The Jewish Week In Review

From Steven I. Weiss:

escambia county school? Powerpoint Download citibank online
solano county New Times wcco news
elite wrestling school Sex Sims Online home organizing
adams song lyrics Aberdeen News online solitaire
newsboys lyrics Marion County Library guns online
Factory built homes tulsa news 435. Bridgewater Nj Homes ri home for sale
psychic readings online? Clark County Schools holiday home
Seminole county public schools new england revolution 797. Psp Movie Downloads “home sense”
gangs of new york? Work At Home Agent work at home agent
new york real estate; Orlando Homes For Sale bad day lyrics

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on The Jewish Week In Review

An Interview With Author Matthew Randazzo

Matthew Randazzo is the author of three books: Ring of Hell: The Story of Chris Benoit and the Fall of the Pro Wrestling Industry, Breakshot: A Life in the 21st Century American Mafia and Mr. New Orleans: The Life of a Big Easy Underworld Legend.

We talk Sunday night, May 24, about his new book Breakshot.

I mumble about a woman I met who turned out to be a grad student in chemistry. "I thought she was a stripper."

Matthew: "That shows you still have room to evolve. Just because a woman is a beautiful, sexual piece of art does not mean that she uses that to make money. Still objectifying women, it’s a shame."

Luke: "When you were a kid, what did you want to be when you grew up?"

Matthew: "A writer since age eight. I wrote my first book when I was nine. I had to stop it halfway because I had killed off all the characters. I liked the power of killing off characters too much to put together a story. It was just a gruesome stunt show of these elaborate ways for me to off people."

Luke: "What did you think of the movie, The Wrestler, starring Mickey Rourke?"

Matthew: "Mickey Rourke and Darren Aranofsky (the director) name-dropped me in an interview. I wrote a book on pro wrestling, Ring of Hell, and they found that book intriguing.

"I thought the movie was good. I thought Mickey Rourke’s performance was incredible. It was very true-to-life from what I’ve encountered interviewing washed-up pro wrestlers.

"It captured a true segment of the pro wrestling industry. To me the more interesting story is not the down-and-out guys who end up chewed up but more how even the millionaires, the guys you see on TV, find their bodies destroyed and find themselves psychologically warped by an industry that is just unimaginably exploitative. That multi-million dollar corporate exploitation is more interesting than the flea market independent show thrown by some guy with a couple of thousand bucks to waste, which is what The Wrestler represented."

Luke: "When you were in high school, where were you in the social pecking order?"

Matthew: "I was not very high. I would’ve been a nerd if I hadn’t been so good at speaking and so better at insulting than any of the bullies were. I was a loner but not a terribly picked on loner. I felt alienated. I went to an expensive private school in suburban New Orleans (Metairie Park Country Day) and felt completely out of place. It [was home to] a lot of the rich white and Jewish people who fled New Orleans when it became increasingly black in the 1960s and 1970s."

Luke: "Do you love writing?"

Matthew: "I love writing. I keep getting myself into trouble because I will accept almost any writing assignment because I love the challenge of it. I am almost completely unemployable otherwise."

"If I had better people skills, I would be running for political office. Writing is the closest simulation of real world power that you can ever have while being a guy isolated in a room in his pajamas. Know what I mean?"

Luke: "I know exactly what you mean."

"What are your strengths and weaknesses as a writer?"

Matthew: "That’s a very challenging question. My strengths? When I’m really deep into a topic, I can really delve into it in a way that’s kinda left-field and ways that people haven’t previously thought about it. I’m very good lyrically with the ways I describe things. My uses of language, I’m a very stylistic writer. My prose is very forceful. My weaknesses? I tend to go overboard. I get so passionate in the midst of writing that I say things that I am not sure even I believe. I have a very good work ethic. I’ll work harder than anyone you ever meet. But I have very poor organization. I may work 36 hours straight one day and then spend two days in a coma just staring at a computer screen not getting anything done."

Luke: "Give me the Readers Digest version of how you became a writer?"

Matthew: "I did all types of weird gigs. I got more assignments to write something and then the magazine would fall apart… I dropped out of college when I was 20 and I devoted myself full-time to becoming a writer. I had my first agent when I was 20, Jack Scovil in New York. We put together a couple of books. One of them was Breakshot. It took four or five years to get a book deal. I was supporting myself as a paralegal. Eventually I got an offer from my second agent, Andrew Lownie, a guy in London , if I wanted to write about pro wrestling. I have a lot of friends in that industry. I took that opportunity. That came out last year when I was 24. It turned into a surprising success. I got a two-book deal after that. I’m just about to announce another book deal."

"I had two novels written when I was 18 and 19, both of which I had opportunities to publish and decided not to."

Luke: "How has marriage changed you as a writer?"

Matthew: "It’s made me a lot more empathetic. It’s made me think more about how I want to approach things. I’m naturally more of a scorched-earth personality, very Napoleonic. Before I met her, my writing read like someone in the midst of a PCP fit, just this raging masculine blast of adjectives. It was unreadable except for the 5% of the populace who were angry nerds. She humanized me and helped me mature."

Luke: "How did you get mixed up with Kenny Gallo?"

Matthew: "I know a gentleman from the underworld in Providence, Rhode Island. One day I’m called. He says, I’m going to send you a ticket. I don’t want you to ask why or who you’re going to meet. I just want to introduce you to someone.

