Monday, August 14, 2017

Crippled America, Trump Presidency

Never forget who voted for Trump as president. Those who elected him. They are dangerous.

We should never give the ignorant, the greedy or the immature the vote. No matter their age. Yes, we do that. We did that in giving everyone the vote. But that's not even the problem. And not everyone has the vote.

Regarding the travesty in Charlottesville. No Mr. "President", you have NOT calmed our fears. But, nothing new there. Not when your calming message to us also is calming to those we all see as, or we should all see as, the enemy. As in this:

David Duke (American white nationalist, politician, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.):
"We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in, that's what we voted for in Donald Trump. Yes he said we're going to take our country back. And that's what we're going to do."

Uh, no, dumbass. It's like John Oliver said on his show Last Week Tonight (you can watch it yourself here) recently about Neo Nazis and Trump and how Nazi types are like cats, "If cat's like you, it's probably because you're feeding them."

In deciding to be a Nazi type, a white supremacist, your rights end in your beliefs being contrary to America. We are a melting pot, not a separatist society. The rich and powerful have indeed divided us. We're working, fighting back, against all that. We don't need you making it even more confused and difficult to do what is right.

Germany, their hero's fatherland (in Hitler, and Germany...Germany who despise Nazism of any time), doesn't want you either. They at least matured into humanity. Try Iran, some country run by religion. You (and they) won't like it either though. Just consider yourselves outcasts find an island where you can vote yourselves off. Tear yourselves apart. Because we, don't want you. And it would seem in your ignorance, neither do you.

A Canadian friend and writer this weekend said America is misguided in thinking that hate speech is free speech. And she may have a point. We have gotten carried away with exactly what free speech is or should be. But we have to be very careful. Still, our extremism on freedom and free speech has indeed led us to allowing things that should be disallowed and has led to a segment of America who voted for someone like Donald J. Trump. And the Republican party, who have deluded themselves into their current dysfunctional and dissociative form.

Giving everyone the vote wasn't the Founding Fathers original intention. They gauged their intentions upon industry and land ownership, indications of an investment in America. That was the climate of their times leading into the industrial age. They also had an entirely different consideration of corporations. They had built in checks and balances for our government but did they fall down on protecting us from the future weight of modern economics? Or did we simply cripple their original intentions?

They understood the need for education and intelligence. When capitalism, greed, when big money of the size it is now, a size which they could have never imagined, supplants intellect and morality; when something they could imagine in religion subverting our morals and ethics, then you are in serious trouble.

We, are in serious trouble.

From:
Elements of Economic Theory in the Founding

For the Founders, government has an extensive set of responsibilities that it must fulfill in order to enable people to exercise their right to acquire and possess property. There are three main Founding-era economic policy principles that make possible sufficient production, for rich and poor alike, of the goods that are needed for life and the pursuit of happiness.
  • The first principle is private ownership. Government must define who owns what, allow property to be used as each owner deems best, encourage widespread ownership among citizens, and protect property against infringements by others, including unjust infringement by government itself.
  • The second principle of sound policy is market freedom. With some exceptions, everyone must be free to sell anything to anyone at any time or place at any mutually agreeable price. Government must define and enforce contracts. Means of transportation must be available to all on the same terms.
  • The third principle is reliable money. To facilitate market transactions, there must be a medium of exchange whose value is reasonably constant and certain.
The Founding Fathers never wanted much of what we now have now to happen. According to Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York:

Early Americans had a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of corporations than the Court gives them credit for. They were much more comfortable with retaining pre-Revolutionary city or school charters than with creating new corporations that would concentrate economic and political power in potentially unaccountable institutions. When you read Madison in particular, you see that he wasn’t blindly hostile to banks during his fight with Alexander Hamilton over the Bank of the United States. Instead, he’s worried about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital that come with creating a class of bankers.

We got ourselves here and we continually shoot ourselves in the feet, making it hard to walk far enough to correct the disabling actions by those who benefit from them and do not want corrected. It is like we handed prisoners the keys to the prison and then allow them to lock us up, expecting them to do good by us. Many of which, do not have the right to vote, by the way.

It ain't gonna happen, it never does. Just like free markets without regulation do not function well and are harmful to far too many people. If we don't fix these things ourselves, if we don't take corrective actions, we will continue to see America heading as it is into a world built only for the wealthy and oligarchs.

That was not why America was founded, nor was it how it was set up to run. We can make it work. If we can just wrest it away from those who control our money, who hoard it from us, and who manage our government to run for them and not those who it was originally set up to support.

This isn't the end. Unless we want it to be.

A brief word on a very current topic. I know this is offensive to some but...

We should teach evolution in schools. If you want the disingenuous belief so inappropriately balled "intelligent design" taught then it should be in an appropriate class, which would have a social or eschatological and not a scientific orientation and has nothing to do with science, other than as a counter to scientific thinking. We should teach science as the best form of thinking that we have because we should teach the best forms of human thought, not the worst and not just second rate forms as primary.

We should not remove memorials showing who we were and who we have been, we should simply place additions to them to explain and place them in context. If it is humiliating to some, reality should always trump ignorance, stupidity and mere belief whenever and wherever they go against it.

We are a heterogeneous country, not a homogeneous one.

It is sad and ironic that white supremest types love homogeneity in only some areas but celebrate heterogeneity in others. Especially since it seems quite obvious where the homogeneous ones are for them even in their being hidden and yet so reviled by them.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Is Our Human Condition Simply Out of Control?

I was watching Incendies (2010) the other day. I had really liked Sicario, both by director, Denis Villeneuve so I thought I'd check out his previous award winning Canadian film.

If ever you want example of the intellectual disease religion can bring to people, there's a good example of that in the film's initial murder which resulted from religious separatism. A separatism which includes the mores and tribalism that comes along with and from it.

Whether religion spawned tribalism, or the other way around matters little at this point, because it also now perpetuates it. Blended with the economics of reality for some, it is simply another cog in the wheel of humanity regressing.

Religion can be all fine and good, but it needs moderation... that is intellectual and informed practical application. That is to say, applying religion's teachings requires outright ignoring some of the more brutal and stupid tenets and statements involved within their convention (a custom or a way of acting or doing things that is widely accepted and followed) that its religious tomes supply, and demand.

If religion does not modify itself with humanity, it is a defective religion and therefore false in the face of Humanity. And reality.

The practical application of religion has gotten out of control many times, in many places, as it has now in the Middle East in obvious examples. As well as here at home in more minor cases. One has to understand that you are not so much then dealing with an enemy, but a people who are experiencing a kind of mental illness through a socially accepted system and a series of defective concepts and ideals.

They need saving from themselves.

It's not unlike a computer virus that begins to eat itself and brings its own system down. It needs to be cleaned up. It's not the enemy but a defective system that has become corrupted and needs its code and inherent governors brought back up to correct speed and action.

Yes, sometimes you have to kill people like this. As you would a rabid dog you stumble across in the wilderness. It's also just good to recognize that they have a problem, one that needs to be corrected and that they are not just inherently evil but misinformed, following their own best understanding of life through defective filters.

Normally I believe, humans want to be good. Want to be seen as good. Want to believe themselves to be doing good, to believe they are good and therefore what they do is doing good.

