Better living through chemistry (part 2)

My new medication (which isn't quite so new anymore) does more than make me less anxious. Or perhaps the way it makes me less anxious isn't what I expected.I'd assumed that this medication worked in some mysterious molecular fashion to change my emotional state but now I'm not sure that the mechanism is so subtle. There are physical effects and I don’t mean the usual list of side effects (nausea, cramps, the infamous sexual side effects that - so far - I've avoided). As I said earlier - I sleep better and dream more fully. Whether it's the fact that I actually relax when I sleep or something else I'm in less pain than I have been since I was a young child. My partner says my body looks better - though I've lost no weight nor made any particular effort to work out. But my shoulders aren't hunched; my face (he says) is more 'open'. I don't either pull my head down or thrust out my chin like I'm trying to take a blow.I'm more adventurous - willing to try new things, go places I wasn't willing to go before. For my partner, who is much more active than I am, the change has been a huge relief. I've been willing to take more emotional risks as well, able to talk about long term relationship stresses that I wasn't willing to discuss before.All of that made me wonder just what made me so unhappy before. Was it - as I'd assumed - some uncontrollable biochemistry that a little pill can fix? Or - collections of physical problems that resulted in a constant strain that made me feel anxious, unhappy and depressed?Most likely, both.As anyone who suffers from chronic insomnia can tell you, or people with post traumatic stress syndrome - not being able to sleep well does much more than make you tired the next day. Getting through life is hard - the world seems less predicable, any little extra strain seems impossible to bear. Chronic sleep loss makes it hard to want to take risks.The medication affects seritonnin uptake, I'm not quite sure how but one of the side effects seems to be much less physical tension and joint pain. It wasn't until the pain was gone that I realized that I had been in pain, for a long time, and that everyone didn't feel that way. It wasn't 'normal.'And what does the body think about pain? It's a signal that something is wrong. My whole body tenses up to try to deal with it, which has the result of increasing my pain. Pain makes anyone afraid, the body is sure there's some threat out there, it throws you judgement off. If I'm always worried that I might develop a migraine, might become exhausted, how can I go someplace new where the environment is unpredictable - where I can't be sure the environment won't tip me from chronic discomfort to acute misery?My partner had a coworker who had chronic, life threatening asthma and her temperament made it very difficult to work with - she always seemed on the verge of some terrified or furious outburst. My partner just assumed she was the office asshole until he got a respiratory infection that made it very difficult to breathe for about a week. Suddenly, he was always on the edge of terror or rage - a fight or flight situation - the body's reaction to the sense of constant suffocation. He realized that his coworker wasn't just mysteriously an asshole; her body was telling her that she was close to dying - every day of her life.In those situations, it makes perfect sense to withdraw, to resist change, to refuse to add to what is already a burdensome life. With less fear of pain, I have the emotional energy to spend on other things.So, am I really depressed and anxious? Or simply physically uncomfortable to the point that I'm anxious and depressed?It really made me wonder how much of my own mental state is related to my physical one. Am I biochemically predisposed to depression or disposed to problems that increase my pain level - which makes me depressed? If a physical problem reduces your ability to sleep (such as something as common as sleep apnea), does that mean you are genetically pre-disposed to anxiety? Do all those 'female' hormones made women moody and grumpy for a few days a month or is it because the hormonal changes create pain through cramps and muscle spasm that create PMS?I don't believe in genetic mediation of behavior but - genes do affect your physical health so where does behavior modification cease being 'genetic'?Does it matter?I think so. According to studies, a huge number of Americans are on anti-anxiety type medications. Not incidentally, other studies show that Americans are chronically overworked and hugely short of sleep. The average working mother gets something like six hours of sleep a night and the actual human average should be something like nine. People are also increasingly overweight - with all the physical discomfort that causes; strain on muscles and bones, affecting posture, ability to be active and so on. The prepared foods we eat so much of are short of a lot of critical vitamins - things like B's, which affect muscle tension and nerve impulses.Would people be less anxious and depressed if they were sleeping better? Would we be less rigid as a culture if so many of us weren't functioning under an assortment of chronic pains?Would the pharmaceutical companies be making so much money if we got a little more sleep and ate our vegetables?It makes me wonder too if I'm somehow weak. I could be more active; I could do something to manage my pain better. Do I really have to take a pill? On the other hand, I've been trying to make those kinds of changes for years - and I've been too tired and too miserable to do them. And - I also resent the realization that I have been in so much pain for so long, unable to find a way to deal with it myself and because it's not something obvious like a broken leg, having to spend my limited energy on crap like my job.And - over the past week or so the effect I felt the first couple of weeks on my medication is fading. I'm at a very low dose and I'm desperately tempted to increase the medication. Now that I know how I can feel - I want to feel that way. Is the pill a crutch? Should I be spending my hours maintaining my body like it was a troublesome car?Is the medicine a shortcut or a necessity? Am I a coward for using it or taking reasonable care of myself?I don't know how to answer those questions. I don't even know if the effects I felt were nothing more than a placebo effect that faded over time. And I don't know if that matters either.

