting – pretending we don’t give a damn.

If you can sense anger and sadness behind your “detachment” you can rest assured you aren’t experiencing real detachment. You will know you have achieved true detachment when you feel at peace with yourself and the person you are detaching from – AND you still feel compassion and love for that person.

Keep in mind too that “love” is another misused term. A good definition of love is difficult to obtain but I like what Deepak Chopra has to say about love:

“ . . . it all includes compassion, which means to be able to suffer with other people. It means to feel the pain of the environment, or what we call the environment, which is really our extended body. It means to be able to help brothers in distress, to understand at the deepest level you wouldn’t exist except in terms of the other. Jesus says to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The deeper meaning is that the other is you. . . . But love without giving and love without action is meaningless, and also action without love is irrelevant.”

[Deepak Chopra: Interview by Eliza Thomas in February Common Ground]

So this thing of detaching with love is quite a balancing act. It requires us to stay connected to our passion and our compassion while letting go of our expectations and attempts at control. We should still give but we give without expecting to achieve a certain result. And we only give to the point where we won’t feel depleted or resentful.

We must first love ourselves before we can love others. That requires healthy boundaries of course. When we learn to say “no” to the things which don’t resonate with us or work for our well-being, we also say yes to our ability to feel deep passion. Again, if we say “no” as a defense mechanism and simply erect walls of resistance, then we have not achieved a healthy boundary. Walls and boundaries are different entities. Walls are structures which do not allow passage. Boundaries delineate where you and I begin and end while still allowing for communication and exchange.

So in order to create more love in the world, each of us would do well to learn what I call “exquisite selfishness.” Once we comprehend how connected we are to others – and by “others” I mean every living organism on planet earth and beyond – we also come to know that our best interests are served best by making sure that everyone is cared for and treated with respect. If one suffers, we all suffer in some way. That knowledge inspires behavior which appears altruistic but is in fact “exquisitely selfish.” What I like about reframing love in this way, is that it is more honest and therefore more resilient.

Sometimes good intentioned people “try to show love.” This is their first mistake of course. “Trying” to do anything is a prescription for failure. There is no such thing as “try.” We either “do” or we “do not.” And secondly, “showing love” says it all. This is usually an attempt to “appear” loving rather than an organic and authentic state of loving.

Far more love happens when we first acknowledge our “negative” emotions such as anger, fear and sadness. Then we need to allow these emotions to play out and through us. On the other side of the forbidden feelings lies the love and satisfaction we crave. But being authentic in the moment is the only way we can reach the “positive” feelings.

And it is important to note that “being authentic in the moment” is NOT license to be verbally abusive. Acknowledging our emotions and allowing them to play out inside of us does NOT include translating those feelings to destructive behavior. When we “act out” our anger in particular, we are more likely to create more unpleasant emotions such as regret and guilt. The repercussions can go beyond feelings and might even include lawsuits and/or jail terms - certainly NOT the stuff that self-love is made of.

I have found writing my anger out very helpful. Also screaming it while I am somewhere I won’t prompt someone else to dial 911 (my car works for me) releases the energy and allows me to get to the root emotion which is almost always grief or sadness. At which point I cry. I call tears the “shower of the soul.” It feels cleansing to cry. Again, if your tears are the result of enormous self-pity or a disingenuous attempt to evoke sympathy, you won’t feel “cleansed.” Tears which are hard-won fruits of introspection however, can transform your internal world like nothing else.

So to summarize, love is an extremely complex concept which includes both our feelings and how those feelings translate to action. Love can be generated from the “selfish” realization that our well-being depends upon the well-being of others. Love requires an honest heart which is not cluttered with expectations or attempts to control or manipulate. Love for others grows out of our ability to love ourselves. Love knows two seemingly contradictory truths: that you and I are separate entities who require healthy boundaries AND that you and I are really one so I not only feel compassion for you, but I take loving action to assist you in ways which do NOT violate your boundaries or mine.

Yeah, it’s complicated like I said. And yet, the experience of it has enormous power and passion.

Yep those are some very revealing photos of the current governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Some people balked a little at the idea of electing another actor to run the golden state, but he is serving his second term, so all in all I guess the voters are not too disturbed by the wide circulation of these photos which show his man package pretty well if you ask me.

Here are some interesting images of the former mayor of Brooklyn Park, MN. He is also the former governor of Minnesota. Maybe you have heard of him? Jesse Ventura. Guess the voters didn't mind him showing his pecs either. In fact Ventura ran for office wearing a pair of boxer shorts. Go figure.




Now apparently voters in Arlington, Oregon have got their panties in a bind over what I consider a flattering photo of their mayor. Mayor Carmen Kontur-Gronquist is being asked to resign because some busy-bodies found this photo of her on MySpace:



Hmmm. . . I wonder if the folks in Oregon are any more or less prudish than the folks in Minnesota . . . not likely. I grew up in Oregon. The state actually puts a premium on the individual's rights to function fairly independently of government intervention. But we know what is really going on here, don't we?

Half naked men are perfectly acceptable - especially when they are brandishing swords and guns. But let a woman with a little political power show her belly button ring and everyone flies into a flurry of outrage and scandal.

Guess the old double standard is going to die an agonizingly show death. Pity.