Friday, August 31, 2012

Jon Huntsman on Stephen Colbert

Jon Huntsman was on Colbert last night and he was a far, far more plausible candidate for GOP Presidential candidate than Romney. AND he speaks Mandarin (and knows where China is) which would be so handy if you are President.

Huntsman believes Super Packs are a blight on our people and need to go away.

He was humorously speechless over the comment, "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," this spoken by Romney pollster Neil Newhouse at a panel organized by ABC News.

Colbert brought that last issue up in regards to Ryan's speech at the RNC to which even FoxNews responded: "Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech."

If in 2016 the Democrats had some idiot running and Huntsman was running on the GOP side, I would be heavily inclined, from what I saw last night anyway, to vote for Jon Huntsman. That being said (and noting that I'm not a Democrat), Mitt IS running this year, and against Obama and there is no way I'm going to vote for Mitt, or Ryan, or the platform that the GOP is pushing.

Mr. Huntsman also said that if [when] Mitt loses this election, it is going to cast the GOP into a tailspin that they will have to rebuild from. Thank God for that, as it's about time. The GOP (as it is) needs to die and make itself back into an actually viable political party, even if perhaps as a Phoenix rising.

We're trying to run a two party system that needs to have two parties and not just two parties who merely disagree with each other, but two parties who offer real and viable options and platforms. If or when, they agree too much then maybe they just happen to have the right ideas. Work with that then; don't simply try to make the other side look bad. We need a scientific approach to government. What works needs to be implemented, not just point fingers and say that the other side was wrong; they are bad, horrible people.

The parties will always differ in some ways and if they don't, then maybe there is a reason. However, when that happens they need to find real differences and where there aren't any, then face up to that. Don't do what they've been doing, lie, make things up, become deranged. When you hit a point that there is no different orientation between parties, then the one that is struggling for an identity has already stopped being a viable party. If at that point they continue on as the GOP has been doing, then they've just go bonkers, as they obviously have, having fallen into the "we're sooo different from them" mentality that is the first indicationg that it's broken beyond repair. Why do you think the Tea Party started up?

So perhaps we need Gov. Huntsman's predicted GOP tailspin.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Let's re-label Pro-Lifers as the ARP!

Here's the thing, I wrote a blog this week saying that perhaps, as Pro-Life as an agenda title has already been absconded by the Right Wing, perhaps we need a correspondingly opposite title for an agenda that is opposed to theirs.

But perhaps I was wrong. In rethinking about this just now, it occurred to me that perhaps what we need is to re-label the Right Wing's own agenda.

What is it that all people, everywhere, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or religious persuaision, have in common? Flesh and bone. We are all sacks of water, meat and calcium. Now we can add all that crap that religion and politics steeps upon us.

Being "Pro" Life sounds like a good idea, right? We're all "Pro" Life. But not unlike an eight year old, they are pushing that agenda as the end all, be all of a very complicated situation. As I indicated in my previous blog, there are two aspects to any Life. There is the element of living, and there is the element of quality of Life. Something the Right Wing has pushed down our throats for years regarding Right to choosing our time of death (suicide, physician assisted suicide).

There is one more element we need to face down.

Humans, are not all that great. We are not so wonderful that we should never be killed, right? Law enforcement, military, even the judicial branch of governments (capital punishment) kill pepole all the time and with good reason.

Police typically kill to save lives. As we have limitednon lethal effective deterrentswhen dealing with situations where someone has overwhelming lethal force, killing them, to save innocent lives, is sometimes the only thing to do. Military, similar but somewhat indirect situation much of the times, but basically the same concept; and where it's not, we just start wars and kill people; or we allow other people in other countries to slaughter their own citizens without lifting a finger to stop it, thus somewhat at least, condoning it.

Why is abortion such a big deal, but there has been 2,000 young American military lives lost in the war in Afghanistan, and there is no moral outrage, certainly not like there is over aborting fetuses, about these also, innocent young people dying, and for what? As Bill Maher pointed out on his Friday night show, the first 1,000 deaths had a reason and he was for our going into Afghanistan, where those who attacked us on 9/11 were and not Iraq; but what did the second 1,000 die for? Where is the moral outrage in the Republican party, their candidate, his running mate, and the "Pro-Lifers"?

Again it is so much that disparity between sex and violence, like in films. You can show someone's brains being blown out, but don't show a woman's vagina. What is it these people are so fearful of when it comes to sex, especially sex for pleasure (or Cannabis for pleasure and not only medical purposes, and the whole "War on Drugs" which is a war on American citizens)? What is it about these right wing theists that is so fearful about pleasure? Because abortion only for "Forcible Rape" is all about no abortion if sex was for the pleasure of the woman. Obviously, rape is about the pleasure of the man, albeit for control/power purposes and not so much for sexual gratification, typically.

Okay and finally, Capital Punishment, some higher concept countries have outlawed it as inhumane. Okay, they may even be right on that. It IS the moral highground.

However, I do believe that there are times when someone should be killed, with prejudice, and on the spot; to be put down like a rabid dog. We are not God's gift to this planet, regardless of what you think. All religion aside, this planet would do far better without us.

We also still have issues of world population to deal with that we still need to get under control.

So basically, from our own actions, people dying is really not that big of a deal to us. So, why are some making such a big deal over abortion? Why is killing a zygote or a fetus, such a big deal? Why? Wny isn't the mother any real concern to these people? Do you have any idea (men) what it would be like to have something growing in you from a horrific event that you know you will have to suffer great pain and years after of dealing with the result of a rape?

Non-forcible rape, includes not only statutory rape, but others. For instance:

Gross Sexual ImpositionUnlike the common law, the Model Penal Code does not provide for rape on the basis of fraud. However, such conduct does constitute the offense of gross sexual imposition. Subject to the marital immunity exemption, a male is guilty of gross sexual imposition if he has sexual intercourse with a female in any one of three circumstances:

1.) the female submits as the result of a "threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution," e.g., if the woman is threatened by a supervisor with loss of employment. [MPC § 213.1(2)(a)]
2.) a male has sexual relations with a female with knowledge that, as the result of mental illness or defect, she is unable to appraise the nature of his conduct. [MPC § 213.1(2)(b)]
3.) a male knows that the female is unaware that a sexual act is being committed upon her or that she submits because she mistakenly believes that he is her husband. [MPC § 213.1(2)(c)]

As we heard in the news recently, a mentally challenged ten year old girl would have been forced to have a child as she had not been "forced" ("Should a 10-Year-Old Mentally Disabled Victim of Incestuous Rape Be Required to Carry a Fetus to Term?" - check it out, good article). As the article indicated: "In Kansas...a doctor may lose her license for allowing a mentally-ill 10-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to get an abortion." Really?

Dr. Neuhaus’ rebuttal to the charges against her:
“To even claim that isn’t medically necessary qualifies as gross incompetence,” said Neuhaus. “Someone’s 10 years old, and they were raped by their uncle and they understand that they’ve got a baby growing in their stomach and they don’t want that. You’re going to send this girl for a brain scan and some blood work and put her in a hospital?” (for more clarity on this, please see the article)
Well, if you consider someone killing a shark that has been killing cute little seals, many people have no issues with it. If someone tries to kill the cute little seals, there is an uproar.