Defense of (gay) marriage

There's been some discussion lately (again) about same sex marriage, what it is and what should be done to encourage or prevent it. Everyone seems to have an opinion and I certainly do as well.So, what's the issue anyway? Oddly, there seems to be a lot of confusion of just what 'gay marriage' would be - both among the panicky politicians seeking a constitutional amendment, and those who support gay marriage.Gay marriage doesn't mean that a queer couple can walk into a Catholic Church and demand that the priest marry them. It doesn't mean that the National Guard is going to hold a gun to Billy Graham's head and force him to bless two men in eternal union. Those are religious unions and no legislation in the country is going to force them to marry gay couples. There are already plenty of religions that will celebrate or marry queer couples and this has really no effect beyond those individuals sense of faith and public celebration of their love.All those religious conservatives can breathe easy; their God can still condemn same-sex marriage as evil/unhealthy or perverse. No US law has the power to change that. Their protestations that God does not allow for gay marriage should be meaningless in a courtroom or the congressional halls. Religious prohibitions are not going to be affected and, with a constitutional separation of church and state, they should not be the basis of any US law.The other arguments against gay marriage seems to be the old 'natural law' argument, which is simply the same religious argument with a different name. Another is the argument that marriage is really designed to nurture and protect children, which is - in a way true - however, we do not prevent sterile people from getting married, or post-menopausal women, or men who've had their testicles removed through accident or illness. The same people who want to protect marriage as a child-rearing benefit to not champion lesbians with children as being unfairly denied there rights of marriage. Can you imagine a fertility test being the criteria for marriage?There are some groups that feel that there are aspects of gay sex that are unclean or unnatural. I know that the Dali Lama got into some minor flack about that issue because he stated that anal sex is unclean. He was accused of being homophobic. However, what he was saying was that putting your dick up someone's ass is an unclean act - whether it's two men or a man butt-fucking his wife. Buddhists have a variety of cleanliness requirements and the anus is an unclean part while the penis is not (or is less so). It had nothing to do with being gay. I have no idea, for example, what the Dali Lama (as a religious functionary) feels about oral sex. Again, this discrimination, if you want to call it that is based on religious proscriptions. The argument against special rights. Well that one I don't even know how to address, really since its demonstrably untrue. Gay people are simply agitating for the same rights as straight people. My best guess at addressing this issue is that perhaps those who claim gays are seeking special rights might actually mean that gays are seeking a change in the status quo (i.e.: gays are resisting their status as a despised minority). There are many people in the world, of all types, that resist change.What gay rights lobbyists are talking about when they refer to gay marriage is a basic civil right. Married couples receive a variety of state and federal benefits and responsibilities when they are married under a civil contract. This right has nothing to do with love and everything to do with equality.Without the right to a civil, legally recognized union with my partner, there are a huge amount of obstacles we face that heterosexual, married couples do not.I cannot be guaranteed of access to my partner if he's hospitalized, since I am not a 'relative' no matter that we've lived together for 11 years. We've been lucky on that so far but there is no right there.We cannot file federal or state taxes jointly.I cannot be guaranteed a health insurance policy that will cover my 'domestic partner'. When I was looking for a long-term job, one of my major considerations was a domestic partner privilege from the companies I was applying at. Note I said privilege. It's just that. My company can remove the domestic partner benefit at anytime without legal concerns. How many heterosexual married couples have to worry about whether their insurance will allow them to cover their spouse?And - when I pay for my health insurance, I do not get a standard benefit available to married couples. The federal government allows withdrawals from a paycheck before taxes to pay for health insurance of an employee and their family - their married family. The federal tax system does not recognize domestic partner benefits. What that means is that, first I'm taxed on the money I make, then it's taken away to pay for my insurance. Married folks? The money is taken away before taxes are applied, saving them a tax burden.When one of us dies, our legal and heritable rights are much more limited. I will not automatically be given trustee rights over my partner's estate as happens with married couples, nor will my position as his heir be particularly secure - especially since neither of us has a will. These are only a few of the issues that crop up in my mind - not even including the issues surrounding children, such as custody, adoption, visitation rights and such like. At 37, how many of us have to think of these issues? Married couples can just cruise along with the rights above assumed as normal.Finally, there is the growing international issue. Does the US really want to be in step with Turkey, Afghanistan, and a few African despotic countries as refusing to recognize gay marriages or unions from other countries? If we pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, we will be legally refusing to recognize the unions of people from Canada and several Northern European countries. The diplomatic issues will be ugly.This is the equality argument, written out, for gay marriage and it is my argument. I do not argue for gay marriage because of love. Love cannot be legislated - either for or against. I love my partner and no law in the world will change that. Nor to I think that a law should be passed on the basis of recognizing someone's love. I don't think emotionally based arguments like that are valid or useful in legislation if nothing else because it's almost impossible to 'prove' love. And - the civil rights of marriage have nothing to do with love. Or God. They are simply a collection of legal conveniences that our country uses to help maintain social order. Since queer people engage in the same complexities as straight people, they should receive the same help as straight people.