"I liked the guy and I trusted him and I was bored, so I went to where he said to meet him. I go into a hotel room and in comes Kenny. He says, Kenny, you’ve talked about writing a book. Matt, you’re a great writer. You two need to do business. I’m going to get something to eat. And he walked out of the room.

"I was only 20 when that happened. I think Kenny and I have talked every single day since then. The book turned out well. It’s a stranger than fiction story but that’s how it happened."

Luke: "How long did it take you to realize you had a book with him?"

Matthew: "Once I realized he was telling the truth… I could see he was a Japanese-American gentleman and he was in the Mafia. That’s a book right there. The notion of this well-educated wealthy kid from Orange County who reaches the inner sanctum of the New York Mafia was a book."

Luke: "Why wasn’t your stomach turned that this was a stone-cold killer and you should have nothing to do with him?"

Matthew: "I’ve known a lot of people who you could say similar things about. I’m the son of two lawyers. I could’ve become a lawyer. I chose to become a writer because I wanted to lead a more interesting life and to do that I knew I’d have to take a lot of risks… When I wrote about pro wrestling, people told me I should be worried about my safety because I took on Vince McMahon. I called him unimaginable things that he’s never been called in public and this is a bililonaire with a reputation for taking reckless vengeance.

"I made a conscious decision when I decided to devote myself to becoming a writer that I would do anything that it took to become the best writer I could and deliver stories that nobody else could do."

Luke: "Was it easy for you to like Kenji?"

Matthew: "It’s easy to like Kenji. He’s a very charismatic, he’s a very friendly person in most situations. I’m always attracted to intelligent people so that made it easy for me."

"The hardest part of writing Breakshot was writing about porn. I found it very challenging to write about porn because porn is such a salacious topic and it has so much baggage with it that I felt it would derail the entire book, that all the momentum I was building would hit this loggerjam. There are so many angles to the way that porn treats women. There are so many angles to Kenji’s complicity with the way porn treats women. There are so many people who will just gag at the thought of the grotesque sexual acts I describe. I thought it would kill the book.

"Porn is also inherently ridiculous. It’s kinda like pro wrestling in that it can be an extremely dark and exploitative industry, but it is so ridiculous in its mechanics that you can’t help but laugh at it.

"It was hard maintaining any coherence to the story while still doing an expose of the porn industry through Kenji’s eyes."

Luke: "It sounds like the exploitation of women was harder for you to deal with than the murder of men in the cocaine section?"

Matthew: "Yeah. I have a very New Orleans world viewpoint. Anyone who chooses to work in the black market, who chooses to work outside the law, who can’t rely on law or human convention or any good will from their fellow man and they end up getting killed, that’s part of their job. That’s a life they knowingly entered and they knew the risks that go into it.

"Maybe this is some kind of latent reverse sexism on my part, I couldn’t help but feel pity for a lot of the women, and even some of the men, in the porn industry because I think they might’ve been sold a bill of goods that was different from the reality. A guy who’s a coke dealer knows what a coke dealer is.

"I interviewed a lot of people in porn for this book. When they entered porn, there seemed to be this naivete that being a porn superstar was very different from the reality of being a working adult entertainment actress. There’s a certain tragedy there whereas a coke dealer getting shot or he shot other people or a mobster going to jail because he committed crimes and knowingly entered a crime family, that to me isn’t something to pity. I found a lot in the porn section of the book that I found morally troubling. There was a level of exploitation there that wasn’t on the level."

Luke: "The counter-argument is that these girls are all hookers trying to get something for the least possible effort. And this is what you get for that kind of attitude."

Matthew: "I think that’s valid as well. Unlike almost every, unlike a lot of Italians, I don’t have a madonna-whore complex where women are just perfect little petals that are getting ruined by society. I don’t believe that. I believe there are a lot of jaded hard lazy degenerate characters who are women who enter porn. At the same time, a lot of those women are doing so not out of a maliciousness in their character but out of an inherent weakness in their character.

"I felt that way when I was writing about pro wrestling and I was talking about men. These were people who on the face of it were jaded crooked characters, but at heart there was this sort of naivete, even though they could see what was the end result of their lifestyle by looking at other people, they had deluded themselves into believing it was something else.

"It is easy to dismiss people in porn as prostitutes. They’re doing a sleazy job for easy money. On its face, that’s true, but it is also an industry where some otherwise good people were used up and chewed up in a way where the karmic interplay wasn’t even. What they put in didn’t otherwise justify the response they got from society."

Luke: "Is there anything that people can do that renders them less human than to become a receptacle for a lot of sperm on camera?"

Matthew: "Is there anything that has a more symbological way of dehumanizing people?"

Luke: "I noticed around the porn industry, that once these women had done porn, they ceased to be real human beings. Almost everyone around them thought they were just porn stars, they were just cum buckets."

Matthew: "Is there anything that can do that more? That’s got to be a pretty good contender for the number one act that you can do to really promote the dehumanization and the robbing of dignity from yourself in American society. When I was in Europe, I don’t think it was that strong of a stigma. In the United States, it is a crushing thing to someone’s character if they want to live a normal life, unless they are one of those jaded characters who loves that lifestyle. I think you’re probably right, that there isn’t any one single act that destroys someone’s dignity as a human being than being sexually used up on camera, not that I argue with anyone right to do that. Everyone should have the right to do that. I don’t have a personal qualm with it, but you wish you had a counselor to really explain to them the repercussions before they did it. That’s free will, that’s the tragedy of being human."