We don't have much trouble with killing a big, fat, greasy, grizzly old child serial murderer.

But if we are so upset over killing a pre(non) child, how is the greasy old murderer's life worth so much less? No. Seriously, you have to apply your logic cleanly and across all circumstances. Right? It was conjectured somewhere, if a rape victim births her child, then five years on decides the child looks too much like her rapist, does she have the right to kill it then? This, following though on my theory, basically. Obviously, no. It is even a stupid question. She has options, she can put it up for adoption, for instance. She will need counseling and obviously would have already been needing it. She probably should have had the abortion to begin with and proper therapy may have shown that in the first place.

Or would you be saying that it's all more complicated than that? Are you now arguing on the side of killing a human being? If it's between killing an unborn child, or not even a human yet, but a zygote, the life form that exists before a baby becomes a baby, or a greasy old child serial murderer, you'd choose the child. Right?

But, shouldn't you have chosen not to kill either? See the imbalance? We're Human, yes, but we're screwed up. And we're not so God awful important, we just have huge egos and like to think we are so important. Therefore, we like to raise ourselves up on high and say we can't kill children, or pre-children, or pre-pre-children. This week it was proposed in the media by one group that women's eggs should be legally considered a life form. When they are NOT, they are cells. They do NOT become remotely human until conception, or sometime pre birth, or at the point of birth, depending upon your conception of the situation, or the legal definition you go by.

All things mentioned above considered, abortion really, is not therefore that big a deal. We just make it a big deal.

And is that right?

We should be careful in legally considering ending life of any kind. But it doesn't mean we can act like children by being thoughtless, in being knee-jerk reactive, gut feeling responsive, and make it illegal in any situation. To some degree I do think as Humans we should make it a big deal about killing people. But there is a limit. At some point, we should just stop talking and realize that life is complicated and that we do not and should not always have the say, and we should not have the say legally, or morally/ethically about certain situations and about certain people. We stick our noses too much now a days into too many things that should be personal and private decisions.

Old or terminally ill people have their own right to life, or death. If we have a God given right to life, it follows that we have a God given right to death, too. How do I know that? Becuase, right now, I can shoot myself in the head and end things. THAT, is a God given right. Because I can do it. And no, it's stupid to think that I also have the God given right to kill someone else. Or maybe I do, but I decide it more reasonable not to be that way, because then people might want to kill me. We do need laws, we need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, but how much at the cost of those who can speak for themselves but we will not allow them to speak, or to decide? Mother's have their own right to the life of their children, at very least, before the third trimester. What is the cutoff then?

My argument would be when it resembles an actual human being. When it can conceive of pain and death. Because Human is not Human simply at a certain stage of life, a chronologically set time frame, but by conception; not just the brain formation but the information contained within that brain that can conceive of itself as life and that, in some form, doesn't happen until some time after birth. In some cultures they don't even consider children as Human until they hit a certain age. And there is something to be said for that, there is an argument for that. It's not my argument, surely it has a basis in reality.

Something the Right Wing (typically Republicans) don’t have a clue about. Because it's not a quick comment, it's not a sound bite sized position. Life, is complicated. Ending life is just as complicated.

At some point we need to realize that and back off some.

So, "Pro-Life" is a misnomer. Which is the point of this entire article. I'm not trying to sell a position on any of what I was just talking about. I'm just trying to point out that "Pro-Life" is wrong. I am Pro-Life. These Right Wing mental midgets, aren't. Because first of all, they only are arguing half the subject. Second, they are selling the cute factor in abortion as to what is important. But women, the vessels of who is carrying the child, is also important. The quality of her life is also important.

Otherwise what are you doing? You are trying to be another version, a "Christian" version of, wait for it... the Taliban.

No, I'm not joking. Think about this, think about it very carefully. Because if you are a Paul Ryan, Todd Akin type Pro-Lifer, then you are not very different than the Taliban in wanting to force religious oriented beliefs onto others; only in this case, it's not just others of your same religion.

Much in the same way that Mark Twain referred to Congress as that, "Grand Old Benevolent National Asylum for the Helpless", I think we can come up with another name for "Pro-Lifers" as well. To dwell a moment longer on another comment by that Grand old Genius Mr. Twain, again about Congress, he said: "Imagine, that you are an idiot. And then imagine that you are a member of Congress. What a minute, I repeated myself."

So I guess what I'm saying is, we should start calling hardline "Pro-Lifers", something else. And I would suggest the American Religious Persecutors, or ARP.

So Ladies and open minded Gentleman, I give you the newly rebranded "Pro-Life" movement, or the ARP!

And please, feel free to come up with your own, more clever moniker. Because if we can't make fun of this, if we cannot have a sense of humor about it while trying to put it in it's proper place, that is, in the receptacle next to your desk, then we will only succeed in making our life as miserable and lifeless as those who designate themselves so incorrectly as being Pro-Life.

Writing faux pas

A spy goes through hell to get a name, he finally gets it and then has a firefight, which he survives and at the end help arrives by helicopter. He goes up to his commander and says, "He gave me the name, I'll be right back," and he heads away from the extraction point.

NO. A pro wouldn't and shouldn't do that.

At this point after all they've been through and as important as the name is, you share that name with as many people as possible withint limitations of security parameters. You tell the commander, they immediately call it in to headquarters or SOMEone if possible. But you get the intel off the single point of possible failure, you. You do NOT keep it to yourself no matter how secret it is. You share it accordingly and appropriately but for the initial agent to keep it to himself one second longer than absolutely necessary is a breach of sanity if nothing else. After all, if you die all you have done to get the intel has been wasted.

This is what I call poor writing for the sake of tension. I would call it Hollywood writing except that this scene was from the British show, Strike Back. I really like this show but they make the same mistake after a fairly well written episode just to throw in that final tension at the end.

So, should you do it? Well, obviously, I would argue, NO.

As writers we do need to write, we do need to create tension. But we also need to know when we are overstepping the bounds of not good taste, perhaps, but definitely operational protocol and really people, sanity if nothing else.

[Postscript: I should mention that the issue about the tension at the end, does almost sound like someting a producer would push onto a writer. So that perhaps the writer had done a good job, but then at the last minute some outside force had "asked" for a change and so a previously well drawn screenplay can hit the screen with "issues" that weren't originally designed into the screenplay. Also, even when you do have to write a scene that is "cheesy", if you write it properly, it can still be so enjoyable as to not bother almost anyone.]

Thursday, August 23, 2012

What's next? Slavery?

I've been becoming more aware of what the founding fathers set up for this country. In some respects, it was slavery for those who aren't landowners. Slaves were eventually freed, but never fully, there were merely mixed in with the masses, those others who were not Landowners.

Landowners from back then have morphed into the privileged classes of today. Face it, that was meant to happen.