The Nature of Evil (Rant)

Two headlines caught my attention recently. 'Nine killed and scores injured as 86-year old driver crashes through crowded farmer's market''Four dogs killed, 15 sickened at local park, poison suspected'Which was the one to raise my anger and my pain?The second. Not because I don't feel for the people who've died and their families. I've shopped at the market they're talking about and it could have easily happened to my friends or family. Not because I feel that there is some inalienable right to drive that makes risks like allowing an elderly man who - evidently - was neither drunk nor drugged but simply too old to drive, acceptable. Not because I hate people and love animals.Probably, like most people who live in the modern US, I'm somewhat inured to human death. The news, the movies, the papers - all report a litany of death and human suffering on a daily basis - the more grotesque or horrific the better. Still...Intentionally poisoning dogs is an evil act. And it's a cowardly one, since the ultimate target isn't the dogs themselves but their owners who suffer the loss and guilt when their animals die. I don't doubt that its intentional poison, though the police don't have a suspect as yet. The park where these poisonings have happened is four blocks away from me; there has been conflict among the people who let their dogs run free in the park (with the inevitable side effects of dog crap and rambunctious animals) and those who want to use the park for other things and the animal deaths and illnesses have happened within a single month.It's the kind of act that I find morally reprehensible. Pets - dogs, cats and horses in particular - are terribly vulnerable to human cruelty. They've been raised, and bred for thousands of years, to live with us, trust us and love us - unconditionally. Domestic animals are dependent on us in ways that wild animals are not. And - they are animals.Not people, no matter how we love them, or dress them up or train them. They are animals and innocent in a way people are not. I don't mean in a religious sense but in the capacities and limits that are natural to animals. They do not, and cannot, understand the why's of human cruelty. A dog cannot understand why they hurt, why their sick, why they're a target because of the actions of the humans around them. They only know they hurt and they look - as they've been trained - to their owners to help them. For four dogs, their owners could not.A dog may attack you, a cat can be destructive. Cats will play with mice or other living things to satisfy their instincts. Animals can get angry, frustrated, lonely, jealous. But they cannot understand maliciousness. As human beings who have bred and trained wild animals to look to us for comfort and shelter, I believe we have a responsibility to our pets that goes beyond simply feeding and caring for them. We should never turn our tendency to cruelty to them, they are not suitable substitutes for our anger. We have created them to love us and to trust us. When we return that love with cruelty, when we betray that trust - we are committing a grievously evil act.›

Don't you love the medical system?

Some states are considering or have already implemented 'legible writing' laws for physicians - requiring them to write clearly on prescriptions and other medical orders.Some examples of actual hospital charts by doctors.1 She has no rigors or shaking chills but her husband states she was very hot in bed last night2 On the second day the knee was better and on the third it disappeared3 The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also appears to be depressed4 Discharge status: alive but without my permission5 The patient has refused autopsy6 The patient has no previous history of suicides7 Patient has left white blood cells at another hospital8 Patient's medical history has been remarkably insignificant with only a 40lb weight gain in the past three days9 Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch10 She is numb from her toes down11 While in ER she was examined, X-rated and sent home12 Patient was alert and unresponsive13 Rectal examination revealed a normal sized thyroid14 She stated that she was constipated most of her life until she got a divorce15 Both breasts are equal and reactive to light and accommodation16 Examination of genitalia reveals that he is circus sized17 The lab test revealed abnormal lover function18 The patient was to have a bowel resection. However, he took a job as a stockbroker instead19 The pelvic exam will be done later on the floor20 Patient was seen by Dr. Blank who felt we should sit on the abdomen and I agree21 Large brown stool ambulating in the hall22 Patient had two teenage children but no other abnormalities

Hmmm... what infamous crimanal am I??