Luke: "You talk about the porn being the toughest part of writing the book. It’s like making a feature film but with 15 minutes of close-up hardcore sex."

Matthew: "There was one part of the porn section that I really liked writing. That was the section on Buck Adams. He died the day before I was set to interview him, which just killed me. Buck was a screwed-up exemplar of the porn industry. He had a multitude of family issues. He had this glorious dream of turning porn into blockbuster mainstream entertainment. He just dumped money on porns. He had these special effects and these elaborate plots and this gripping action. It was if Independence Day with Will Smith just stopped after the first set up and just went into a 15-minute gangbang with a bunch of aliens and Will Smith and then went right back into the action. It just laid bare the absurdity of the porn industry. You had porn, snuff films and all these Hollywood pretensions of being somebody intersecting in a black comedy way.

"Kenji was just a passive observer of this one-man self-destruction machine. Almost self-destruction as a performance art. Kenji almost dies because he’s willing to go along with Buck’s bullshit and film scenes with all these elaborate special effects that Buck doesn’t know how to use and almost dies because he almost gets blown up."

Luke: "How much of this book is in Kenny’s voice and how much is this book is in your voice?"

Matthew: "I logged like 200 total days in phone time with Kenji or conversations in person. I have a good understanding of how he thinks and how he speaks. Every story in the book is adapted from an email or a story that Kenji told me. I would say that everything in the book is in his voice. Were there turns of phrase used or the sort of elevated language that Kenji wouldn’t say off the top of his head if he had written it? Of course. But on a character level, on a truth level, every word of the book can be accurately represented as Kenji’s."

Luke: "I’ve known Kenji since 2001 and I’ve not noticed him turn a phrase. So when I’d read a turn of phrase in the book, when I’d read the more philosophical parts of the book. I’ve not heard Kenji philosophizing."

Matthew: "Some of the more acrobatic turns of phrases in the book, where it looks the co-author is coming in to do a dance, to do a shuck-and-jive routine, those are word-for-word things that Kenji had told me. He’s not typically the type of guy who will do something like that. On occasions that he did, I thought it was priceless because it showed a part of his personality that he normally hides."

Luke: "Kenji spoke to me on a street level. In some ways, this book is a work of literature. The writing is not run of the mill journalism."

Matthew: "Kenji’s favorite writer is Cormac McCarthy. He is really attracted to that sort of writing. I’d probably say something like Elmore Leonard or James Ellroy. Where you have something that is honest and straight-forward and authentically street and still rewarding on a literary level. When we first talked about doing this book, he talked about something that would straddle that authenticity and stand the test of time."

Luke: "If you read Kenji’s blog before you came along, there’s rarely a sentence that’s not misspelled, that’s not doing violence to the English language."

Matthew: "Kenny, if you talk to him in conversation, is smarter than his blog is. There are people who are intelligent in a way that isn’t literary, who are intelligent in a way that has nothing to do with the mechanics of putting together a sentence. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever known couldn’t do simple addition. Trying to capture Kenny’s intelligence and personality and put it on a page in a way that he couldn’t do himself, that’s why he has a co-author.

"I didn’t make Kenji into something that he’s not. I certainly did not fluff up her personality or perform a PR job to make him a better person than he is. If anything, the book is considerably more honest, dark and grim than anything he’s written of his own volition. I didn’t want people to pick up a book and have it just be a prurient salacious register of crimes that a criminal committed. I wanted it to have social and literary value that people wouldn’t expect."

Luke: "How much did you have to work to make Kenji an appealing character that people want to read about?"

Matthew: "A lot. This is a guy who before he could legally drink, before he was 21, trafficked in hundreds of kilos of cocaine, who was arrested for the murder of his best friend, who’d intentionally run over people with cars, committed all sorts of attempted murders, this isn’t like a Henry Hill character in Goodfellas, a knock-around two-bit criminal. This is a hardened vicious predatory personality. He’s also a charismatic and likeable guy who can win over a room.

"A leader of the Vargos motorcycle gang, one of the most hardened motorcycle gangs in the United States, used the word ‘diabolical’ in an interview when he described Kenji to me. He said that out of all the people he knew, Kenji was the last one he’d want to piss off.

"I’ve read a lot of true crime books and I’ve read a lot of Mafia books and there isn’t a Mafia book about a character this predatory that’s honest. None of them own the viciousness in their character. Kenji, from the second I met him, wanted to admit that.’

Luke: "Kenji doesn’t turn into a human being until he runs into his ex Tara at a movie when he’s about to marry Tabitha Stevens. And he starts having remorse. It’s three-quarters of the way through the book."

Matthew: "His high school sweetheart, this blonde Orange County surfer girl, not terribly bright but good hearted and innocent, she looms large over his story."

Luke: "Until then, the Kenji of the book always regarded himself as so much smarter and better than everyone else."

Matthew: "I had to tone down how arrogant, anti-social and remorseless Kenji was. I have the interrogation documents from when he was arrested for his best friend’s murder, which he didn’t commit. I’ve never read a criminal being more disrespectful and more arrogant and more hostile and more taunting to police officers. This guy was 20 years old when he did this. I never saw such a vicious venemous character."