As Landowners back at the birth of our nation, without a real middle class back then, we have been directred to end up where we are today; all the while thinking it was good and just, and right; and it's not. While it is reasonable considering how things were set up, it is not acceptable.

For our nation to survive we need to evolve and we are not seeing the Republican party do that, they actually seem to be devloving; nor is the Democratic party picking up the reins and leading from their side. They have both fallen into a loop of continual disagreement rather than progressive change for the better... for all.

That leaves things to the voters, but as we all saw in 2000 (and in consideration of the electoral college), even that does not work correctly.

Which leaves only one thing....
Action, from thought.
Thought, from information.
Information from accurate sources.
And that means a media who are there to support the people and therefore the country.
Because those who are leading now, so incorrectly, are not the country.
They are there to lead and support the country.
And the country, are the People.

Occupy, your Nation.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Abort the Pro-Life movement and stupidity NOW

Please excuse this following article. It was written in very little time and through the eyes of bittersweet anger and sullen dissappointment in my country, for even allowing the kind of ignorance and stupidity that has been enabled to prosper in the public discourse that we have been so painfully subjected to these past decades and, especially during this current presidential election year. It is therefore a somewhat raw and pained diatribe and it comes through rather clearly in that vein of a heartfelt betrayal with a denied expectation of promise that was allowed to fall down so low, in a country with so much, potential and immense availability of possibilities. By this time in our history we should be enlightened individuals looked up to by the world and never let down.

Yet here we are, and here it goes....

First thing. We need a law that men are no longer allowed to talk about any issues having to do with women and their female parts. End of story. Too bad though, some men have good and helpful things to say. But overall, they've (we've?) pretty much by this point, screwed themselves out of, well, having any reasonable right to having a say in what women should or should not be allowed to be doing. Don't you think?

Look, Republicans have shown time and again that they do not respect women, or all Americans. They respect themselves, typically white and/or those more wealthy, than less. Typically with crazy agendas based on Sharia law. No, wait, that's another crazy group.

There are two sides to "Life" in Pro-Life that they conveniently choose to forget (back to that lower down in this blog, a lot more). Life is, Living, being alive, and Life is, living life, the quality of life.

Republicans (and I'm referring to their RNC platform, who they carefully have crafted themselves to be, literally, written out) keep trying to stop the "wrong people" from voting, that is, anyone who would vote against them by gerrymandering when possible (not such a big issue I understand), and lately by decreasing the voters who can vote through voting times and picture IDs. Very slick attempts but they should be stopped, jailed for even suggesting it in some cases, and the GOP ended as a party if it keeps these types of actions up. Absetee voting should perhaps be made mandatory to end the Republicans trying to stop people from voting. Trying to limit legal voters, is anti-American, there are laws against it and they skirt those with deftness and walking very fine lines.

It's very American to vote, to be allowed to vote, and quite against the law to be tampering with people's rights to voting.

Now....

I've been thinking alot about this "Pro-Life" designation. It's such a great sounding sound bite. Pro-Life. How can you be against something like that? But those who push that agenda, are kind of nuts about things. All this rape talk for instance, anti-abortion, redefining rape so it's not even rape. It's kind of nuts. It's offensive to women. It's offensive to Americans. Pro-Life is starting not to seem so much, pro anything. They are killing their own agenda. They need to be brought back under control. They need to be, stopped.

I think the other side from the "Pro-Lifers" needs their own catch phrase.

What a lovely guy
At first I liked the phrase, Pro-Killing. But I assumed I would be alone in that one. It was diametrically opposed to the other side's phraseology. But kind of negative sounding. Regardless of all this talk from Republicans about caring so much about "life" they care so little care for people who are already here, for Americans, but mostly for women.

A female friend of mine just told me something interesting today:

"I met bush at a women's business chamber luncheon before he was Gov and he was talking about women needing to be barefoot in the kitchen making home made apple pie. I was astonished at his arrogance and the women who were hanging on to his every word and waiting for an autographed picture. I think we are in trouble."

That is quite obviously something that is endemic in the Republican party today. Women don't amount to much. Maybe if you asked them, they would say of course they do. But we are our actions and if you look at their actions, and even their words when they are speaking, they have very, very little respect or care for women, or Americans, unless they are, basically, "them". Well off, not a mintority, not a woman. It's disgusting.

Back to the phrase...I thought of "Pro-Female" but that sounds too intimidating to the male Republicans I'm sure and would remind them of those secret friends, the friends they talk of to no one; "hookers" (Pros) and no one would want to give them any slack if they got pregnant and wanted an abortion (unless I'm sure, it was some Congressman's illigetimate child); though why we'd want hookers to have kids is beyond me.

Then I thought of Pro-Not-having-women-in-back-alleys-dying-from-bad-abortions which was the original reason to give women the choice, but I figured, who cares if women want to break the law and die from it rather than giving them a break and proper medical and mental health care; after all, this isn't the 60s where everyone was reevaluating things and thinking humanistically, considering people's personal freedoms and trying to be intelligent, forward thinking and progressive individualsand groups of caring people.

Hell no. These are the times of being conservative, because we are too afraid not to be. The times of hiding our beliefs, because our government is kind of scary anymore and watches us too closely and reads our email and listens to our phone calls and goes around the world starting wars and torturing people.

These are the times of being overly politically correct. The times of poor education and rejecting immigration because it's better that people get educated and leave, or get educated elsewhere and not come here to share innovations. These are times of seeing the results of decades of our education system be systematically decimated to the point that we see people speaking out of total ignorance and utter bullsized fecal matter in public and vote in the idiots and rich elites to take advantage of us because we are too damn stupid, ignorant or cowardly to take back our country from the ignorant and superstitious masses who are trying to run the show.


A friend of mine was just pointing out that Todd Akin may be fun to make fun of with his views on "Legitimate" Rape and all; there certainly is a lot of fuel there to ignite, but it loses the point and how dangerous he and his attitude is, as it is devaluing date rape, "ruffying" women into unconsciousness and saying that only some kinds of rape are really, truly, "Rape".

To push it further they are saying that many rapes are wanted in some way; that if you get pregnant through rape, you mustn't have not wanted it enough or else your body would have rejected it. Really? I guess if you are sent to prison and get gang prison raped, you must have wanted it because if you didn't want it then God wouldn't have allowed it to happen to a true believer (Job is cringing in his grave, trust me).

What utter nonsense!

Why do you think "War Rape is used by foreign invading militaryaround the world throughout Human history have "raped, robbed and pillaged" invading territories? To replace local children with that of the invading hosts, dumbass! And how? Rape induces pregnancy. It's like, statistical. Rape ten women, maybe half of them will get pregnant. But those women didn't want those babies. In fact, many women will commit suicide over it.

Consider what it must be like to have a growing residual reminder of a violent act growing in you for nine months and then birthing from you a living life long example of the man that raped you. Obviously before these men can speak on this topic, they need to be prison raped and see if they still agree on the topic of what you want or don't want. Except they won't get pregnant; but we now have the ability to make them pregnant. How would they feel then? Raped by a big burly ugly guy in prison, maybe with ten of his friends there helping and then you have to remember that the rest of your life and raise that child from it.