You are the Marquis Da Sade. Even stripped ofexaggerations, Your real life was as dramaticand as tragic as a cautionary tale. Born to anancient and noble house, you were married(against your wishes) to a middle-class heiressfor money, caused scandals with prostitutes andwith your sister-in-law, thus enraging yourmother-in-law, who had you imprisoned under alettre de cachet for 14 years until theRevolution freed you. Amphibian, protean,charming, you became a Revolutionary,miraculously escaping the guillotine during theTerror, only to be arrested later forpublishing your erotic novels. You spent yourfinal 12 years in the insane asylum atCharenton, where you caused another scandal bydirecting plays using inmates and professionalactors. You died there in 1814, virtually inthe arms of your teenage mistress.You are a revolutionary deviant. I applaud you. Which Imfamous criminal are you? brought to you by QuizillaT

Pirates of the Caribbean (Movie Review)

Of course, I went to see Johnny Depp in eyeshadow but there was actually more to the movie than that. Quite a surprise for a movie based on a Disney ride.It was definitely, a fun, actiony, kid okay movie (but I think adults will find it as or more fun). Really fun. And better than I think people realize. The only part that really has to be ignored is the end where our romantic heroes settle down to raise babies - they should go off to become pirates. I have a suspicion that - with something like five writers - the original screenplay may hav e been just that. But 'family values' won over film integrity and we had our young couple settling down with Daddy's approval. That's a much more appropriate moral lesson for all our young viewers out there.The movie was a nice collection of myths - the 'pirate code' the Aztec gold and its curse, the fun to be had on the high seas. It was also a collection of decently researched details. Most of the ship-to-ship combat was realistically handled (minus much of the gore); the chaos of those sorts of things, the slippery confusion of wet wood, tilting decks, guns, swords and cannons all going off at the same time. There's a particular scene where two fighting ships are sailing in opposite directions and only a few feet from each other - firing their side cannon. That was actually a common strategy back then. Those small cannon have a very short range and low accuracy, you had to get real up close and personal when using them. The 'women are bad luck' is a pretty common belief in early ship life and the minor female pirate character was a nice touch - since there were, historically, a few female pirates.One of my friends brought up the unusual realization that - in a pirate movie - there were no villains. Even Barbarossa is a character with complexities and a real reason to do what he's doing. He's not chewing the scenery for no reason. The upright English commander proves to be a decent person in the end and Jack Sparrow is - well - Johnny Depp. How can you not love him?The characterization of Jack Sparrow was excellent, not just becuase it was Johnny Depp. Though our two romantic leads were clearly upright, honorable folks, Sparrow was a pirate and throughout the moive he remained one. There was no 'reforming' the lovable villan; while it was clear that he liked both Tanner and Elizabeth, I never got the impression that he was going to either sacrifice himself or his goal of getting the ship for the sake of that freindship. It was clear that he'd been a pirate and was going to continue robbing, pillaging and raping his black guts out. In addition, Sparrow was the one to voice some of the most mature moral statements in the movie 'The two important things in a person's live are - what they can do and what they can't.' (not an exact quote). In a movie meant for bouncy summer fun; Sparrow's character had some surprisingly complex moments - from his speech on freedom, to his acceptance of being abandoned by his shipmates 'they had to do what's good for themselves, that's all you can ask of a man'. It wasn't that Sparrow's personaliy or philosophy was somehow noble, or heroic but it was very real, very valid in the kind of world he'd chosen.There was also a remarkable lack of death - detailed death, that is. In the mass combat scenes, you have to assume that there was quite a bit of dying going on but it was pretty bloodless. For all the sword fights, there were perhaps only four or five clear murders in the movie. Howver, the lack of gore didn't look forced; it was unrealistic but not blatantly obvious.The plot held together fairly well, though if Sparrow had been abandoned on that deserted island in a mutiny ten years ago - he must have been a captain by the time he was twelve! As well, we did finally determine that if 'Bootstrap' Tanner had given the gold to his son - then he too was suffering under the curse and when he was tossed overboard (as relayed by one of the dead pirates), he wouldn't have died. From the story, he wasn't chained to the cannon but strapped, so he likely (once he realized he wasn't going to drown) got free and may perhaps be still alive. If not, then he died at the end of the movie when his own son threw the last bit of gold into the box. In keeping with a PG-13 movie, I prefer to think that he survived and had a wonderful reunion with his newly married son.All in all, a movie well worth seeing in a matinee or second run theater. The way movie prices are these days, I don't recommend any movie at full price. However, the trailer for 'Haunted Mansion' (the next in the franchise) did not look nearly as promising.i