"It’s hard writing a book about a sadistic character. This is a guy who had to stuff toilet paper in his mouth before committing violent crime because otherwise he would uncontrollably giggle while inflicting pain on people… It’s like the Dennis Hopper character from Blue Velvet."

"We just got a response from a gangster in Brooklyn. He read the book and dug it, but he’s worried that he’s friends with this guy. And that unsettled him. And this is a professional criminal who realizes he let Kenji infiltrate his life in a way that makes him uncomfortable.

"My favorite response so far was from a war hero from Afghanistan who was badly wounded in action. He read Breakshot in nine hours, read it straight through. What he liked best about it was that it captured the mania of violence. The ecstasy that comes from a completely reckless violent vicious lifestyle."

Luke: "Did you and Kenji have any arguments in how to put this book together?"

Matthew: "We had two major disagreements. He won one and I won one. I wanted to make the porn section less important in the book. It was the hardest part for me to write. He was insistent that I cover porn in detail. He felt like he couldn’t honestly tell the story of his life without discussing his decade in the porn industry. He proved right in the end.

"We had tons of arguments about which photos to include in the book. Kenji wanted to include a great number of famous criminals where I thought it was more important to include photos of Tara and his family and the human element of Kenji as opposed to a dictionary of mug shots. I won that battle."

"Nothing he ever told me, he told me not to put in the book. He wanted it to be as honest as possible. He said, I don’t want anyone to find a single part of the book where I held something back."

Posted in Author Interviews, Mafia, Pornography, Prostitution | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on An Interview With Author Matthew Randazzo

Talking To My Dad

"The other day when you were talking to me, I suddenly felt you were no longer talking to me but to your dad," says a friend.

"What do you mean? What was I talking about?"

"Your voice changed and you got all vengeful. You were talking about how you would not carry treif food for a friend who needed help. And you said something like who cares about what the goyim think."

D. emails: Listen good, Sunny Jim. If you EVER speak to me like that, I’ll knock you down quicker than fair-dinkum Jack Sprat, I will. Then, I’ll place my foot on your throat and crush your bloody esophagus under my heel. After that, I’ll sit back, enjoy an ANZAC biscuit and watch you suffocate. And stop sending me those bloody tagged photos, you fair-dinkum ponce. One more shows up in my inbox, and I swear to all I hold holy that I’ll hunt you down and bash you so badly that even your brother Paul won’t recognize you at your funeral. Now THAT lad is a son I can be proud of. Floaters every time.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Talking To My Dad

Why Does Law Enforcement Embrace Steven Seagal?

Tim emails:

Mr. Ford, I stumbled across your site in a round about, 6-degrees From Kevin Bacon way.

I was reading in Fox News about an actress Alexandra Kamp (?), who has unflattering words for Steven Seagal. In that article it was revealed the Seagal is not who we think he is. He is not JUST a CIA agent and trained killer, but he is also a Sheriffs Deputy who have been given his own TV Reality Show! To which I said to myself, "Get the fuck outa’ here!. No way!".
 
Pardon my language, but that was my precise response.
 
I did some research and sure enough, the man with the biggest ego in the world next to Obama has been a "lawman under radar" for 20 years, being involved in dangerous investigations. He is a hero, according to A&E.
 
In researching this I came across your profile on the our intrepid hero.
 
My question is this:  why on earth would any legitimate law enforcement department allow Seagal to use law enforcement to revive his flagging image as an action hero? Clearly, Seagal is using this gig as a launching pad back into action film, but why would any police department allow itself to be so used?
 
Also, given Seagals claims to be a CIA agent, and given that this is a bald faced lie by most accounts, and given that he hired someone to do a contract killing, why isn’t he in prison serving at the behest of REAL law enforcement officials rather than pretending to be one (even IF he is a part time cop).
 
I want to know what is behind the A&E story. I want to know the real truth about Seagal being a Sheriff Deputy and a hero.
 
This "reality tv show" is certainly no more "real" than most other shows of that genre. Most of them are staged to some degree, more or less. It is all smokes and mirrors.
 
If Seagal gets killed "in the line of duty", only THEN will I believe that this guy is for real, and even then I would still have my doubts.
Posted in Hollywood | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Does Law Enforcement Embrace Steven Seagal?

I Interview My Alexander Technique Teacher Michael Frederick

In 2006, Los Angeles magazine named Michael Frederick the top Alexander Technique teacher in town.

Michael organizes Alexander Technique workshops around the world.

I sit down with him on Sunday, May 24.

He says that as a child he wanted to become a cowboy. "Then in my late teens, I wanted to be a villain in a Clint Eastwood movie."

"One of the reasons that I got into acting was that you could be anything…. Then I outgrew acting. It’s a very childish profession."

Luke: "Let the record show that Michael is sitting here with his hands crossed against his chest. He’s a skeptical young man."

The eldest child, Michael grew up in northern Illinois. "My father was the principal of three elementary schools simultaneously. My mother taught third grade."

Luke: "Was he a big deal?"

Michael: "He was a big deal in a small town. He was a strong individual. Good at what he did."

Luke: "What did your parents most want from you?"

Michael: "To be happy?"

Luke: "What was your place in the social pecking order in high school?"

Michael: "I was a principal’s son. I was very rebellious. Would get in fights. People would tease me about my father. It never affected my brother or sister. I didn’t know how to deal with it. I got into my power and knocked a guy out cold in eleventh grade and people stopped picking on me."