Nice, huh? Yes, Todd Akin, you're an ass.

A couple of things here. Two really. What is rape defined as and is this just about American women?

The Explanatory Note of the Rome Statute, which binds the International Criminal Court, defines the "rape" as follows:

"The perpetrator invaded the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body." and "The invasion was committed by force, or by threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power, against such person or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment, or the invasion was committed against a person incapable of giving genuine consent."

Foreign Policy, Akin-Style: How the U.S. Denies Abortions to Women Raped in War - August 12, 2012, article in The Atlantic. You may not want to stand up and fight for yourself in this matter, but if American women won't fight for themselves, it translates to how America acts around the world. Maybe we don't have too much War Rape in the US, but it is prevalentstill, all around the world.

According to the article in The Atlantic, "When rape is used as a weapon of war in places like Congo or Bosnia, thousands of women and girls can become pregnant, but a piece of 39-year-old U.S. legislation means that few if any aid groups are allowed to provide or even discuss abortion services with them."

So many of these women end up birthing and raising children that were inseminated when they were raped by "the enemy"; men who may have killed many in their family, maybe even right in front of them. And then raped them. And statistics show that even "friendlies" may get involved, once the rape starts in these situations.

But that's not here, that's not now (not here and now anyway) and getting back to my phrase, finally I just settled on, the "Women's Movement", and I thought, hey, maybe that will get some attention. Or, perhaps they will just be considered too "commie pinko socialist" and the media won't even listen to them. At least not at Fox News.

I think it's time to burn the bras again ladies.

But let's go one step further this time. Start burning the rest of that underwear too. Stop putting out, stop putting in (say no to tampons, see if that gets you some attention). Stop putting up with all this nonsense and shut the door on these idiotic (mostly) guys! Okay, maybe that's extreme. Maybe, just scream, about it. That can work, too. Or talk softly and carry a big stick, or a big complaint, and don't stop complaining about it. Till someone does something and no one talks as they have been lately.

If you're married to one of them, one of these conservativeright wing nut cases? Then maybe you should lose your "Woman Card" if you don't stand up to them and your religion and just say no. No more! Right? Really though, say it more like, "Uh uh Mother F*er, back OFF till you learn some respect for women. And while you're at it, read a damn book based on some Mo' Fo' Reality!"
Okay, you can be as "Lady-like" as you like about it.

But, point that all out to them, to the world!
You're a woman!
You don't have to take this anymore!

It's 2012 for Heaven's sake, not that Heaven seems to have much to do with it.
Use those ovaries, that vagina! YOU use it, don't let those other abuse it!
Whichever... these are all after all, YOURS! 
You simply don't have to put up with it.
Don't let them try to cower you beneath the banners of God and Man. I'm a man, I don't want this for you. You're a Woman for God's sake; let them know it.

Tell these jokers that if they want to get into it, they need to stay out of it, at least in public. When they grow a pair of breasts (okay, a vagina), THEN they can have a say in women's issues. Why are women letting men decide these things for them... still?

Again, this is 2012 for God's sake (figure of speech)! For Your sake! For the sake of women around the planet. Because I'm not seeing any God standing up for you, just people who think they know all about God, and doing the talking for Him. Or, hopefully from what I'm seeing, Her. Or maybe better to think God a man, right? I mean, look how things have been going?

Kick some dumb conservative ass, ladies! There's plenty of it to go around. Just turn on the TV and pick someone.

Stop everything related to them till they catch a clue! Make their lives a living hell like they seem to want to do to you. Why am I telling you this? If you already know this, stop reading. If you are getting the idea, finally, then keep reading, but better, do something about it.

I'd like to get up tomorrow and see gangs of woman nationwide, saying, "NO MORE!"

Start up every action you can think of against all this ignorance until They learn THEIR place! This isn't my fight, not really. I am after all, male. But I'm there talking them down when it comes up, and laughing at them sometimes; but it's not really very funny, is it?

You know, there is one saving grace....

One thing that I love about some of these politicians pushing their religious agendas in government and public forums. There is a core of, let's say, Christianity, for instance. There are a lot of Christians in the country talking out, and saying a lot of right wing nonsense. So they are putting themselves up as knowledgeable and therefore, targets, basically. There are many Christian offshoots. Some are way off line. Some are simply way out of reality even in a religious sense.  Even by Christian (or religious) standards.

If you push these kinds of ridiculous agendas in the public democratic forum and you are off even a little sometimes, it can be like guiding a starship in space. If you're off even a little bit at the beginning, it can be mere inches; by the time you get down the line, when you least expect it, you will be way, wayyyy off from where you expected to be... and the thing is, you see, EVERYONE else sees it, too!

And in politics, that can easily be a death knell. So there is hope. Maybe a lot of these fools will simply fade away to the old people's home for lost political and religious fools.

But you know, you still have to stand up and you may have to do some screaming about it.

[Postscript: Obviously I know we can't do things like make the Republican Party illegal, although they are currently not a legitimate major political party in Washington State because of the recent Dino Rossi fiasco which is why the Libertarian Party of Washington state sued their state secretary of state recently, claiming that Mitt Romney's name should be removed from the general election ballot); but I think you get my drift about how unsettling all of this is and just how upset American as a country should be about it's present day politics. Any country surely, has its issues with how much foolishness is involved in their all coming together to make decisions that govern a disparate populace; but there needs to be a certain level of intelligence and cooperation involved; two things that seem to have plummeted or dissappeared completely in recently times. We need to get back to being that "Great Nation" and leading the world in not just intelligence and compassion, but in cooperation and settling not always on lowest common denominator, but the highest possible level of consideration and action that is best for all, and not merely a sad compromise that leaves everyone involved lacking. We need now more than ever, foresight, progressiveness and intelligence in a modern age of rapidly changing environments. We are experience rapid change now faster than ever before and it is only going to increase in speed. We had better get our act together quickly. Otherwise, we won't have any kind of chance in saving either our planet, or ourselves.]

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Legitimate Rape? Forcible Rape? Really? How did we get here?

How DID we get here?

Where did people like Paul Ryan and worse, Todd Akin come from? How did this mindset develop after the many hard fought civil rights marches for freedom, women's rights, and intelligent thought to fight racism, sexism, and plan old fashioned stupidity?

Well, maybe it goes something like this....

And on the 7th day God said:

"I will give Man Critical Thought! Maybe. Yes? Oh, God... I'm tired. And now I'm talking to myself, I need a rest. So... CT, no CT? CT? No CT? Hmmm... Well, how about I just don't give it to everybody? So, all those who call themselves conservatives and especially so, in My Name, will not get Critical Thought, as after all don't you know? You won't know will you, and you won't need it. You will simply need to do My Will, what I've told you to do."