A little perceived good is good, but more seems better. Even more yet can be therefore be seen as even better, when typically it is simply outright destructive. And when it is destructive to others, it's easy to not see the damage, to rationalize it as "good". More therefore can be less. Just as a nightmare applied in typically human OCD fashion leads to a bipolar and excessive application.

Sadly the nightmare that this causes for some, can be felt as satiation and catharsis for its perpetrators.

And so it is left up to the rest of us to clean up this filthy disgusting belief system against non believers, or those who see reality over magical thinking. Magical thinking that has gone, as it is wont to do, horrendously awry.

The way out of this happening again and again throughout history is simply to lead ourselves into reality and proven belief systems and not simply belief systems conjured up by those in the far past, only to be interpreted by those in the present as the ridiculous and the murderous.

Still, we have new religious beliefs cropping up because we support these old beliefs and so new "prophets" believe they have an open door to come up with whatever crap they can imagine. As in Mormonism. As in Scientology. As is Conservative Republicans on the Christian right. As it stupidity.

We are not a stupid race. So why do we keep supporting belief systems that counter that? We need to get ourselves under control. And as things are going...we need to do it fast. Very fast. Before it's too late.

For far too many on a daily basis, it is already far too late.

Has this untethering of American from reality been brought to us courtesy of religions and the fantastical thinking required to believe them, for one to have faith?

We have seen this belief for many years in making excuses for people's religion and in America for having a diversity of religions and belief systems, that we should allow people their own delusions (if they be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventist, etc.) because this is America and America means freedom. That's all great and good. However....

American politician and sociologist Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said:

"You're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts."

And that, outweighs either our freedom, or our religions.

It is time we pulled back, that religions went back to their proper and private places, out of our schools, out of our government in order to allow true freedom in America once again and stop infecting both ourselves and the world in such a negative way in our delusionally believing we are doing good when we most assuredly are not.

IF we do not, the corrective action that is inevitably coming, will be far more severe than anything we can now imagine.

Friday, August 4, 2017

Ireland Trip 2015 and Vacations

My birthday was August 30th and it's a banner year for me so I thought I should do something special. When I was four, we moved to Spain from Tacoma, Washington. Things didn't go well for us and my grandfather, my mom's dad, threw my dad out of the country. Long story end of marriage.

We ended up moving to Philadelphia to live with and around family. Grandpa had moved his family to Tacoma back in the 40s from Brooklyn. Mom picked up a new husband in Philly whom I never liked.

One day when she broke the news to us that she was going to marry him, we would have a new dad. I was still wondering what happened to the old dad and I don't know what my slightly older sister was thinking. Our mom was putting a happy spin on this marriage but at five years of age I begged her not to marry him. Something that proved to be prescient in time and she would grow to agree with. I had seen a side to him she hadn't yet seen although of her four husbands, he ended up lasting the longest. They remained married even after they mostly and permanently separated about thirteen years ago.

Suddenly we had a new baby and along with my older sister and new dad we moved back to the dreaded Tacoma with these new parts of the family. I wasn't happy. I had lost my dad, got a new one I didn't like, and a baby who was sucking up all the attention that used to be mine.

It wasn't long before my apprehensions about the new guy started to make themself clear. Still after having married my older brother's dad (who lived with his dad after a contentious divorce) and divorced him, then my older sister's dad and divorcing him, then my dad, then the new guy (in 1960), whom she divorced briefly for a year then remarried not once more but several times throughout their stormy relationship until he died about a year ago.

Mom always loved Liz and Richard Burton. Dick and Liz, my parents were not though there were some similarities.

In my lifetime I've been to Hawaii twice. First in 1978 with my first wife,  then again in 1988 with my second wife. In 1998 I mentioned going there to my third wife yet for some reason she would have nothing to do with it.

I grew up with my family visiting Canada a lot as Tacoma is so close to Vancouver, British Columbia, though mostly we took the ferry to Victoria, B.C. on Vancouver Island located in the Strait of Juan De Fuca.

Our Grandfather whom I mentioned before was my mother's father. He had traveled the world and after he retired would take the family on short day trips sometimes. We would take the ferry Princess Marguerite from Seattle to Victoria, and would get a cabin for the older folks to rest in. I have fond memories of those trips and visiting around Victoria and the world famous Empress Hotel which had hosted royalty and presidents.

In high school, I used to drive with friends up to Vancouver, BC to party. The pubs in Gas Town were the desired locations to try and get into even though I was around seventeen. I once got into the Gas Town Pub. My friend and I walked up to the counter and got very odd looks from the bartender. The guy on the door had stepped away and so we stepped in. I asked the bartender where the restroom was. He said that it's next door in the Gas Town Hotel.

I was incredulous but he convinced us it was true and I really had to go. So we went. When we got next door an old guy sitting at the desk was reading a paper. I said I needed to use their restroom and that the bartender had said they used theirs but he gave me a look similar to the bartender's and kicked us out. We went back to the pub but couldn't get back in. End of that party. However, we then discovered Third Beach at Stanley Park by just stopping people on the street and asking where the party was. But that's a story for another time and I suspect I've already told that story.

After I got married the last time we would travel sometimes because of her work training horses. Many interesting times back in the 1990s until we divorced in 2002.

Earlier this year my twenty-three year old daughter convinced me I should do something special for this birthday. My birthday is August 30th. My mother was born on that birthday of mine. I'd joked with her many times that God had planned for me, she was an accident. When in reality I think I was actually the accident.

My daughter had travelled Europe with a back pack several times. I along with her friend's parents had sent them for a high school graduation gift to Paris. I think she had got bitten by the travel bug. But then she had grown up with her mother and I travelling with her to horse shows for her mom's work. It was in her blood.

She backpacked with her accordion and hoola hoop, busking around Europe, making money to pay her way. She ended up in Iceland and loving it. Greece during the riots several years ago. Living in caves in Spain. But always returning to Iceland

When she first mentioned the Ireland trip, I was hesitant, but I wanted to go. See, I've been to Mexico a few times, Canada more times that I remember and Hawaii twice, all over the United States. But only one trip out of country and off the continent, to Spain as a child.

And that didn't go well for me at all. In fact when we were living in country the local cantina owner in Roda, Spain was always yelling, "Malo Nino!" (bad boy) at me for some reason. Reasons I'm sure I deserved. I'd deserved them in America, there was really no reason I would not deserve them in another country.

We have 8mm film of our life in Spain and later in Philadelphia. There is one of a banner of shamrocks hanging from our ceiling. My new dad was in that footage. The banner said "Erin Go Bragh!" Roughly, Ireland forever! He didn't much care for it. He always said he was English by ancestry and my dad was Irish. So you could see how it could be annoying to a new guy.

Now I'm getting to the Irish stuff.

So I grew up with that banner and the situation, always in the back of my mind. I would ask my mother about it growing up and she would just say that my dad's family was Irish. I was Irish. Though my mother's family was Czechoslovakian, I got tired of that part of my ancestry and the Irish side was just more flamboyant to me I'm sure.

In the late 1960s I heard a lot about the Irish "Troubles". By high school I started paying close attention to the news about Ireland. I was quite against what was going on there. People were dying. It seemed to me that England should mind its own business. If Ireland wanted them out, it should leave.

Of course there were other issues but the Protestant and Catholic ones were at the forefront. Reasonably many Loyalists wanted to remain a part of England, of the UK.

Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Conservatism vs Progressivism or Liberalism

He can't be serious. See: Donald Trump vows to slash funding for Education, EPA.
Why do conservatives as a group think ignorance is something to be proud of? Then again, they ARE already too ignorant to understand that conservatism is not a political stance or patty... as I've said so many, many times before. Iit is an action, a device, a governor on a position.

Why do conservatives as a group think ignorance is something to be proud of? Then again, they ARE already too ignorant to understand that conservatism is not a political stance or patty... as I've said so many, many times before. Iit is an action, a device, a governor on a position.

Basically what Trump and conservatives are saying in that is to just be stupid (which begins with ignorance and a lack of good education) and hand control over to your old, white dad. Gives us access to your wallets and let us take care of you in anyway we see fit, and don't have the knowledge to question us. Yes, that would be good for us, just do that.

As for the EPA, that's just stupidity. About Education, well, where does that stupidity come from? Conservatism, misapplied. How does i get to be misapplied, or even understood to be something to misapply in the fist place. I'd submit, because of fundamental misunderstanding in what conservatism is and it's purpose in maintaining a status quo.

Status quo isn't so great anyway. It means hold onto the best of what you have and do not allow things to get better. Only it also means, do not allow things to get better and if it happens, great, but implementing change to make it happen has to be done at a very slow, plodding pace. America was founding on change, not remaining the same. To keep things from changing too fast (yes, too fast change can be bad, and it makes it had for people to keep up), the Founding Fathers put into place in our government, control, checks and balances, and Governors, and therefore...governors.

The definition I refer to regarding a governor is the base for the term that also regards an individual in control, or more correctly (as we are Americans and are somewhat adverse to "control" or being or feeling, controlled) overseeing a group. A Governor of a State, for instance.

governor:
a: an attachment to a machine (as a gasoline engine) for automatic control or limitation of speed.
b : a device giving automatic control (as of pressure or temperature)

Maintaining a status quo by slowing or doing nothing, is a losing proposition that leads to dysfunction and in you believe in that as a political and actuary stance, will lead o confusion as to why it does not work. In such a case, being you "know" it works or is "the way" (almost in a religious sense, and when you consider how many Christians are conservatives, it explains a lot), and so you blame the only people you can see to blame: liberals\progressives (who are perhaps even trying to do what conservatives want in he only functional way available).

To remain the same requires change, a dance with reality. To truly maintain a status quo one, or a group, has to change to mesh up with ever changing reality to maintain that sameness. Consider, there are other "conservatives" in other countries (especially with religious zeal, think, Middle East, Iran, or even North Korea to go the other direction in several ways). So you are then using your dysfunctional ways against another country's dysfunctional ways and well, here we are.

There should not be a party of liberals\progressives and one of conservatives. There should be a progressive party and a conservative progressive party. Some conservatives may choke on their morning coffee in considering this, but that is the fact.

Why are we in such a state? Because there is a portion of our population who thinks that conservatism is a party to base an entire political belief system upon.

So. How do we get there?

Poor education.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Pure Corporatism or Capitalism, Infection or Subversion?

If this is too deep, or too boring, too depressing, switch over to my Instagram or Flickr accounts. On the other hand, here's some info on North Korea and South Korea.

Otherwise, now on to the topic at hand:

Pure anything in social structures tends to be evil. Pure capitalism certainly is, same with pure communism, or socialism, or democracy.

Climate is a national security issue, so say the national security people at the top and on down through their ranks, not including our vulgar Pres. Trump and his hacks who are hired to say otherwise and support money over all other causes, like people.

Republican types including Trump, deny it, and pass laws not allowing use of those terms. They repeatedly ignore reality in those who are experiencing disappearing beaches on their coastlines, all due to money.

Reality for these people, never trumps money. Yet, only a fool would try to discredit reality.

Never forget, Republicans and foolish people gave us Trump but only fools continue to support his mad endeavors. Sadly, the one true thing Republicans are good at is forgetting their travesties and actions against America and its citizens. The one thing there supporters are good at is forgetting those very same things.

Nine out of ten Chinese leaders in their last regime had PhDs. Now as the dumbing down of the planet advances back into medieval times? Maybe one and a half out of ten have an advanced higher education.

Adjusted for cost of living the average pay in America has stayed the same since 1970. While it had gone up in other economically similar ("first world") countries. Why and what is going on, where is the money, and how can those in charge continue to blame us?

It's capitalism, it's corporatism, it's corporate thought, it's the slave mentality of our discredited past brought into the workers' world.

Corporatism is by definition (of Merriam-Webster) the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction.

Capitalism is by definition (ibid.) an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

Corporatism by itself isn't necessarily evil, but it is a handy club by which many have used it to be so.

Coupled with the anti-market sentiments of the medieval culture there was the notion that the rulers of the state had a vital role in promoting social justice. Thus corporatism was formulated as a system that emphasized the postive role of the state in guaranteeing social justice and suppressing the moral and social chaos of the population pursuing their own individual self-interests. And above all else, as a political economic philosophy corporatism was flexible. It could tolerate private enterprise within limits and justify major projects of the state. Corporatism has sometimes been labeled as a Third Way or a mixed economy, a synthesis of capitalism and socialism, but it is in fact a separate, distinctive political economic system.

Although rulers have probably operated according to the principles of corporatism from time immemorial it was only in the early twentieth century that regimes began to identify themselves as corporatist.

[Some] regimes were brutal, totalitarian dictatorships, usually labeled fascist, but not all the regimes that had a corporatist foundation were fascist. In particular, the Roosevelt New Deal despite its many faults could not be described as fascist. But definitely the New Deal was corporatist.

So it is not pure corporatism that is evil, but applied with pure capitalism that it can become so. And not even then without a desire by a few in power to alter course in order to abuse those who cannot fight back, who do not have the power to evoke change, that we find what we see today. Big Money in politics to name one of the biggest issues we have in devolving into an oligarchy.

We need to fight back. Stop believing the lies and the incorrect reasons for why things are so bad. People should stop coming down on those who are being repressed and instead join them against all of our true enemies, those who have control of our Congress and therefore our country.

We are infected with corporatism. It's not a secret to those who are educated and have looked into this. Those who do not have a vested interest in life as usual.

We have along with Britain infected the world since the 18th century, the heyday of corporatism. Since 1975 and most certainly 1985 we have simply lost control of it.

We need new laws. We need a new overall mindset. We very well may need, a catastrophe. Worse than anything before so that reality has to be addressed or even those who are above this mess economically, will also have to feel they are in the same boat as the rest of us. Otherwise, it will have to be handled with brute force and that, is never a good thing even when it works.

But as Thomas Jefferson said, sometimes it's necessary. what did he really say? Because there is a general myth about what he had actually said. He said, "

“...a little rebellion now and then is a good thing."

Monopoly, antitrust laws like the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914 did great good but corporations and business eventually learned their way around those.

However we now need new laws for this new and more complicated  and technical international world where obfuscation is the law of the land spreading across the planet. We need therefore not to just protect the workers, but the entire planet.

Our world leader(s) need to do this, too.

We were a world leader. Trump is making us not one on purpose. Germany is there to take over, China is there too in waiting, hoping to take over. Russia has long been dying to be the darling of the world. Best of luck on that Putin, a man who himself is hopefully on the way out.