Luke: "Were you good with girls in high school?"

Michael: "Not in high school. When I got out of high school, it all changed."

At age 17, Michael entered Northern Illinois University at DeKalb, where he was kicked out for poor grades after a year.

Michael: "It was the Spring of 1963. I had a choice — either study for my finals and take my final exams or I had a friend who had a beautiful convertible. There were about four lovely ladies in the convertible. He asked me if I wanted to go to Chicago for the weekend. Then I looked at the women in the car and I looked at the finals I was studying for and I went to Chicago."

"My father was quite bright. He knew it was a big shock for me. You never think you’re going to fail. He made me get a job in a factory right away.

"I got a job at an Admiral television assembly plant in my hometown. That was a real wake-up call. You see how a huge segment of society lived. It wasn’t very healthy. They had no options.

"I quickly put my act together and got back into school — Parsons College in Fairfield, Iowa… They called it Flunk-Out U. He realized there were a lot of young men who wanted to go back to school. Vietnam was kicking in. If you weren’t in college, you got drafted.

"He charged a lot of money. He was therefore able to hire some of the best faculty away from the A-list schools. It went year-round. The quality of education was extraordinary.

"I went there and it was great. It was a place to get your act back together.

"Then I transferred out to the University of Wisconsin at Whitewater."

Michael eventually got his degree in Theater.

He worked in theatre for three years in Minneapolis and then moved to England to pursue his acting. There he fell in love with the Alexander Technique and went to school for three years under Walter Carrington to become a teacher.

There were three main Alexander Technique teacher schools in London at the time. One was run by F.M. Alexander‘s niece Marjorie Barlow, who was married to Dr. Wilfred Barlow. The other two schools were run by men who had once dated Marjorie — Patrick McDonald (who was engaged to her) and Walter Carrington.

Michael: "She was a very attractive young lady in the 1930s. It was very natural."

Luke: "Did this create any tension between these three different schools of Alexander Technique?"

Michael: "They never told me it did, but the truth is, three young men in competition for the most attractive woman around, probably did."

Luke: "How did the three schools relate?"

Michael: "They agreed to disagree. They were very respectful to each other if they happened to meet socially… The teachers of the schools rarely got together. You had parties organized by trainees where you’d have Carrington people in one corner, McDonald people in another corner, Barlow people in another corner."

Luke: "Do you think if someone is physically poised, they are more likely to be mentally poised?"

Michael: "Sure."

Luke: "If they are physically free, they are more likely to be mentally free?"

Michael: "I would say so."

Luke: "If someone is more physically flexible, they are more likely to be mentally flexible?"

Michael: "Absolutely, however, I’ve met people who’ve never heard of the Alexander Technique who are remarkable human being. Maybe the use of themselves could be improved, but they have inner freedom that is light years ahead of any Alexander teacher I’ve met.

"Good use allows the instrument to have more flexibility and openness. On a certain level, the mind is more open to learning and the feelings are more available and the body is functioning better."

Luke: "When you get to know people well, if you see them in a certain posture, you know how they are going to react. I’m thinking about someone I’ve known my whole life who, when I saw her in a certain posture, I knew she was about to explode in anger. Another person in a certain posture was not open to any suggestions. Anyone I got to know well, I would see something in them and immediately [be able to sense how they were going to react]. They had developed habituated responses so that if I gave them a certain stimuli, I knew how they would react. And through the study and practice of the Alexander Technique, you can inhibit your habitual responses and you can come to a poised place, and then you can choose how you want to respond."

Michael: "That’s true, but the Alexander Technique is not the panacea, the be-all and end-all."

Luke: "In his book Body Learning, Michael Gelb says that certain emotions are only possible with certain alignments of your musculature. You can only feel joy with certain alignments of your musculature. You can only feel depressed with certain alignments of your musculature."

Michael: "I think that’s simplistic."

Luke: "If you are poised, it is hard to feel depressed. Being depressed means feeling hopeless."

Michael: "Sure."

Luke: "How useful do you think the study and practice of the Alexander Technique is for people suffering from depression?"

Michael: "It would depend completely on the individual. The Technique only works if the person is interested in learning and in making a change within themselves. It is not a therapy and you can not do it to someone. I get this question a lot, can you help so-and-so? Well, the only way you can help so-and-so is if that person knocks at the door."

"I’m working with a lady now whose son was killed in that [Chatsworth] train crash about [nine] months ago. She’s depressed, but she wants to get over it. She comes to me. I’m not a therapist. Her other son knows the Technique and says, ‘Hey mom, this will help you. This will help you move out of the locked-in mental emotional posture you’re in which is making you feel worse.’

"It’s working. The moment she comes back to length and breathes easier, she finds that she has more skill to deal with the tragedy in her life."

Luke: "You keep saying you don’t approach the Alexander Technique as therapy. What do you mean by therapy?"

Michael: "Therapy means that someone is there to fix you. Alexander Technique is a learning model. It has therapeutic side-effects because you and I are self-repairing organisms. If you cut your finger, it heals. If you learn to move out of the patterns of downward pressure and tension, whatever interfering patterns they were creating in your central nervous system will tend to right themselves. If my left hip hurts because I’m moving in a certain way or sitting in a chair in a certain way, and I learn how to come back into alignment, in most cases that pain eventually leaves because the body learns to right itself."