But little did God know that people would misinterpret Him and get information about him from stupid people. Nor did he know about comic books that would one day appear many tens of thousands of years in the future and how that would one day subvert the entire history of the Human race for a certain small, but overly vocal minority who would push the agenda they believed God set forth for them while having no idea that it was really just a joke purpetrated by a squirly little nerdy man in a basement in south Milwalkee who had a peculliar sense of humor and no idea what harm he could do by publishing a set of comic books indicating such "hilarious" things as the world is only 6,000 years old and abortion is a sin and maybe blowing up other people in abortion clinics and planned parenthood clinics isn't such a bad idea after all. He just assumed everyone would see it was dark humor and after all the women's rights marches he had marched in, and civil rights marches he had been in, that it was a foregone conclusion that no one anywhere would ever consider repealing these hard won things....

And so it was. And so it is.

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Psychosocial Affect of Corporate Employment

Remember this comment:

"Corporate thought is effective, but it is not healthy."

I am an "Artist". I see myself as an Artist. Though I've met too many people calling themself, "Artist" and I'm just not seeing it in their works. In some cases it's like a knock off of Coca-Cola calling itself, "Coke". It just isn't.

True "Art" takes time, patience, skill, even genius. Genius is something I aim for and may very well never attain, and that consideration is up to the reader; but at least I try. You don't throw paint on a canvass, or glue any kind of crap to a car and call it, "Art". That is mistaking "Arts and Crafts" for true "Art". My "Art" consists of metaphor, lexicons, vocabulary, words, punctuation, the "Color of Thought". Yes, I'm mixing mediums but it's to make it more graphic. Visual arts are just so much easier to, visualize.

To create art takes a lot of energy, physical, spiritual, emotional. You may need all you have for it and to have it drained away elsewhere, makes it very difficult to achieve.

I have worked for others for many years, all of my life really. I am and have been a technician and a specialist. I have tried many times in my life to break out of this working for others and have repeatedly failed to make the transition. In the beginning, I first broke out of the retail world, a holdover from my high school years. It seemed like I would never get away from that world. It was when I realized that those who handled the money, never made much of it. It all went to the owners who never actually touched the money.

Now I'm trying to break out of the corporate world. Most recently, a few years ago, I started working every off hour from my "day job" to work on my writing. It was as if I were working two full time jobs. I worked all day (and nights when I was "on call"), all through each week (and weekends when needed), for a large company on their web technologies. Then in my off hours I would work on my writings. Literally I was working almost every minute of the day and night.

I found it difficult, but rewarding; exhausting, but productive. Emotionally, it was quite draining, but charging me up as I was seeing that I was learning, producing and as well, networking. During that period I produced several screenplays and worked with a producer. Then last winter I found the opportunity to put out an anthology of my short stories. I should add that this opportunity came about because of my working on the screenplays. So you never know where your break may come from. When you want to break into something, do everything you can, take every opportunity if possible.

I thought this idea and chance to put out an anthology of short stories was all very productive as I had plenty of past writings, mostly horror stories, sitting around doing literally nothing. I can remember our screenwriting Professor at University telling us how a manuscript or screenplay sitting on a shelf in your closet does no one any good. You have to get it "out there". So I took a break from screenplays and started writing prose again. Mostly, it was editing though as the writing had all been done, some of it, many years ago.

As it turned out, I had too many stories and the book came out at around five hundred words. I decided to split it up into two anthologies. But in the end I decided to put together one anthology ("Anthology of Evil") and use some of what I thought were the most appropriate stories to create a somewhat experimental novel ("Death of Heaven"). I'm very pleased with that book.

I've also put out some free works. Like the twisted little SF Romance, "Simon's Beautiful Thought". And as a public service, a couple of articles on Psychology. One was an article on using Synesthesia as a conduit to study and help schizophrenics.

"Anthology of Evil" is a kind of throw back in Horror in some ways. It's an older style of storytelling, as I see it. A "throwback" I hope, in the best sense of the word. Some people may not like it. But I think if you "get it", it is quite entertaining. As I have sold a few of those stories previously elsewhere, at least some others must have thought so, too.

"Death of Heaven" somehow purged me of many things that I have wanted to say over the years, albeit indirectly. Between the two books, you can see my development as a writer as it progressed over my lifetime, really. But I won't bore you here with any more on that. In whatever my next book will be, I think I will have created a kind of trilogy of my writings from my early years, through my development as a professional writer by way of having been a Technical Writer for years, to more recently becoming a more developed fiction writer.

All through those years from the writing of my second short story ever during my college years in Fiction 101, to up until now, I have been working at one company or another. After I separated from the USAF, I went to college and worked at Tower stores (MTS, Inc., of Tower Posters, Records and Video fame). Then I worked at the University of Washington for seven and a half years. I later started working as a Technical Writer at US West Technologies, at the time, a thirteen state corporation. Then later on I worked various contracts with other corporations, finally landing at a four state Health Insurance Company; first as a Tech Writer and later as a computer specialist and technician in a variety of positions and responsibilities.
Now finally, I'm getting to the point of all this.

When I look back on things my years at the University were incredible. Working everywhere else, was not so incredible. They might have been interesting, sometimes fascinating, highly educational, and financially rewarding. But not so much, artistically or emotionally rewarding.

The mindset that is required to work for a corporation successfully, depending upon how you define it, is in my estimate, a spirit killer. That isn't to say that you cannot enjoy it, or cannot have a great life working for a corporation. What I am saying is that it seems to crush the artistic spirit.

I'm sure there are people who work for corporations who turn out great artistic works. I'm sure there were people in concentration camps during WWII who made art. But for most of us, for me specifically, I found that it is a big drain of my "artisticness".

I have produced what I would like to think are some good works these past few years. People seem to like them anyway, and are entertained by them. Some have not liked some stories I have written, but I wouldn't want everyone to love everything I have written. I fear I might kill myself in the end, were that to be true.

It seems quite obvious to me however that working at a corporation, especially in a position such as front line computer support where you are responsible for software and equipment that makes the company money and is a public "face" of the company, is quite draining of certain aspects of humanity and spirit. More so where you are required to be "on call" (which I have done in one way or another off and on since 1976 supporting nuclear weapons systems). It all feels over time, like the "creative" is being sucked right out of you.

That being said, do I think I haven't been creative these past few years? After all, I've turned out several screenplays and books now. Do I think I've consciously sold lesser quality works to the public? Not at all. Well, maybe; perhaps a littlebit. But what I really think is that the effort it took to turn out these works took an extraordinary amount of energy, discipline and overall effort for me than should have been necessary; or certainly, was desirable.

I have to consider that if I hadn't had to work "two jobs" such as it has been, how much better could my writings have been? Once I no longer have to work two jobs, how much better will my writings become?

Okay, perhaps I sound like I'm whining. After all, haven't others been very successful and yet worked at corporations. Scott Adams for instance, with his brilliant "Dilbert" strips, exemplifying the inanity of corporate life he could only have really appreciated, or perhaps been driven to draw and write by being at a corporation. Still, consider the content of which he wrote. It perfectly exemplifies what I'm talking about.
My point here is this: how much more could I have created, how much better could my work have been, had I not had to work around that other, life draining job? I suspect, much better. So that is what I am striving for, the perfect environment. After all, shouldn't we strive at least in some degree, for perfection?
Now I have laid the groundwork. Now I can make my point here.