Trump has done this so that we do not have to lead that charge for good any longer. Because whomever leads us in the right direction will see the demise of the corporate monster and that will be like cornering a wild predator who is in its death throes, killing anything that comes near to it in order to look important, powerful and dangerous. Just as we're seeing with religion. But that is another topic for another time.

The ancient ways need to make way for a new reality, one based in...reality.

Rather Trump and his wish for us to continue to lead the charge for only himself and the few to reap all our money possible, regardless of the death and misery of so very many in America and around our world. Our world. Not just theirs.

Our writers and artists are told not to write for the market but to write for themselves. To do the best one can do. To not be a corporate hack, to produce for greed, to produce for only the wealthy and corporate.

We need as Americans to stop worrying so much about money, greed, corporatism and pay attention to the truly important things in life. And the money will come. People and countries will flock to us over our positivism, our ideals, and no longer just our money. Therein we can truly become Great again.

Big money types, the corporate types, the greedy, are not the answer. Perhaps they were in the 18th century. But in case you haven't noticed, this is the 21st century and we all need to get on board this ride into the future and away from our medieval past.

This is not communism or socialism, but realism.

Removing Big Money from our government will eliminate people like Trump and his followers ever being in power by definition.

 And so finally it will put us on track for a better world. One that most of us deserve over the one where only a few reap the benefits.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Screenplay Review from The Blacklist - Teenage Bodyguard

After a couple of tense weeks waiting, I finally got my first review back from The Blacklist on my true crime biopic, Slipping "The Enterprise", also known as, Teenage Bodyguard. First off, this is a story that is set in a time and place that has not been harvested. The Tacoma Mafia? Seriously. Plus, it's a true story and kind of unique. One would think the right studio could make it something very interesting.

Anyway, I had originally slapped the Teenage Bodyguard working title on it when I wrote the screenplay for a London production company who had asked for it a couple of years ago. I wrote it in nineteen days after they asked for it, worked on it night and day. In the end, they didn't pick it up. But then it is about a teen in 1974 Tacoma, Washington, and the local mafia. It's a hell of a true story in a location and about people that are as yet untapped in Hollywood, or elsewhere.


Mostly it felt like the reader\reviewer liked it, just saw some issues (thankfully). These are $75 reads by industry professionals. According to The Blacklist themselves:

Think of blcklst.com as your personalized, real-time Black List. Instead of an annual list of the year's most-liked unproduced screenplays, you can log on at any time and get list of the week's, month's, and year's most liked unproduced screenplays AND a list of screenplays you're most likely to like based on your tastes and everyone else's.

I got the exact number rating from 1-10 that I'd expected. In fact, nailed it. On the specifics, some very nice indicated strengths including dialog and showing not telling. Finally, as that'd been an issue of mine years ago in a prose writer learning screenplay format. Part of the Strengths summary said:

There are a number of sequences in this screenplay where the pace of the dialogue really stands out. When conversations move quickly - as the exchange does between Gordie and Sara from page 44 to 46, for example's sake - it keeps the reader's (meaning prospective buyer's) eyes moving down the page and gives the scene an energy that can translate to the screen effectively. (But, be sure that those characters have distinct voices; a character's personality really comes to life on the page when their voice is unique and idiosyncratic.).

That last comment is important and I will go over the screenplay again to review and enhance the dialog.

Down side, as expected, the time line. It's a hybrid, it not linear. It's indie, it's nearly experimental. But properly handled by a deft hand at the helm, not only very doable, but a very entertaining and complex ride. But that doesn't sell easily. Part of the Weaknesses summary were:

This script could benefit from some serious streamlining. Ultimately, the 1974 timeline is the one that matters; Gordie is the true lead, and his central goal is to keep Sara safe until she can leave Washington. Let's focus on that plot, and have Gordie come across his primary antagonist - Caliguri - long before page 95.

I already have a fix for that. I will probably make the changes and put it out again for a new review. I have one more coming in as one review is always at least somewhat dangerous for a variety of reasons. Still, that's $150 for two reviews, but worth it.

Comments were also that an 18 year old lead will be a hard sale to producers/studios for this property. But let's face it, it would end up being most likely, some 26 year old baby faced lead. That's just the nature of some of the hurdles of some projects that one has to get over. As in studios not wanting senior citizen types as leads in a film and yet, we've seen some amazing films with older people as leads. Think, Driving Miss Daisey, for instance.

The reader also didn't like, quite as I had expected, a flashback in a flashback in a flashback. I've seen those done in big movies, mostly indies, and they can be fun. Again, a deft hand directing and it's quite doable. But I figured I'd get push back on that and will probably come up with a better format to exposit that information and that part of the storyline.

Again, not easy to sell originality (hopeful and perceived as it may be) because buyers are looking for easy money with little effort. I get that. I can fix that issue with little difficulty, even though it will drift away from an accurate docudrama to loosely held biopic. But then, I was shooting to make a biopic. And nearly all of them drift off from reality to entertainment. That's the nature of the beast.

I will save this current version of the screenplay, version twelve. The twelfth draft. But I will keep it as version one. After several more potential drafts this next iteration will become version two, just in case I get somewhere and someone wants to see the original. In the case that the revised version sells the property and that opens the door for the more convoluted and creative version or some form in between. I'm not tied to my original version, just looking to make the best film possible while remaining as true to reality as is possible.

Next up, gather my energy and get back to a new draft and start all over again. After I get the response from the second reader....

UPDATE 7/27 3pm: King of had the blahs today. Finally got myself motivated to get on my Harley and rode up a long road, turned around, came back to the Garage bar, had some tasty lunch lunch and a 22 ounce beer and read more of David Mamet's book on directing.

Then I got the idea. Move a teaser of a scene to the beginning of the screenplay, change all dates to the primary year and have it all happen within the one primary week in the story, then take one scene and make the leads be the ones to witness to a crime the bad guys perform.

Tightens most of the issues up incredibly well.

Monday, July 24, 2017

First Lines From Famous Author's Short Stories

I'm overwhelmed and sad at our current political situation with the travesty that is the Trump administration. So, I thought side stepping into something light and interesting in the realm of writing might be handy.

I recently had to go through my old papers and found a wealth of story ideas, notes (many written on bar napkins from the 1980s, and odds and ends of things I'd written going back decades. One was two hand written pages where I had gone through a book of short stories and copied their first opening sentence of nineteen of the stories in the anthology.

There's others out there to be sure. But this is mine for myself from many years ago. Like, 50 Best First Sentences in Fiction. But I was focusing on science fiction. Another is, The 7 Types of Short Story Opening, and How to Decide Which is Right for Your Story.

My thought at the time was to study the opening lines from great authors and attempt to gain some insight for my own stories.  This is that list.


I got these from 100 Great Science Fiction Short Stories, when I wrote these down sometime after it came out in 1985.

A  Loint of Paw, by Isaac Asimov
There was no question that Montie Stein has, through clever fraud, stolen better than a hundred thousand dollars.

The Advent of Channel Twelve, by C.M. Kornbluth
It came to pass in the third quarter of the fiscal year that the federal reserve Board did raise the rediscount rate and money was tight in the land.

Plaything by, Larry Niven
The children were playing six-point Overlord, hopping from point to point over a hexagonal diagram drawn in the sand, when the probe broke atmosphere over their heads.

The Misfortune Cookie, by Charles E. Fritch
With an ease born of long practice, Harry Folger cracked open the Chinese cookie and pulled the slip of paper free.