Comedia Types (Icons of Euopean Street theatre)

Since I may use these themes or terms (no doubt misspelled), I thought I'd put them up. I'm relaying what my partner learned any errors are my own. This is a very brief overview.Comedia is the old, very old, Euorpean street theatre. It's a theater about status - basically, it's political street theater. Esseintially, Comidia are plays of 'Masters and Servants' and developed in the early Rennisance. It's mask work - all the characters have very spesific styles of mask, dress and voice. The mask features and the carictures of Comedia can be found in Shakespeare, silent movies, books and helps shape modern American and European stereotypes.Vecchi are the old men; they have all the social status. They are the authority figures and create obstacles that must be overcome in the process of the show.The t wo traditonal Vecchi are Pantelone - the rich old man with the moneybag between his legs that he's constantly confusing with his balls. He has money, a beautiful daughter (sometimes a son), he's a miser and cares about nothing in the world as much as money. The merchant of venice is a pantelone. Visual: He's skinny and he holds onto things. He's portrayed with a high, complaining voice. Some Comedia actors apply animal types to characters and his is the chick. He has a quick, head bobbing movement and a restless manner. His mask is The other old man is Il Doctorre. He's fat and round instead of angular, low voiced and talks all the time. All he cares about is food and sex. Il Doctorrre is a very stupid man pretending to be smart and has a huge ego. He's very easy to fool. He's the traditional quack. He also has a child. Visual: L'inamorate are the young, maskless romantic heroes. They exist to fall in love, to b e frustrated by the plans of their parents (Il Doctorre and Pantelonne). They are the typical teen-angst characters. They're not too bright either. Their characters are very soap opera and high melodrama.Often in Commedia, the point of the play is to get the star-struck lovers happily married. However, since they aren't very bright themselves they need help. The traditional complexity is that Pantalone falls in love with Il Doctorre's daughter (or vice versa) and is attempting to get her hand in marrige without paying the dowery, while the two children are in love with each other and the girl is desperate to avoid the fate of marrige to the old miser.They need their servants - these are the real movers and shakers of Commedial plays. Called Zannis. Zanni's have long noses and, generally, the longer the noses the stupider they are. In classic Comedia there is always a first servant and a second servant. The firsts are smart and the seconds are not. The major first servants are Brigella and Scappino, the second servants are Arliquino, from whom Harliquin is descended and Columbine. Arliquino is absolutly incapable of thinking - beyond stupid to an almost different creature from a human being. He can do anything, but can't think. He's equivalent to Monkey or, possibly, Cyote.The female equivalnt of Brigella is the older woman - big brea sted, smart and often foul mouthed. Judy, from Punch and Judy is descended from this chracter.Columbina is the female equivalent of Arliquino but, unlike him, she is very smart. She's the smartest character in Commedia. She dresses just like Arliquino but dosen't wear a mask. She's the problem solver (human problems), she's an acrobat, beautiful, young.There are two characters that are not part of the standard hierarchy of master, upper servant and lower servant.Capitano - the mercenary or soldier who's down on his luck, usually a forigener - traditionally in Commedia he's a forigener from the other country that the audience used to fight. He's a braggart, liar, very dumb and a cowardly bully. He's a tale-teller, telling stories about how brave he was, always incredibly outrageous and very vain. He's an angry Baron Muchousen character or an unsympatheic Cyrano character.Visually: Long nosed masks (often shaped like a penis - the shorter his nose is the angrier he is). He wears expensive, ragged clothes. Swaggers and cowers.Pulcinella - (means a one day old chick in dialect Italian). Punch is descended from this character. He's usually either the least sympathetic charcter or the most - occasionally both. He's a sacred fool - he can say the things that no one will say, he can make fun of the people no one dares make fun of and he's the one character that will 'break the fourth wall' and address the audience directly. Pulcinella can take the part of any charcter in Commedia except the lov ers because he cannot be beautiful and he's always married - if his wife is present in the show, its the female brigella character. He talks a lot, can't keep secrets, is very cynical and is either very smart pretending to be dumb or stupid. Visually: He has a hook nosed mask, extremely ugly and physically deformed - either a limp or a hunchback. The single consistent thing about Pulcinella is that he must be grotesque.Pulcine lla is unique in that he exists in other forms of early theater outside of Commedia. There is a turkish character of the same type. And there is a similar image of a hunched back, club-footed character in Roman imagry.While there are clear connections between Punch and Judy shows and Comedia, no one is positive which came first - the Punch and Judy shows or Comedia.