My point is not to whine. It is not to seek pity, as I deserve none. That is not what I am saying.
It is to point out what corporate environments do to humans. How it warps us. How it has permeated our lives, our culture, our religions, our spirits. We are at a point in this world, certainly in the United States, where "corporate thought" has saturated our lives. You no longer even have to work for a corporation to be affected by it.
Because it is everywhere, in relationships, society, government, educational institutions, churches; it's literally everywhere. It is insidious and I believe it is overall damaging.
What can we do about it? There is very little we can do about it at this time. It was a long time coming, being born before the Founding Fathers were born and they wrote it into our Constitution. It was almost immediately reinforced over the years until businesses got large enough to take on supporting their own imperishability. I believe that the Founding Father's did what they did to grow our country, to protect it, to make way for a great nation with immense possibilities... for individuals. And that is what has gotten lost. The individuals.

Once companies became corporations, and those corporations became "sentient" in some sense, began to protect themselves, propagate and defend themselves, human beings became secondary.
What we need now is proper education, because there is no other way to combat this that I can see. It is simply too large an issue; too many have been made "soft" and rich though it. And when that becomes the case, there is no stopping it.

Except through revolution, or education.

I believe in uneducated countries, revolution may frequently be the only way. But times are different now. We have instant media that is more powerful than the corporations in many ways. We have more educated masses than ever before. Even the dictators and tyrants who are left on the planet have seen the writing on the wall.

And so, all we need to do is to see that our children are well educated. We need to make education as free as possible for as many as possible. That goes for outside of our country, too. The more we educate the world, the more people will prosper and the more the world prospers, the fewer reasons there are for the disenfranchised and terrorist agendas. Sure there will alwaysbe the few who aren't going to be happy with anything; there will also always be those who are mentally unstable, too.

We used to cry on the internet, before the world wide web that "Information should be free!"

And we were right. Up to a point. Artists should receive compensation for their hard work. Companies too can receive compensation for their efforts. That is capitalism, after all. But companies are not people, corporations are not people. People, are people. And we need never to forget that. We need never to forget, people. And their needs.

If we educate our young, the rest will take care of itself. Keep education free, in every sense, and only good will come of it. Not just free to seek schooling and schools that anyone can enter, but the information that is taught should be freed up; and accurate. No religious restrictions. No governmental restrictions. Surely some things need to be somewhat secret: trade secrets (temporarily) so that companies (and people) can prosper; national secrets so countriescan function, but only up to a point, and the issue of who decides that is not for this article at this time.

We need to teach the young (and everyone), the Truth, as much and as often as possible. We need to give people the best information we have up to that time; updating it as often as we can. This is paramount: free, accurate, updated

Universities are our hope and our future. We need to bring as many as we can to them. Or bring as them to as many as we can as we now have that capability. We need to not burden students with massive debt, just to attain an education that the entire country (and world in the end) will benefit from.

Corporations and corporate thought are not the way of the future. That age has passed and they are now a thing of the past. And we must all, make it so whereever it is not yet so.

Just remember:
"Corporate thought is effective, but it is not healthy."

Friday, August 17, 2012

My ebook novella Andrew is free for today

My Horror / Speculative Fiction novella, "Andrew", is free today only, on Amazon.

Cover Art by Hannah Hayes
"Andrew", is the story of a young child, only five years old, who is trapped in his own mind due to a traume suffered by him only recently. He has been placed in the car of his Aunt and Uncle, an older, caring couple who have no idea how to raise a child and certainly not a child in such a situation as Andrew.

Whatever happens to Andrew during this formative time of his life, will set the course for the entire rest of his future, and of Humankind.

As the story progresses, we jump ahead to see how his childhood has affected him as an adult and what choices he ends up making. Choices that were set by his parents in how they were raising him, before the traume changed this life forever, but not the path he was already on.

But there is another watching him. Someone no one can see. Andrew is not alone, yet he couldn't be more alone than he is. In a way, he is the most alone person on this planet. And he needs help. All of Humanity needs him to be helped.

But no one... knows.

Where does this story end? Does it end? For the answer to this read, "Andrew". But for ther rest of the answers, see where this all ends(?) in, "Death of Heaven" (also available in paperback).


DeathOfHeaven.com - Cover Art by Marvin Hayes

Washington State's First Real Legalize Cannabis TV Ad

I saw my first real pro Cannabis commercial (link from Huffington Post) on TV in Washington State yesterday.
TV ad from New Approach Washington
In it, a "soccer mom" type in a coffee shop says:

“I don’t like it personally, but it’s time for a conversation about legalizing marijuana," the woman in the ad says. "It’s a multimillion dollar industry in Washington State and we get no benefit. What if we regulate it?”

And then she gives reasons to legalize and tax it. On the Huffington Post article they say:

"A recent survey found broad levels of support for I-502, with 55 percent approving, 32 percent opposing, and 13 percent saying they were still undecided. A similar poll in January found lower levels of support, leading some to believe that the initiative is still gaining momentum heading toward November."

The TV ad is from New Approach Washington (you can see the video direct on their site) and God knows we can use a new approach on this issue. It's gone on long enough. We've wasted enough resources on it for far too many years, ruined too many good citizens lives over it. On their site they also ask, "What could $582,000,000 every year do?" And I agree with their answer: "a lot."

From an ABC News report, Mercer Island Washington Police Chief's reason not to legalize it? That it will make his job harder. Seriously? Give me a break. Your job isn't to have an easy job, that's why you are in Law Enforcement. He says that it's only reason for its use is to impair people. I would like to know one thing from him then, if he's ever had a beer? Yes, alcohol has medicinal qualities too; but that's no reason to legalize it if it were illegal today; nor is it now for Cannabis. That's, not the point. If we have such great freedoms in this country, why is it illegal?

Yes, I vote we legalize it. Enough already. Read a book. Use knowledge that is freely available and not being pushed by fearmongers, some police, judiciary and legislature. There are plenty of ex police and judges who are begging us to legalize? What not those currently in their positions? Because they are afraid of those who are pushing an agenda of fear and profiting from it being illegal. Really, it all comes down to who is making money on Cannabis being illegal NOW.

Besides, IF it's being legal is such a serious problem, then it will go haywire if legalized. People will start killing for it, robbing homes for it, molesting children, killing on the highways, being stoned at work all the time. Cat's and dogs will start living together, jello will rain from the skies. And no one will be able to tell you're high, unlike alcohol where you can at least smell it, and the person wobbles a bit and can't drive well (like on cocaine) so it's easier to tell, and we'll have to make it illegal again at that point and that will end the debate.

Or, it won't be that big a deal and we can stop wasting valuable resources debating it and putting people in jail over it. Not to mention, boosting the tax base. Seems to me the only people benefiting are the Police and judicial departments. With a drastic decrease in Pot crimes, they are going to loose funding for arresting criminals who are no simply longer criminals.