I Wish I May, I Wish I Might, by Bill Pronzine
He sat on a driftwood throne near the great gray rocks by the sea, watching the angry foaming waves hurl themselves again and again upon the cold and empty whiteness of the beach.

Science Fiction for Telepaths, by E. Michael Blake
Aw, you know what I mean.

FTA, by George R.R. Martin
Kinery entered in a rush, a thick file bulging under his arm.

Trace, by Jerome Bixby
I tried for a short cut.

The Ingenious Patriot, by Ambrose Bierce
Having obtained an audience of the King an Ingenious Patriot pulled a paper from his pocket, saying: "May it please your Majesty, I have here a formula for constructing armour-plating which no gun can pierce...."

200, by Edward D. Hoch
The children were always good during the month of August, especially when it began to get near the twenty-third.

The Destiny of Milton Gomrath, by Alexi Panshin
Milton Gomrath spent his days in dreams of a better life.

The Devil and the Trombone, by Martin Gardner
The university's chapel was dark when I walked by it, but I could hear faintly the sound of an organ playing inside.

Upstart, by Steven Utley
"You must obey the edict of the Sreen," the intermediaries have told us repeatedly, "there is no appeal, "but the captain won't hear of it, not for a moment.

How It All Went, by Gregory Benford
At first they designed MKCT to oversee radar signals from the Canadian net and the Soviet Siberian net, to check that one did not trigger the alarm system of the other.

Harry Protagonist, Brain Drainer, by Richard Wilson
Harry Protagonist, space-age entrepreneur, had been planning the project since the Gus Grissom shot.

Peeping Tommy, by Robert F. Young
Tommy Taylor? Oh, he's coming along fine.

Starting From Scratch, by Robert Sheckley
Last night I had a very strange dream.

Corrida, by Roger Zelazny
He awoke to an ultrasonice wailing.

Shall The Dust Praise Thee?, by Damon Knight
The Day of Wrath arrived.

That's it. I don't know what that might tell us, but there it is.

According to a Wikihow article on first short story sentences:

How to start a short story introduction?
Part 2 Choosing Your Type of Beginning
  1. Start in scene. Many short story writers will try to start their stories in a scene, usually a scene that feels important and engaging. ... 
  2. Establish the setting. ... 
  3. Introduce your narrator or main character. ... 
  4. Open with a line of strong dialogue. ... 
  5. Present a minor conflict or mystery.
So, for what it's worth, even if the above tells you nothing (and it should), the first sentence is important. But don't let it seem so important that you never get to the second sentence, or the last.

Monday, July 17, 2017

A Woman's What?

This was posted recently with the obvious desire for comment. You know sometimes there are subjects you never ever want to get involved in, but then something comes up where you just have to say something. Especially on topics where people are standing up for some people's rights while abusing other's in the process.

This just felt like one of those times. I'm not anti alternative lifestyle, or anti gender anything. Since I do accept others for who they are in what their actions are, I really do not care about certain aspects of their world as it pertains to me. I'll treat you decently. But if you push your racism in my face, I don't really want to hear it. Or your gender issues (for or against). Just be a person around me and try not to complicate our relationship. Yes, it may get to that point where it's addressed. But feel that out and deal with it at the right time and place.


I have a comment.

A woman's penis? Look, a penis is a penis. Male gender has penis. Let's not over complicate things. And I say that with love. Yes, a woman can have a penis. Yes it's a complicated subject. But one that some revel in the complexity of and the specialness of being in that realm.

You know there was a time when some aspects of sexuality just weren't public. After all some mystery in life isn't so bad. I say that tongue in cheek, but there is some veracity to it.

This whole gender business has become pretty messed up and confused. For both (and all?) sides. And not just in that arena, but in many in the country today. Especially in politics.

As in this case in the post, it may be considered a "woman's penis"...to the owner But to the straight participant it is not, and it is homosexual behavior for him to participate and it shouldn't otherwise be pushed on HIM as such. It is by definition a homosexual act too for the owner, but not in today's PC climate where one gets to decide what one is regardless of the reality of the physicality of the individual who apparently can simply choose whatever they are. Seriously?

 Look.... I get it. Some people have a sexuality that is very complicated and some have one that is effectively screwed up. It is however also unfair to expect others to buy into your reality without accepting some responsibility for how the world is. You don't live in a bubble, but if you want to, do not expect others to. Just accept that, have a good sense of humor about it and go on with your life.

Don't let others affect you and bring you down. Go out and be fabulous, or awesome, or whatever. Because you are if you want to be. But we have been expecting too much of others too much of the time of late. And no I'm not saying Neo Nazis should be able to be assholes. I'm saying that there are limits and boundaries even to being politically correct. But how many genders do we really need when we start with two. By one count, 63 I hear now. Really?

My point isn't that there aren't 63 (or however many) genders. It's that it's not within many people's realm of importance. And that's okay, too. I get that it may be important to you. But trust me, there are things very important to me that no one else seems to care about. I just deal with it and move on. Though admittedly I do get rather passionate about it at time. But that's on me, not you. Still, I get over it and move on and try not to bother others too much about it. Except in the appropriate environments and situations.

Recently Washington DC and Oregon have decided to add an "X" along with an "M" for male and "F" for female to their driver's licenses. A move that is getting praise by many who have desired such a thing. I think this is a good idea. And it supports my point here.

We do have to be careful about not having a common understanding of reality however. That's what standard schooling was originally all about. I've always been a proponent of diversity but of late I've found a downside to it.

Whenever we go out of our house, we walk into a social contract with the rest of humanity.

Social contract:
An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

A social contract is also about interpersonal levels of comfort. In part what all this talk about one's selected gender is, is a way for that individual to have a desired level of comfort. However, it has come at the expense of other's comfort levels. Not quite fair now, is it.

What that means is we don't go outside a reasonable degree of comfort, especially for those we do not know or have just met. We don't overtly come onto, especially someone you don't know or want to be hit on by;  we don't act racist toward others; we don't share too much personal or private information.

That is also how it used to be about religion. We kept our religion to ourself. But now it's being shoved into our public and political spectrums when this country was based upon keeping religion separate form the State. Usually it's being forced into political issues for all the wrong reasons. It makes it harder for us to see one another as equal, when one is always pushing how special they are by way of their actions.

And that is the thing. TMI, too much information, has almost become a way to say hello anymore. It's really kind of weird and usually not very desirable to many people. Except for those with a need to feel different or special or to over share. Our self esteem and priorities have gotten confused and convoluted and that needs to change. And it is, and has. At some point however, we need to regroup from time to time as to continue on can become defective for all involved.

It's good we're more aware of OUR subgroups. Because these are all OUR subgroups. I know moany theists or conservatives would disagree about trans people or gays being a party of their subgroups. This is America. Deal with it. But do we really need to find even more ways to make interacting even more complicated than it already is? Many are already overwhelmed. If they need to understand those out of norm people's needs, they too need to understand those of the larger group.

I don't care what or who you claim you are. Go with it, have fun. Feel normal, whatever. But to push others to accept your form of reality, of a norm, outside of a certain realm, is not only unfair and ludicrous, it can be mean and no, I'm not talking about reverse racists type of points of view.