Luke: "What have you noticed about the use of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication and the people who practice and study the Alexander Technique?"

Michael: "I don’t have that much experience being around people who are on that. The times that I have been around that, I’ve noticed that that medication tends to deaden the nervous system, so they are not good material to work with because they are not firing on all cylinders. The medication represses the feeling. It’s not a good combination. I worked for a couple of years in the eighties at a pain management clinic. A huge percentage of the people who would come in for pain, anxiety and depression, I was useless to. One, they weren’t willing to take more responsibility. Two, they just wanted to take more medication to fix themselves. Once in a while, I’d come across that person who had that light in their eye who said, I don’t like this. It’s dummying me down. I want to figure out how to grasp the nettle and deal with this. Many people are not there to learn. They are there to be fixed."

Luke: "How prevalent have you found alcoholism and drug addiction among Alexander Technique teachers?"

Michael: "Minimal. I can’t even think of anyone."

Luke: "That’s significant. Every other profession is filled with alcoholics."

Michael: "I could work with people at AA because they’re admitting they have a problem. I’d tell them that every time they want a drink and can’t have one, it throws them into a startle pattern…and that you have to change your physical state to not want that [drink]."

Luke: "It seems to me that Alexander Technique is an excellent way to keep your self-destructive tendencies under control."

"A lot of people such as myself often feel tremendous social anxiety when we move into a room. If you work your directions, it gives you something to do."

Michael: "Social anxiety is just the fight-or-flight response on a subtle level… Shyness can be overcome by coming back to length and breadth and thinking for yourself laugh at oneself a little bit and the joy comes back and you can engage with people."

Luke: "On the other hand, there are those of us who are big attention seekers and compulsive jokesters and always want to be the center of attention for a room, and if you want to change, you can use the Alexander Technique to bring yourself under control."

Michael: "Everyone has behavior patterns, if taken to an extreme, don’t work. But if you are sensitive to that, the Technique gives you a tool to modulate that. You and I are aware of early warning signs before anyone else in the room and then I just stop and come back to length and re-engage from a different place."

Posted in Alexander Technique | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on I Interview My Alexander Technique Teacher Michael Frederick

Lending A Hand On Shabbos

Just a few minutes before Shuvuot, as I was walking to a friend’s home for dinner, I passed two Mexicans in an alley with a beat-up old truck. A middle-aged man and woman were straining and failing to put a refrigerator in the back.

A couple of young Orthodox Jewish men had already passed them by.

I asked if they needed help. They said please. I jumped in there, got set, and with my assistance, they got the fridge on top of their truck.

Then I walked on and thought about what I would do if it were already a holy day. I decided I would pitch in and help anyway because these guys were putting their health at serious risk struggling with a load they weren’t strong enough to lift.

On other occasions, I’ve helped push a car on Shabbos and done similar things. I notice that almost all religious Jews avoid such activities. I don’t know what the laws are, but working on a holy day is certainly forbidden.

Posted in Orthodoxy, Personal | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Lending A Hand On Shabbos

I Reflect On My 43rd Birthday

From Norwalk, CA:

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on I Reflect On My 43rd Birthday

Luke, Luke, Luke, I’m Coming

"I want you to look."

"But I can’t look. It’s got cancer. My mom died of cancer. I can’t look. I can’t f— my mom."

"Luke, Luke, Luke. Look, look, look.

"Luke, Luke, Luke, I’m coming."

"Luke, Luke, Luke, I’m coming."

"Luke, Luke, Luke, I’m coming."

"Luke, you have to understand. I’m a free spirit."

"What does that mean?"

"I’m not used to being in a relationship. I haven’t had a boyfriend in three years. I’m not used to being tied down. My life is so full. I feel overwhelmed. I’m over-scheduled. I can’t commit to anything right now."

"I think you are right. My head is everywhere right now and I am finding it really personally challenging to be open and present with someone else. I have nothing right now, not even for myself. I want you to have what you deserve because you are an amazing person. I guess we should probably go our own ways… "

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Luke, Luke, Luke, I’m Coming

I Am John Cheever

I don’t have his body of work, but I have much of his character.

I’m reading Blake Bailey’s biography. On page 620, I learn that at Yaddo at age 68, Cheever kept making fun of this surgeon-writer Richard Selzer who Cheever thought was effeminate. At dinner the first night, Cheever said to him conversationally, "Richard, have you ever plagiarized?"

It’s just the sort of brutal thing I would do.

A few days later, Cheever collapses and Selzer saves his life.

Similar things have happened to me where the very people I’ve abused have come to my rescue.

I fear it will happen again.

Posted in Personal | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on I Am John Cheever

Betrayals: The Unpredictability of Human Relations by Gabriella Turnaturi

More.

Here are some of my favorite bits:

* What are we talking about when we speak of betrayal? Can we imagine a sociological definition of betrayal that would include all of its various modes, aspects, and forms? To betray whom, what,
and—above all—how? Who names and defines the betrayal? Who is betrayed, and who betrays? Does a betrayal necessarily have to be known, hence acknowledged, by both of the subjects for it to be called a betrayal—for it to exist? How does the social definition of betrayal vary, and what is meant by the term in everyday usage? And, finally, how do the moral judgments and social sanctions applied to betrayal vary?