Bill Maher chimes in on Medical Marijuana On Huffinton Post. I agree with him that President Obama in his second and last term as President may just finally do what needs to be done. Not only on this subject but on others, like government reform. On that topic, do we really want another first term President in office and have to wait another four years for something to get done? Not to mention the nonsense that will ensue if Romney gets into office. But that's another issue altogether.

In another news release from The Olympian: "New Wash. marijuana group disbanding."

"Seattle lawyer and Safe Access Alliance president Kurt Boehl (BALE') said Wednesday the group will dissolve. Boehl said he formed the trade industry organization because he thought there was a need to help marijuana-related businesses in the state, but he and the rest of the board of directors decided it was best to call it quits after the firing spectacle.
Group spokesman Philip Dawdy held the news conference to discuss opposition to the marijuana legalization ballot measure going before voters this fall, Initiative 502. But Boehl said that wasn't the message he wanted to convey, and he fired Dawdy as the news conference ended."
I don't know. Maybe he was a mole from the other side?

Either way, I'm seeing progress on this issue.

I just recieved this email from RegulateMarijuana.org:

"According to the report, passage of Amendment 64 would produce at least $60 million in revenue and savings, with the potential to top $100 million in annual revenues within 5 years. Amendment 64 would also create hundreds of jobs, mostly in construction, and generate tens of millions of dollars annually for Colorado public school construction."

"This is information every Colorado voter needs to see before they cast their vote for Amendment 64. That's why we've created a simple page that'll make it easy for you to share the report with your friends and family. Can you do your part to help spread the word?

"Click here to help us spread the word about this new, crucial report.

"On this page, you'll also find a link to read the full report from the Colorado Center for Law and Policy.I thought this would be over by the early 1980s. It's really time to legalize it and lay the issue aside. Let's get on with more important issues now. And if we can make money to help this country from Cannabis, let's get on with it!

You know, I remember telling friends in the 1970s, feeling rather assured of myself, that I thought this would be over by the early 1980s. It's embarrassing to this nation that it has gone on this long. Too many people have suffered over this. It is really time to legalize it and lay the issue aside.

Let's legalize this now so we get on with issues so much more important to the citizens of this State and Nation. And if we can make money from it to help this country, let's get on with it!

Monday, August 13, 2012

Ban my book, in three part harmony....

The shortest distance in getting your book known, is still via a good banning by a popular nut case like Pat Robertson.

In fact it might be entertaining to do this in a public way. Maybe by writing a blog article like this:

"My attempts at getting my book banned by Pat Robertson." Yes, it is at first ambiguous. Is the title saying I'm trying to get my book banned by Pat, or is Pat himself writing an article about getting his book banned? And if so, why is he writing it on my blog? Right there we start by sewing confusion.

Then each day, or once a week, write a short update on the attempts. For instance....

Week One: "I have sent Pat a book with a nice note about what my book is about and that I think he would enjoy it." Maybe he'd read it and become outraged and ban it. Hopeful thinking....

Week Two: "I've not heard back from Pat, so I've sent him another book and told him that he's in it. He's not in it of course, but I figured that might make him curious enough to finally read it. And I'm sure he would find something offensive enough to ban my book, if he just read it. Or maybe he will see himself in it and find it not as pompous as he is in reality and thus, call for a good book banning! Wishful thinking....

Week Three: "I still haven't heard from Pat, so this time I send a book to his assistant with a note about how I think they should read this book because it is blasphemous and it names Pat as the anti Christ and therefore should be brought to the attention of the authorities, or banned, or burned, or well, something. Banning would be good though." Too high of expectations....

Week Four: "Still no word from the Pat camp, so I've sent them another book with an old clock that has a nice loud tic tic tic sound to it, along with a note of course, on the outside that says (This is Not a BOMB!)" No comment....

Week Five: "I haven't heard back from the Pat camp as yet, but I did get a nasty call from the police department stating that they weren't too happy about my package and that they had to send a bomb squad out to dispose of it. They admitted that they couldn't arrest or fine me for sending Pat a gift clock however, especially since I had said very clearly that it did not contain a bomb and after all, in the end, they destroyed my nice gift clock to Pat." Expectations lowering....

Week Six: "By this time not only is Pat fully aware of my book, but now the police department is too, and the fire department, as well as the surrounding neighborhood, everyone in Pat's camp and his relations. Okay, now pretty much everyone everywhere knows of my book because of the news reports of the possible bomb threat (which I never did)." Bingo!

Now not only does Pat know about it, but thousands, if not millions of people have by now read the book and several bannings are actually being implemented in my honor.

Thank God for that! But Holy crap, does it really have to be that difficult and time consuming to get a God Damned book banned! If only I had known that it took a simple gift of a clock and note, I would have just taken the short cut!

Now, of course I haven't done this, and I wouldn't do this.

But I think that even if you did this fictitiously it could get a lot of readers. I mean wouldn't you check in on it to see what was going to happened next? I think I would. Why, I bet you would get plenty of suggestions on how to go about getting Pat to read the book, or to ban it. Maybe we could start a movement. If everyone just called Pat up and begged him to ban my book... just maybe....

It could start with just one person on one day. Then maybe two people could call on the second day, and so on.

How was it Arlo put it? In his lyrics below just exchange the title of my book, Death of Heaven, for his song, Alice's Restaurant (a good song and a good movie, about good things):

"And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement. And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar. With feeling."

With much thanks Arlo Guthrie. And many thanks as always to Marvin Hayes for this idea....

Sunday, August 12, 2012

How do you write a short story(?), someone asked....

Someone asked recently in a writer's group:

"When you initially start working on a story do you consciously make a decision as to whether that story, when finished, is going to be a short, a novella, a novel, or even series of novels? Or do you just go with the flow and let the telling and the actual execution of the writing of the story determine its length?"

Well for myself I have almost always started as if writing flash fiction. But I have never finished it as flash fiction. Even when I really was writing flash fiction. Whatever length I start shooting for, I nearly always have exceeded that. I've gotten better at it though and what I notice now is that I'm compressing the action more, so that there is more happening in less space; while trying to make the prose be more, with less. I've had to turn out a piece that was a specific length for a publication or something, but that's usually non-fiction. Either way, I can do it. It's tougth sometimes though.

I get to the end of short stories feeling like I'm running a marathon when I'm actually running a sprint. Or perhaps vice versa as in a marathon one should pace oneself, yet, I feel more like I'm running full out to the finish in an attempt to hurry up and complete my story.

Otherwise, I'm simply writing a novel, which I should have planned out more. Sometimes I start by knowing the ending and I write toward that. Sometimes I have a concept and start with that and write to the end; but then the middle always shifts as I add to the beginning and the ending as I think of clever, before unseen directions to go, which can be exhilarating as it feels like someone else is throwing in ideas that I find exciting.

It's also kind of like I'm moving through the story along with the reader. Except, that I'm there first. It's a bit sometimes, like riding on a small ancient, seafaring boat and I find that I'm the only one there. I try to stand in the middle of the deck on the boat, with no navigator and, while in a storm, I'm doing all I can to stay in the middle so as not to get swept overboard.