All this while we hear not accepting other's reality for their personal beliefs and way of life are being treated unfairly by people who don't even know what they are talking about. After all, life is complicated enough without further complicating it. Yes, I keep saying that. Complicating it to reality is one thing, but into obscurity is kind of just wasting all of our time.

You be you. I fully support that. I also don't have to accept what you believe or you what I believe, I just have to treat you in a civil manner and accept you as an equal, for the most part. Just don't expect everyone to understand everything.

Be gracious enough to be you and not feel the need to share too much personal information with others especially in some cases, certainly with those whom you do not know and will never see again. I honestly don't care what gender you are. I don't care what race you are. Why is that even an issue? If I can't tell by looking at you, that's my problem? Obviously, and you know it, it's your problem. So don't bring it up. Have a thick enough skin to let it go in polite conversation.

Telling me as soon as we meet what you have devised and selected as your "gender" is kind of over the top and more info than is needed and it only puts people ill at ease and over complicates the social interaction. If we're going to have a long term relationship of work or whatever, then it may be appropriate. And it may not.

That is on you for either choosing to be or simply in being as fate has devised you, as who you are. I'm who I am. I don't expect anyone to care or bother about it. And they don't. But then I'm perhaps lucky in being male and heterosexual. Pretty uncomplicated reality in its complexity.

The problem here is we've confused several things in our becoming more aware of various elements of reality and the universe and we have learned how to further and further confuse things through desire and belief.

Partly out of a desire for people to not have their feelings hurt, to simply accept oneself rather than put in the work to better deal with reality. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, no doubt about it. But we are seeing this bleed into other areas where that really is not the case. Who should judge? Good question.

As I said, it's also ebbed into our politics further obfuscating things (typically on purpose) and well, just how is that treating ya?

It's like it is with some obese individuals. It's far easier to accept one is fat, rather than to do the emotional, educational, physical work and make the possibly massive life changes to lose weight and thus potentially better your end of life years as well as your overall general health situation. As well as you're reality, today, and that of others.

Losing weight can also (usually does) require a change in lifestyle which many are unable or more typically simply not willing to do or even consider and so, they do suffer emotionally. Yes, it's better to accept you're fat and be happy rather than drive yourself into sickness over body shaming... or suicide even. But it's also better to work to deal with reality and change things for the better rather than shoot for shortcuts just because it's easier.

We have confused making someone accept themselves as they are in order to be happy until they get to a healthy point where they can then deal with their issues and do the work necessary to really get to where they wish to be (we kind of just decided it's easier to simply forget the latter hard part).

Yes, some should just accept it and go on and be happy with themselves. some have those situations where that is the wise thing to do, the smart path to choose. Many, many others however should really just do the work, put in the effort and drastically change their lifestyle. But they see these others and hear people chanting to accept thyself and viola, that becomes their mantra, the new reality. It's much easier. And it's instant after all.

Not to mention the of millions of pounds of fat nationally and how it affects our domestic economy as well as the wear and tear on our infrastructure. But that is after all, another issue.

As are drugs from a psychiatrist. One takes drugs to stabilize, to get to a place where they are functional enough to do the actual work required to achieve a healthy mind and personalty, and life. We seem to have much too often just stopped at the "just take the drugs" initial stage. Our follow through has decreased more and more over the years.

When what is really needed is a change in life, or in doing other work that isn't all that easy. Maybe a massive change in life that most aren't willing or cannot (or think they cannot) do. Just keep popping a pill. Done. Move on. Cuz surely, that never goes wrong. Just ignore the suicides caused by many anti anxiety drugs.

The answer really isn't better living through chemicals. Well, cannabis and alcohol in proper doses and well spaced out enough at times actually can aide in enhancing the quality of one's life. Until they don't if and when abused. Being Americans, we overdo everything and think if some is good, more is always better. It's not. That takes no thought. Finding balance is hard and we tend to reject that outright.

The psychiatric drugs are only ever really meant to help people finally be able to address and deal with their actual issues, to do the hard work, to get down to the business of actually healing and building a better mindset. And again too often the answer is to drastically change one's lifestyle. To dump the girlfriend, to divorce the husband, to quit the job or simply to move forever away from one's friends and family. Yes, sometimes that TOO can simply be the answer. But people would prefer to do drugs and stay in their toxic situations.

Yes some people do need to be on drugs forever. Always exceptions to the rule. That however does not neutralize the rule as some like to immediately think just because they threw up some (at times, potentially untrue) anecdote.

Some people do have gland problems with their weight issue. But those are not the norm, not the large numbers we're seeing who would claim such a situation. Most people are not "big boned" or have a "gland problem". They just have a lifestyle that leads them to binge eat, or stress eat, or not exercise, or whatever. Or again, they may be trapped in a need for a massive life style change.

And so we have these ridiculous exchanges as we see in the snapshot above.

As we see the rise and fall of such groups and beliefs as are exemplified with ISIS around the world, of late in the Philippines, one has to wonder, just how is it different in its fundamental emotional components and affect in satiation?


Is mass delusion running rampant across the planet? Just in different forms and degrees? Isn't our right wing more or less delusional in many ways? People are listening to shows like InfoWars. Even Fox News has some assigned blame for what is going on. As do Congressional conservative Republicans and certainly our oh so questionable president.

Is this all a normal function in life that it is happening at this time, or is it caused by something else? A conscious element or external force? Theists love to talk about intelligent design. Is that what we're seeing? Or is this just another pendulum effect swinging wide due to our more evolved, if not more technological society? Is this just what happens ever so many years and nothing is new or different, just the technology and weaponry?

Yes, people are indeed odd. Different. Unique even. But also very much the same. I usually celebrate th7all at. But really now, come on, let's call a bullshitter a bullshitter when they raise their lovely necks onto the chopping block of social discourse.

As for a woman's whatever to paraphrase the president, we all need to seek our bliss and I celebrate and support that. But let's have some reasonable boundaries and accept that others are not always responsible for who we are as unique individuals.

Or surely, I could just be 100% wrong.

Yeah, that's probably it. I'm just absolutely incorrect.

Cuz after all, that's just a lot easier....

Monday, July 10, 2017

So Begins the War on Capitalism - Finally

Years ago I said I was a capitalist. I didn't know what else to call it. Then I wised up. I also used to say we need a businessman to run this country like a business so it runs smoothly because obviously politicians can't do it. But back in the 90s I figured out that was a huge mistake.

Now I'm seeing capitalism is the cancer we are infected with and we've been fighting the wrong things. The riots in Hamburg today are on the right track as anti capitalist protests. They've got it, finally and will it spread from there around the world? Hopefully.

Now we have a capitalist running the country (running? LOL, okay okay).

Look they got people to chant stupidly how bad socialism is. But that's not the case.

It's not that socialism is bad, it's that pure socialism is bad. I've been saying this for decades. Pure capitalism for that matter is pretty much as we're seeing, pure evil. AS we're seeing....

Pure nothing is good for living things. Pure oxygen kills you, and rots things. Living purely on water kills you, robbing you of nutrients. Sure, there's exceptions to every rule. But that's not the point, that's taking the capitalist's platform. Pure humanity doesn't work, it needs some capitalist, or something. Pure capitalism forgets humanity. As we're seeing.

Capitalism breeds binary thinking. Bottom line thinking. Profit thinking. And most dangerously, Corporate thought.

The point is, we need as we have had, a hybrid of things to make the country run smoothly.