'Superheros Unmasked' on the History Channel

I went to my friends for dinner last night and they have cable - slaves to the technocrocy that they are.There was a great show on last night - Superheros Unmasked, which was a brief history of comic books. It wasn't solely a 'name and date' list of events but did also talk a bit about the concepts, ideas and issues of the various eras that made the comic characters what they were in that time.I loved the pre-comic's code stuff - especially the early Wonder Woman comics. Wonder Woman was the first comic to be designed by a professional writer who moved into comics and he was a psycologist (or psychiatrist) as well. And of course, the stuff was jaw dropping in its revelation of his personal issues. As well as the wild and wolly days before US censorship. One of the early 'weaknesses' of Wonder Woman back then was - she lost all her powers (strength etc) if her magic bracelets were 'bound together'. Her comics were full of Betty Page-like bondage scenes; bit gags, hobbles, chains, the rack, hoods and so on. There was spanking and catfights; it was just amazing. The images were classic early het soft core bondage. I really have to see if there's an 'Essential Wonder Woman' that has those very early comics.I also discovered that Superman was really the *first* superhero and he, Wonder Woman and Batman were for many yearst the only survivors of the first generation of comics; they've all been in existance since before WW2.The war era was, according to the show anyway, really the era of superheros. A huge number of superhero's were generated and went off to fight Nazi's, the Japs and so on. Pre-comic's code they were full of really graphic violence and absoloutely facinating and terrible racial stereo-types. I belive it was a Captian America comic cover that had him punching a (fanged and squint-eyed) 'Jap' in the arm and the man's flesh was just exploding off his arm to reveal the bones beneath. It was odd to see such graphic images in superhero comcis because nowadays in the mainline hero comics the violence is still mysteriously non-graphic.The show went through the 50's and the introduction of the Comics Code that destroyed all of the early horror comics and badly baudlerized all of the survivors (many comics died in the 50's). The 60's and the attempts to re-vamp various characters to the era - with varying levels of success. The 60's 'Green Lantern/Green Arrow' looked really facinating and I think the current incarnation of 'Thor- God of Thunder' is really the descendent of Green Arrow.One of the more interesting things was the return of Captian America to the comic world and the choice the writers made to have him be the *original* Captian America. I may have to start following that line - as a man who lived through WW2 and it's simpiler moral issues (as reflected in the original comics), he's also facing the fact that thing are *not* that simple and what does he do now?Anyway, as you can see from my endless rambling, I found the show really interesting and if anyone gets a chance to see it they really should.g

What threat am I?

Threat rating: extremely low. You may think you cansubvert the government, but if you should tryyou will be smited mightily because God likesus best. What threat to the Bush administration are you? brought to you by Quizilla

Why is Prof. Xavier bald? (Iconography of pop culture 1)