Or, it's simply like being delusional and I'm just writing it down.

So, typically I just start writing and see how it goes. If it starts to feel like there is a lot there, I keep going; if not, it becomes a short story. Lately I've gotten more into novel length works so I know what I'm getting into when I start. What I've detailed here has been how things have been for most of my life. But now things have changed. How it will pan out in the future, well, we'll all see that soon enough....

Thursday, August 9, 2012

The End of the World - Bye Bye - Toodles....

I believe we must be approaching the End of the World.

You see, usually weather around here in the Pacific Northwest is nice during the week (if nice at all). Then when you get time off, when the weekend arrives, it gets lousy out.

But last weekend it was beautiful. Now this weekend is supposed to be beautiful. During this week, not so much.

So, I'm suspecting that (as usually, third is a charm, right?), the world will be ending the weekend after next.

So? Nice knowin' ya'll. Later. Much, much, later.... 

NOTE: Don't you just love how ethnocentric I'm being? Okay, geocentric. Geez, picky, picky, picky. Like the meaning of words beyond their initial statement impact should count? It really is fun. I think those idiots in the media all the time, who are always spouting this kind of crap, are really on to something.

After all, what's more important than you are right?

I mean, the universe does revolve around yourself. Right?

Monday, August 6, 2012

My latest Interview by Sumiko Saulson

Ever hear of Sumiko Saulson's page ("Things that go bump in my head")? No?

See? Things that go bump in my... well, you get the idea, right?
Well, she's a writer who likes to inteview other writers. Check it out, it's pretty cool.

Okay, yes, there's more.

Yesterday (Sunday 8/5) she posted her most author interview, with uh, yeah, you probably guessed it... with me.
Which explains why I'm writing this. But she's more interesting than just my interview, so maybe take a look, give her pages a look, maybe say hi. You see, she was kind enough to interview me about my writings, so I thought I'd return the favor. Here. By telling you, about her and her writings.
You just might find something interesting there.

The Blame Game


When I was seventeen I left my parent's house. For some years after I would blame anyone but myself for my problems, most especially, my parents. Things always seemed to happen to me because of how I was raised. Everything seemed to be my parent's fault. And things kept happening to me. It was nothing terrible, but just stuff, when it would happen, always seemed to be because of something other than me.

But once I accpeted that things in my life were mostly my own fault, or better and in not even "blaming" even myself, of my own design, and started to take responsibility for who I was and what I was doing, I stopped feeling so negative about life in general and about the people around me; even when it was indeed someone else's fault. I started to tell myself that yes, who I was had a lot to do with my parent's efforts (or lack of) in raising me and the home life that they created which at times, was very negative.

But at age eighteen, or at the age at which I moved out anyway, it then became my issue, my "fault" if you will and my responsibility to take what I had been given, and make myself who I then thought I should be. As adults, we are responsible for who we are. Prisons are full of people who never took on that responsibility.
Once I started looking at the bad things in my life, even when in some instances it truly was another's fault, life was just, better. In most instances things probably were my fault simply for allowing myself into a situtation that would allow for something bad to happen. Once I instead considered that had I simply made better, more well thought out decisions and consciously chosen the best of all possibly alternatives, then whatever bad thing that would have happened, very likely wouldn't have happened.

It was at that point, once I truly began to believe and accept it, that my life become more positive.
At that point, my relationships with people grew in quality and substance and life just seemed more friendly to me. Before that, I had few friends because once someone did something that I judged wrong, well, that was it for them. I had very high ethical expectations for people. Too high, I think.

But in the end, we're all Human. Right? We are falliable. We do make mistakes and hopefully, for some of us anyway, we do learn from them.

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", certainly has some merit; but it leaves an opening for bad feelings. But, "fool me once shame on me", has even more power, more personal responsibility; it requires of you, more awareness in life and as long as you don't take it emotionally, but functionally, you are actually protecting yourself more, and the others from their harming you, or even themselves. You can trust them more openly, albeit with restraint and intelligence.

Someone once told me after they had ripped me off, "You were naieve in trusting so much, why did you believe me?" Why? Because I want to be able to trust those around me. Who wants to go through life not trusting everyone. It makes you paranoid after a while.

So from then on, if I got "burned" by someone (and understand that my bar for being "burned" back then was pertty low, it was almost, in a way, like I was setting people up to fail), it didn't mean that I wouldn't have you around, it just meant that I wouldn't allow you to burn me again, as it then became my responsibility not to let it happen. I put the burdon on myself for not allowing others to take advange of me and the responsibility became my own. At that point, I saw people around me with more empathy and concern, too.

It also meant that I got "burned" much less in the first place. In my opening up to them after the fact and sharing all that with them (if I did feel I had been burned), it did me more good, it helped them more (or gave them more opportunity for change) and it helped the relationship; IF there was anything there to help in the first place. After all, some people are just out to get whatever they can out of you. And at that point, if they weren't very good people to begin with, you know knew that and they usually made the decision to leave themselves, as I was no longer a source of abuse for them.

So as the Dalai Lama says, in this new way to viewing life and the people around me, I did feel more peace and joy in life and from then on, I was simply much happier with my life and who I was.

Responsibility, really can bring you Peace and Joy.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Whale Wars Captain Refuses German Interrment

Captain Paul Watson Sends First Message To Supporters Since Departing Germany


Read the link above for Paul Watson's statement about why he left Germany rather than waiting to be jailed and extradited to Japan.

Rutger Hauer posted this on his site today. Interesting coincidence? Maybe great minds just think alike. :) Okay, maybe not. But I appreciate Rutger pointing it out. Also, check out his Starfish Association AIDS charity page. Back to Paul....

I've been watching Whale Wars for a couple of years now. Having become a SCUBA diver in 1970 and growing up around the Puget Sound, I've always been attached to our oceans. One of the guides in my life has oddly enough been to not live too far from salt water. I've lived inland and frankly, didn't care for it.

I love Japan and historical Japanese culture. Having started martial arts in 6th grade, I was much more aware of Japan than I was our oceans for many years before that. I've always had a fascination for Japanese martial arts (I'm still on the Board of Directors for our local Aikido Dojo), cinema, foods and so on. But this is something that bothers me about them. I understand the arguments for and against their whaling and I fall on the side of being against. Sometimes we have to change our orientation, it's painful. But that's all there is to it. Cultures evolve. If your culture has always lived in wood houses and all the trees die, you change. So how about changing before they all die?

The idea that any country should be allowed to kill a thousand whales for "scientific purposes" is ridiculous. Japan is now killing around 1200 whales each year for its "research programmes".  If their actions are scientific, then their testing is done through tasting, and all over Japan, out of fish markets and restaurants. Considering the size of whales, how in the Hell could you need 1200 whales for science and what scientist is going to be party to killing 1200 whales a year for their what, experiments?

We already know about Japan's relationship to dolphins and sharks (shark fin soup). I find it sad that they need to be beaten down to do what is right about this.