* We betray ourselves, our families, our friends, our lovers, our country. We betray out of ambition, for vengeance, through inconstancy, to assert our autonomy, and for a hundred passions and a hundred reasons.
We are used to thinking of betrayal as a self-evident event whose origins we foolishly believe we can reconstruct.

* Betrayal may fascinate us precisely because it is so common; it forms a part of our everyday experience, yet it resists simplistic explanations. Both common and complex, betrayal can never be reduced to one cause, one motive, or one reason. With betrayal, we are faced with the greatest tragedy of human relations: the fact that the other is unknowable.

* Every interaction arises and grows around sharing something—even for a short time—with an other: a project to be realized; a relationship to be constructed; a game, an adventure, an ideal, a fleeting pleasure, a secret, a conflict; an affiliation or sense of membership or belonging. In all of these forms of shared experience we act within a common framework; something unites us, if only for a moment, and creates a “We.” The birth of a We brings with it the possibility of betrayal, separation, or rupture.

In every form of being and of acting with one another there are obscure zones, secret areas, and margins of ambiguity without which relations and interactions would not survive, but which at the same time mean that betrayal, dramatic or banal, always lies in wait for us. The very fact that our knowledge of the other can never be certain and complete, and that every relationship, if it

* Furthermore, if it is true that not only in every relationship but in every interaction parts of ourselves that we were unaware of come to light, we cannot even be sure that we will never betray. Betrayal, both as an act on our part and as an action we undergo, is always relational and always possible. When we enter into relations with others, a step that is necessary for the construction of our own identity, we put into play our desire to be with the other — but also our desire not to lose ourselves in the other. We want and we need to be with the other, but at the same time, to safeguard our individuality, we want and need to not be so completely with them. This alternation between being fully present in a relationship and not being fully present is where betrayal finds its niche. Role expectations are always tightly interwoven, marking every relationship with ambiguity, ambivalence, and uncertainty. (Pg. 4)

* Betrayal is always an act, however: as such, it changes the course and the meaning of relations between persons, breaks ties and pacts, disappoints trust and expectations, and negates membership.
Betrayal is by its nature relational, because it presupposes a connection with the other, whether that other is a person, a group, an institution, one’s homeland, or the state. Even self-betrayal does not take place in solitude, but results from relations and interactions with others.

All the possible forms of betrayal involve a redefinition of relations in that they produce a double displacement. The person who betrays shifts from one role to another, and as he does so he changes the space he had occupied, forcing out the person betrayed, who changes space and role as well. Betrayal upsets the geography of the positions that subjects assume within a relationship, producing shifts that are not only emotional but that affect identities as well, thus leading to a redrawing of maps.

The boook’s strongest move is the refusal to treat betrayal as a property of disturbed personalities. Pulling betrayal out of the psychiatric register and into the structure of social interactions is real intellectual work. Most writers stumble at exactly this point. They want to explain betrayal by something inside the betrayer (envy, weakness, evil) rather than by the structure of the relationship and the conditions of the moment. Turnaturi refuses that move. She locates betrayal in the asymmetric rearrangement of role content under conditions of prior trust and disclosure. That is the frame that gave us leverage on Cofnas and Wax. It works because it is correct.
The Razumov axiom is the book’s central tool. “There must be a moral bond first. All a man can betray is his conscience.” Conrad, via Turnaturi, supplies the filter. No bond, no betrayal. Cofnas had no bond with Cambridge as a unified actor, so his betrayal language collapses under the test. Wax had a real bond with Penn across thirty years, so her claim survives the same test. The axiom is doing analytic work in both cases. That alone earns the book a place on a working shelf.
The asymmetry insight is the second strong move. Betrayer and betrayed perceive time, the act, and its meaning differently. The time-asymmetry passage, where the betrayer compresses time and the betrayed expands it, is sharp and rare in the social-theory literature. Most writers treat betrayal as a single event experienced symmetrically. Turnaturi makes you see it as two events running on different clocks. That is hard to get to without her.
The historical sweep is partially correct and partially impressionistic. The claim that betrayal shifted from public and societal (treason against the sovereign) to private and individual (adultery, broken trust) tracks something real about the rise of the modern state and the privatization of moral life. The Pollard versus Rosenberg contrast is well chosen. The Machiavelli passage on betrayal as resource is well chosen. But the broader argument is asserted more than demonstrated. Other readings are available. Betrayal has always had both societal and individual modes; what changed is the institutional response more than the structure of the act. She does not engage seriously with alternative framings.
Several weaknesses are real and you should not skip them.
The book uses literary examples where sociological argument should be. Conrad, Shakespeare, Calvino, Pinter, Auster, Schnitzler. The examples illustrate well, but they sometimes substitute for analysis. When she wants to show how plural affiliations produce betrayal in modern life, she gives us Calvino’s “Solidarity” story rather than empirical material on how multi-membership generates loyalty conflicts. The story works as illustration. It does not work as evidence.
The Internet chapter has aged. AOL screen names, chat groups, the Tim McVeigh outing case from 1998. The structural insight about plural affiliations holds. The examples feel from another era. A reader in 2026 wants the same frame applied to the platform-mediated coalition fights that now dominate intellectual life. She did not have those examples in 1999, but the frame extends cleanly.
She underplays self-deception. She mentions Iago and how false betrayal can be manufactured. She notes that the betrayed often collaborates in the betrayal. But the deeper Trivers point, that we deceive ourselves about our own coalition positions and our own role in producing the rupture, gets less attention than it should. The Pinsof frame on moral vocabularies as coalition technology is a natural complement she does not reach for. The underlying point about coalitional motives behind moralized language is older than Pinsof, and she could have engaged it.
The book does not cleanly distinguish felt betrayal from structural betrayal. When I say betrayal is often a hyperbolic reaction to others having different priorities from what we expected, I am pointing at the asymmetry between the felt experience and the structure. Turnaturi has tools for the structure. She is weaker on the felt experience as inflation. Othello feels betrayed but is not structurally betrayed. Turnaturi recognizes this case but does not develop a systematic frame for separating felt from structural betrayal. The reader has to supply that.