But we have to start with eliminating big money from elected officials in making rational decisions. We need people making decisions for people and not a few. We need to stop thinking we're rich, when we're not. We need to all start thinking.

First up, eliminate those we can clearly see aren't thinking by our standards.

Seriously. It's not rocket science. Well, maybe to Trump.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Happy Independence Day ebook giveaway!

Happy Fourth of July! Have a wonderful safe holiday! If you need something new and different to read....

July is the annual Smashwords ebook summer giveaway!

Most of my ebooks on Smashwords are free through July while others are heavily discounted.

All these below and more! Check out my Author page on Smashwords to see other ebooks of mine that are included beyond these below....

Xibalba Unleashed - a short story written for an anthology that was so fun to write I accidentally went 2,000 words over the limit and had to write another story. It is a unique serial killer origin story based on Mayan mythology brought back from an expedition to modern America.

Andrew - Horror novella with paranormal overtones
As I mentioned, "Andrew" led to "Death of Heaven" and was one of my first stories.
Book Video Trailer

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/487748 - Serial Murder Horror
This is also published in The Undead Nation Anthology and is being worked on as a screenplay. It is my one of my brilliant cover artist's favorite stories of mine.
Book Video Trailer

Japheth, Ishvi and The Light - Zombies & Religion
Also published in my Anthology of Evil
Book Video Trailer

In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear - Sci Fi Social Horror and my first published horror sci fi story.. This is a story that in many ways may sound very familiar to our current situation in America.
Book Video Trailer

Poor Lord Ritchie's Answer to a Question... - Medieval Surreal Horror
Book Video Trailer

Sarah - Surreal Horror with Geographical overtones based on a true story.
Book Video Trailer

Quantum History - Comedy/Sci Fi of an experiment that went strangely wrong.
Book Video Trailer

These are some of the ebooks I'm giving away or decreasing price on over this month of July on Smashwords.com. Check out my page on Smashwords to find which ones you would be most interested in.

All are fascinatingly weird little short stories.

Andrew is a novella and a of foundation for my book, Death of Heaven (discounted to $2). The novella and the book are very different kinds of animals, with the one having grown up from the alien seed of the other.

Please feel free also to visit my Amazon Author page.

Have a great Holiday!

Cheers!

JZ Murdock

Monday, July 3, 2017

Intent

Does intent matter?

I hear this over and over. If someone harms you because of ignorance, maybe it's kind of okay, They didn't know what they were doing. Right?

But if someone does something to you that harms you, knowingly of what they are doing, though most likely not very aware of the full impact of what you experienced, isn't that person a worse person than someone who didn't realize at all what they were doing?

What if the person who completely didn't realize what they were doing, simply continued on in that ignorance after seeing the repercussions of their actions? Then they did that kind of thing and other things to others causing further damage. Then is THAT okay?

What if the person who knew what they were doing, went on to learn from what they had done? Probably then made other mistakes with others but didn't repeat the actions that led to your pain.  Is THAT okay?

It recently occurred to me that we value things in odd ways. That our priorities aren't what we think they should be. They are frequently misplaced priorities in using the wrong filters to view them through.

I would much rather have someone consciously hurt me, then later, because they were conscious of their actions, reflected on them and chose another path. Rather than someone who is seemingly oblivious to their actions, who goes on ignorantly following a path in life that is leaving a wake of harm behind them.

I think in part the problem there is that we believe we would be enabling in being understanding, or worse, in forgiving someone who consciously has done us harm.

The issue there is in the tense. The orientation and direction.

A good (best) friend at one time in my life had a way of living that I found semi repugnant. I made that clear. I said as long as I didn't get caught up in that net, I could be fine. Until I got caught up in that and that ended our relationship, and it made me rather angry.

Years later they got onto a good life path. I had been a part of that destructive life and path and until now in having no part in that path, in simply knowing no one any longer is being harmed (generally speaking), finally I can allay my feelings and passions about them. Though they are still no longer my friend at least I know they have changed their ways. Sometimes the damage is simply too great and bridges do get burned.

However, another "friend" is still just the same. They are nice, but still ignorant of their bad behaviors. One can therefore know, if they are still in that realm of influence, that they will eventually surely get caught up in it and regret it.

So who would you rather deal with now? The one hear eventually learned and moved on to better things, or the one who remains the same dysfunctional person?

In the past we typically would go for one over the other. Because in the moment, at the time, we have different values, different preferences.

If we receive the same harm from both, but the mere intent of one is better than the other, do we forgive them and not the other? Or do we recognize both are problematic as we will eventually suffer from either of them and avoid them both?

Just how much should we put up with before walking away and who do we forgive, or not?

Friday, June 30, 2017

My new Deep State Definition on Urban Dictionary

This is great!

Seems I got accepted to Urban Dictionary for a second definition and it's now available. I was sitting here reading Facebook and news articles and had a visceral reaction to yet another ignorant use of the term defining a non existent government entity, as: "Deep State". You have to page down past the initial very short and not so great definition to see my longer one.

Sadly there is a misspelling on there which I submitted and I've  now tried to notify the admins about so they can update/fix the definition (ignorance should have been ignored). To be fair, I had just gotten home riding my bicycle the most miles I'd ridding recently in trying to get back into shape. I was exhausting and somehow missed the mistake. Hopefully they will fix and and not just post my request for correction.

I posted my definition on Facebook, then thought to look it up on Urban Dictionary. It had a single line that just didn't seem like enough.

Fictional birthplace of the boogieman.
"Newt Gingrich traveled to the Deep State and it drove him insane."
submitted by AyAytch June 16, 2017

I haven't had an accepted definition on Urban Dictionary since I submitted about Purpleism, a pseudo religion I founded with my son.

So I added mine and submitted and got the desired email response:


Thanks for defining deep state!

Editors read your definition and decided to publish it on Urban Dictionary.

It should appear here soon: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deep+state

Urban Dictionary

-----

deep state

Latest term in a continuing series of fictional terms used by individuals addicted to acting like victims who are some of the most ignorant or problematic people in America, mostly on the far right, who are better and more intelligently known as, The Deep Dumb. This is a section of America who feel they have been ignored and rightly so, because they have so many ridiculous beliefs that are frequently damaging even to themselves.

One can tell politicians who have no other claim to current notoriety than to make stupid shite up in riling up those who are even dumber than they are and are currently being mouthed by the great goof ball Donald Trump in the White House, and all his political fluffers and minions. Also, see Fox News, InfoWars, Drudge Report, Sean Hannity, esp. Newt Gingrich, et. al.

We have a lot of conservative "tin foil hat" patients here in Western State Mental Hospital who are long term residents of a deep state of delusion who believe in a Deep State in our government; that being anyone in government who disagrees with recent and sad political pathetics like President Trump.

Cheers!

Monday, June 26, 2017

Why are we sometimes so stupid when we're just not?

Monday, June 19, 2017

Why are we so much less than them?

How did we ever get here?

Once we realized that higher education was as important as basic (K-12) education, once we realized that not all could achieve higher education, that perhaps not all even should, and that it should be paid for not by all but by only those few well off enough who could afford it (or with great sacrifice, might be able to), for those who could suffer for it to happen when others had to suffer nothing for it, then we most definitely started that long decline back to being less than we had once become, once we had realized just how important education for all really is.