This is something I've been thinking (and discussing) for some time. My partner is in theatre work and is involved in Comedia (old style European street theatre) and *types* are very important in Comedia. And its not only in old fashioned work that you find types, or icons, or sterotypes. They're everywhere, of course, part of culture and history.I find icons, myths and cultural types facinating and spend a ridiculous amount of time puzzling them out.Types are important because the communicate so much information - almost instantly (to the culture familiar with the type). In places like comics, they're so important because of the text limitations on the format. Types also have years - often centuries of 'baggage' with them that can add layers of richness to a character.I explore them in comics, mostly. Professor Xavier is a really interesting place to start - not because he's the easiest to pick apart but because he's so oddly contradictory. For me, he's also a character I don't know particularly well but I thought I'd start at the top anyway.The professor, often heralded as the most moral and 'good' person in the X-men universe is based partly on the old 'Mastermind' villans. In theatre, baldness, represents age but it also represents intelligence. All sensible but do you remember his weird eyebrows from the early comics - upswept, pointy? Straight from Ming the Merciless. Upswept, pointy eyebrows in theatrical make-up usually represent sinister intelligence.In general, says my partner, sharp angles of any sort in make-up indicate sinister or evil intent while round features and shapes lean towards good, also honesty, openess. He also thinks that the angled eyebrows (found in early depcitions of the professor, modified for Magneto, also found on Spock - the inhuman, logical and inscrutable alien) may come from European depections of Satan.The professor's baldness also indicates that his 'power' is the mind, intelligence and his famous psychic powers. One of my friends also thinks that he's supposed to look a bit like the alien 'grays' - then again, they themselves are an icon of alien, sometimes sinister intelligence.Wealth is also an often ambigous symbol - especially in the US and the fact that he is 'old money' isn't entirely positive either. American culture favors the 'rags to richess' sort of wealth over the 'parasites' who've inherited their money with out working or (its often implied) deserving it. The wheelchair, of course, has spesific and fairly obvious symbology. Crippled in body but powerful in mind. My partner thinks its also an indicator that Xavier is a manipulator of people - because, after all, someone who's in a wheelchair must learn as a survival skill how to get others to do what they need to help them. If Xavier wants to get something from a tall shelf, he has to get someone *else* to do it. He can ask, he can command, he can wheedle, whine, bribe, mentally control. But he must act through another. And - of course, the wheelchair as an indicator of physical incapacity has to go whenever Xavier is having a romance. As I understand it, he regularly gets new bodies, miraculously cured or etc when the writers schedule him for a romance. After all, if his legs aren't working, what else might be on the fritz??Caveats on this post (and it's sequels):This is an exploration, not an attempt to prove that these characters are one thing or another. I'm certianly not attempting to tell anyone else how to portray these characters.This is based on European/American iconography and sterotypes. There is a world of types, myths and icons out there but I'm most familar with US, European stuff. I'd be really interested to see what other cultures take on these mostly European descended icons is.I'm dyslexic so I can't spell very well and the on-line spellchecker freezes my computer. When I compose on-line like this, expect errors.a

Better living through chemistry

A few months ago I finally, after much procrastination, started to see a therapist. Which resulted in a prescription for anti-anxiety/anti-depressant medication and - after a few more weeks of procrastination - I filled the prescription and started taking my pink pills.The doctor nearly laughed at the level I wanted to start, half the smallest possible dose. The level he prescribes for 'little old ladies'. However, I'm oddly sensitive to medications. Still - after two weeks, even at this tiny dose, the change is … startling.I've never taken mood modifying chemicals before, legal or otherwise, can't drink alcohol, don't even smoke. My fear was that these pills would make me 'different' somehow. Make me a 'new person' which I don't find appealing as a concept. I may not like myself at times - even often - but I've worked hard to be the person I am and I don't want a handful of psychoactive molecules to undo all my work. But now I wonder if I'll become one of those people who are terrified of th e thought of losing their pills. I'm not suddenly joyous but - I'm not afraid all the time. I actually relax when I sleep - and dream. The few dreams I had in my adult life were usually grueling nightmares. Lately, my dreams have been fun, or interest ing, fodder for stories - and not just horror. You wouldn't believe how much a difference it makes to not be afraid of your dreams. Or to no longer be afraid of sunset and the inevitable arrival of disturbing thoughts - was my partner hit by a car and k illed today and no one told me? Did my cat eat something poisonous and will he be dying when I come home? Do I have cancer? Am I going to lose my job? Is my ex-boyfriend (of 11 years ago, no less) still stalking me?I've always know those thoughts wer e unrealistic, unlikely in the extreme and I learned a long time ago not to reinforce them by talking about them. But nothing I could do would guarantee that they would not happen. I also know that my problems were relatively minor. I hold down a deman ding job, I write professionally, I have some friends, I've been with my partner for over 11 years. I managed (at 35) to get my Bachelor's, despite the fact that my high school councilor told me I was too stupid to go to college. There are people who ha ve suicidal impulses, how do self-harm, who can't simply ignore their darker fears and needs. So, I was embarrassed to ask for pills, as if I was exaggerating my problems somehow.But still… It's nice not be afraid all the time.›