From Amazon:

From Iago to Fredo, Judas to General Hospital, acts of betrayal fascinate us. Eventually we all encounter this universal experience of human interaction, but despite its ubiquity, being betrayed can turn our lives upside down and leave us feeling suddenly frail and alone. Betrayal only arises out of sharing something of yourself with another, and its impact speaks to the great tragedy of human relations: at bottom, other people are unknowable.

While most attempts to study betrayal only consider its moral or psychological dimensions, Gabriella Turnaturi here examines betrayal as an act embedded in social relationships whose meanings change over time. For example, adultery is one of the most recognizable forms of betrayal, but a wide gulf exists between its role in Madame Bovary and in The Ice Storm. Therefore, Turnaturi contends, in order to examine the many meanings of betrayal we need to understand its context in a specific time and place. Born from the unpredictable possibilities of human interaction, betrayal emerges as a sociological event in this thought-provoking meditation on the stab in the back.

Review:

A brief, tidy book, Betrayals is a welcome glimpse into a largely neglected area of social relations. A satisfactory explication emerges and the only major concern is brevity. Turnaturi’s use of exemplars and examples drawn from history and fiction, from Homer to Updike, makes Betrayals accessible, readable, and interesting for scholars, students, and perhaps general readers. Betrayal is traditionally viewed as a symptom of a disturbed personality or a malicious choice (p. 26). Turnaturi offers a nuanced view, focused on underlying threats to value emphasis, cohesion, and, most important, social relations, present and future. She confirms that betrayal is a definitive social act. Turnaturi explains why and how betrayal is an asymmetrical re-arrangement of role content, started by one when others are perhaps un-aware. Betrayal disrupts personal or societal relations. The gravity of the breach — the betrayal — means the relational disruption is almost surely permanent. When trust breaks, suggests Turnaturi, the betrayed seek new arrangements and new relations as they embrace heightened wariness. Given the seriousness of the act, can we again trust the betrayer? Betrayal is a loss for everyone. In the middle three chapters, Turnaturi examines betrayal as it appears in fiction, theatre, and history. She uses the notion of the stranger, from Simmel, to combine Joseph Conrad with Shakespeare for an exploration of how our need for relations ensures betrayal. An analysis of the relations of Elizabeth I and the Earl of Essex reveals how role con-tent (governance, romance), role conflict (monarch, lover) and role distance (loyalty, obedience) shape betrayal, leading to a schismogenesis. Jesus, betrayed by Judas and Peter, confirms that everyone is vulnerable and shapes resulting discussion of the act. The archetypal act by Judas suggests all are able to betray, and Peter underscores its inevitability.

If relations are to flourish, social disclosure is necessary to define inclusion and create intimacy. Exchanging secrets may be the most treacherous form of disclosure. Regretfully, the rich potential that a chapter about secrets promises goes unfilled in Betrayals because there is too much description and too little integration of the disparate. A consilient ending provides meaning. This is especially true for the literature of social relations (e.g., Erving Goffman, Georg Simmel and Lyn Lofland), which roams widely, as do relations. In Betrayals, Tunaturi opts to apply further her explication of betrayal, rather than delve into meaning. As in a Raymond Chandler novel, Betrayals never honestly ends, instead sputtering and fading before stopping. Turnaturi nevertheless remains provocative. She suggests betrayal emerges from complexity (p. 111). Until the 16th century, ideology, the state, and religion formed the most complex relations, and treason was a principal form of betrayal. After that, social relations grew increasingly complex; forms of betrayal multiplied and, today, adultery may be most harmful. Until the 16th century, argues Turnaturi, betrayal was a societal act, whereas, today, it is the act of an individual. The word, “betrayal,” still carries the gravitas Turnaturi assigns to its 16th century results, and well it should. In the private realm, adultery chips away at the feasibility of the family, damaging trust, loyalty, and fidelity. Adultery also threatens commitment to and perhaps economic investment in home, children, and future. In the public realm, the betrayal of thousands of investors, by Bernard L. Madoff, for example, leaves many retirees destitute and several smaller universities in financial danger. Madoff fuels the news media, as do the infidelities of presidents, prime ministers, and celebrities. Media coverage of betrayals, now morphed into less weighty deceits, adopts an indifferent tone (p. 122). “While Hillary’s Away Bill Plays” is a feature of “Late Night with David Letterman.” “Entertainment Tonight” and People magazine report that celebrity betrayals resolve with a cheque or a week in rehabilitation. What once toppled monarchies now sells mops.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off on Betrayals: The Unpredictability of Human Relations by Gabriella Turnaturi