You got that, right? Because if you didn't, read on. If you did, well...you already know what I'm going to say. Right?

Those who could afford higher education, and even many of those who couldn't, started into the mindset of wanting more for their child than they had or their parents. It began their striving to find the money to get them into the best schools possible in order to eventually get into a college or university at all, or to gain entrance to the best of those possible.

That...led to a disparity and a gap opened. A gap we see daily in misunderstandings of government and politics of what is real and unreal or fake, of who the "enemy" is, and what is the best interests of each and every individual person. A situation that has mired us in nonsense and given our for profit news a platform for confusion and raking in money. All based on our ignorance and our desire to be more knowledgeable and wise than many of us are.

Once that mindset became ubiquitous or nearly so, that gap widened. As the financial disparity grew between the wealthy and the poor, between the middle class and either of those others, the belief that we had individually a need to find a way for our children to attain higher education, rather than everyone attaining it, then the situation grew ever more ominous.

Until finally we find ourselves here and now. With a situation where we wonder, just how did we get here?

People started to seek out the best of charter schools, rather than supported public schools. "Remove my child from public school so they get a "good" education at a "good" school," became the mindset of far too many.

We need to support public schools so that they are the best schools. We need to make them all free, so we can enhance the intelligence of the American citizen, be they rich or poor. This is not about who can earn and should deserve education, but about our country, bettering itself.

This is not socialism as the rich suffer upon us to keep those down, remaining down. It in fact sounds very familiar to the old Tom Crow laws to keep ex slaves down. It is something that has not gone away but become inculcated into mainstream society and government.

We have dumbed down our citizens. Which is sad as with the media and Internet situation, the easy access (for most) to knowledge and shared ideas, we should be the most intelligent country on the planet. And yet, we are not and we are continuing to slip down the ladder of education.

We should not be so much less than them, than those with money, without concerns about where the next month's rent, electricity, food or even water will come from. Where can there even be a consideration in that situation for a child's education?

There cannot. But that seems to matter nothing whatsoever to those who "have", for whatever reasons. Reasons of being born into a wealthy or well off family. Reasons of being extraordinary in mind. But we need to raise up not just the special, because of money or intellect. We need to raise up all our citizens. We are all Americans in this country, not just the select few. Selected by family wealth, or luck or destiny.

Just as was discovered when we made K-12 grades free, free and compulsory because it affected not just citizens individually but the nation as a whole, we now need to make them good again. And because of advancing technologies and a world evolving out of the industrial age, higher education beyond those basic levels needs to be made as free and available to everyone. Not because it is easy, but because, as Pres. Kennedy said, it is hard.

And it is the right thing to do.


Friday, June 16, 2017

Divorcing America from America

Okay, this should be interesting....

It's being said that America is in a divorce mentality. Americans don't like Americans who hold different beliefs anymore. We can't seem to just agree to disagree and continue to be productive. One side is loathing the other. How exactly did that happen?

Partisan and for profit news, instant media, Internet, too much information finally coming out about the "other" side, and so on. Also, power plays, big money, greed and ignorance. Ignorance in the face of so much information people can't absorb it all or tell reality from lies any longer.

Progressives react against the extremes of ridiculous religious mentalities, conservative extremism, Republican fiscal ridiculousness, and so on.

Conservatives react against that response to them because they do not see themselves as defective in beliefs or actions. They are sick of being ignored. Even though so many of their beliefs should be ignored, or better, massaged into non existence and a better more useful way of viewing the world. While they mean well, they wonder why they are they held in such disdain? And so they react equally against that.

We're all equal, or supposed to be, so why do they not feel equal? First of all, if you hold a foolish view, you have set yourself up for that in the first place. And there are some progressives who do go too far into utter ridiculousness. But not overall.

If we need to follow one group or the other, regression and fear int he conservative mentality surely isn't the path to better living. A shark, as they say regarding a relationship, always needs to move forward, or it dies. Just like a country. Conservatives want to be that shark that refuses to move.

Progressives need not to loathe their "spouses" in the other side, but see them as the ignorant, dysfunctional, damaged goods stuck in ancient ways in this marriage they are joined to in perpetuity. The need not to hate their partners, but love them and exhibit understanding. Manage the relationship somehow into functionality. They obviously are moving too fast for conservatives who in their best of times, fear reality and the future, change and new and novel things.

Those on that other conservative side need also in a way, to do the same. Only they also really need to begin that long uphill road in seeing how they are viewing things... incorrectly. How they are steeped in unfounded and unsustainable realities as we move forward into a future that will not put up with their beliefs any longer without killing and damaging the planet and multiple economies.

Yes, I clearly see where that is all a contradiction, an unequal playing field, how each side sees the other as being wrong. Where one side is wrong to a degree, but the other side is wrong to a much larger degree. We need to be moving INTO THE FUTURE, not BACK INTO THE PAST. Not back to dysfunctional antiquity.

Bring back the coal industry? What the hell is wrong with your mind? Nothing? So it's just all about politics and money, greed and clutching unto death, old ways designed for a long past lifestyle? Oh, I see....

The bottom line is this, either way we need to get along and move forward, no matter how much conservatives keep wishing to weigh humanity down into a sticky pit of smelly old ways and sad, dysfunctional beliefs.

And yes. We need to keep this marriage working. Even if one side is delusional and unbalanced.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Did I hear you correctly? Did I try?

The person trying to communicate something has to listen harder than the person they are trying to communicate to. - Alan Alda

When you listen, are you just waiting for them to stop so you can talk? Then how much are you really listening? As with two actors on stage, one does not say their lines, once the other's lines are completed. Rather, one speaks their lines in response to the content of what the other's actor's lines were.

I would actually rather say, "...the person they are trying to communicate WITH". I've said for a very long time that communication in discourse is a two way street. In considering talking with another from a foreign country where English is a second language to them, we would do well to understand that even to the person closest to us, there may be a very similar process going on.

We tend to communicate in generalizations that if examined leave much to be desired in the way of clarity and understanding. Some people, confidence types and politicians for example, abuse and make use of this known unknown.

The one imparting information in a communication has to communicate their intention (and information) as they wish it to be understood. Yet they also have to do so in such a way as to best impart that knowledge to the other (for them to assimilate it) in a way (in ways?) where that person is capable of understanding it. And understanding it as much as is possible. As long as they understand the majority of it, or enough of it, then the communication is typically considered successful. Not infrequently however, it is later found that was simply not the case.

Just as well, the one being communicated to needs to actively try to understand not just what is being imparted to them (simply listening), but they also need to try to understand what the person communicating them them is attempting to communicate. This can be done by viewing the information coming in on a variety of levels and encompassing various degrees of specificity and generalities. Some of this is done invisible without thinking. However not always and not with as good a degree of understanding as is frequently required.

The point being... in simply telling what you have to say to someone, in their simply listening what someone is saying to someone, in the one imparting what they understand in a baseline format where the information is wholly contained within the information, it disregards how another is able to decode and associate that information in such a way that they are not only getting the baselines information, but also the intent and scope of what the person is trying to share.

Sounds like an overly complicated way of expressing a very simple concept.
Yet, in observing people's communication and listening skills, and at times the result of that communication, it is in no way simple. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many misunderstandings where so much of the time even in discourse where it is "understood" that it was understood by both, it frequently is not in both reflection and examination.

So. Go communicate. :)