Saje's Eye

Yeah... not buying what they're selling. And neither you should you.

2012-01-09T16:51:00.000-08:00

KYFHO. It's an acronym for "Keep Your Fucking Hands Off." It's from a novel by Dr. F. Paul Wilson called "An Enemy of the State." So before anyone accuses me of not understanding Libertarianism, please take the time to go fuck yourself. The word is tattooed on my left shoulder. As far as it goes, I still mean it. You lay your hands on me without permission, you risk injury.

That said, I believe the philosophy of Ayn Rand and her followers is morally and intellectually bankrupt. And, yes, I'm about to explain why. Sit tight.

"Ron Paul will end the drug war." Yep. You're right. Or, at least he'll try. He'll order the federal agencies to stand down, citing whatever part of the Constitution he needs to cite in order to justify it. I'm all for this--even though I don't really recommend the inhalation of certain substances. Even so, the drug war is an expensive failure that's done nothing to curtail drug use and managed to disenfranchise a growing percentage of our minority population. The problem with this is that there will be no money forthcoming for drug treatment. None. The onus would land on the states, who can't keep up with current obligations. So the only people who'll get drug treatment are the ones who can pay for it up front. How nice for them.

"Ron Paul will bring the troops home." Yep. And resist intervention anywhere else with every bone in his tired old body. That's great. I'm actually FOR an end to wars and our involvement in them. Hope no one particularly anti-social gets rambunctious. Because we won't intervene. Good thing most of the real threats have been eliminated. North Korea isn't likely to get particularly ambitious in the near future as the new ruler takes stock of his circumstances. And Iran? Not really a credible threat despite its saber rattling.

Good thing.

People scream about the corruption of the federal government (and gawd knows there's good reason for this) but then recommend Libertarian ideals as a way to counter this. I've said it before... the smaller a government entity, the easier it is to corrupt. It's a lot easier to pay off a town council, the police chief, and the mayor, than it is to buy a Congresscritter. This is pretty obvious.

His supporters say that he'd give power back to the states, and allow them to do anything that didn't contradict the U.S. Constitution. Not that there'd be any way to enforce that. A conservative state could far more easily modify its own Constitution to, say, take away peoples right to marry someone of a different race, and the U.S. Constitution would not only not stop them, even if it did the feds would have no power to intervene.

They will also say that Libertarians would not allow pollution, would even be harder on it than liberals. So how does this work? The local factory is churning out toxic waste and paying people to bury it somewhere beyond town. It seeps into the ground water and the people can do--what? Take it to the local Sheriff, whose beholden to the factory for his job? Take it to the state, which has every reason not to aggravate a local employer? And can't afford the funds to investigate it even if they wanted to?Right now they can take it to the feds, who have people who investigate this sort of thing, and labs for them to work out of. You think the locals--half of which who are employed by said factory, have the money to hire scientists and labs to do the work determining the source of the toxin?

Good luck with that.

"It's not the government's job to subsidize intellectual curiosity." This is a Reagan quote, but it typifies a conservative few of government. It's in everyone's interest to have an educated populace. The founding fathers--many of whom they claim to revere--believed that the only way to have a functioning democracy was to educate the populace. They'll argue that the only reason college tuition has gotten so high is because it's subsidized by the government. I say it's because we allow bankers to use our young people as a cash crop with which to grow even more money. They say the federal government doesn't have any business in education at all. But I say that universal standards are a good thing, and one of the problems we have now is that educational requirements vary so greatly from state to state. NCLB notwithstanding. That remains a kind of sick joke. What it doesn't do is improve education.

Yeah. I don't trust these people. If you do, that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinions. But don't pretend we're crazy for not buying it.

The New Year: Civility, Disrespect, and Inconsideration

2012-01-01T00:23:00.000-08:00

So... more than once recently, in the midst of a heated debate on one post or another, some person or another has decried my lack of "civility." I figure this night, on the verge of the dawn of a brand new calendar year, is a fine time to address this hotly contested issue.

My day job requires me to remain not only professional, but cheerfully welcoming to all our customers. That means I'm forced to not only tolerate, but enthusiastically embrace (not literally) people who cannot be bothered to expend even an erg of energy in order to possibly make my life and the lives of my coworkers the tiniest bit easier. Rather than putting something back where they found it, it's not uncommon for them to just toss it down on the base deck, or shove it somewhere it clearly doesn't belong. Not because it's really any easier, when you get right down to it, but because they can't be bothered to give a shit.

I, being the consummate professional I am, will come behind them and straighten what they've disarranged, and cheerfully ask if they need help finding anything else. That's my job. And I'm good at it. But we all know that what they deserve is a tongue lashing for being inconsiderate assholes. Anyone who will stand by and watch someone working, then casually undo what they've done needs a good talking to. Which they will not get because, as I'm sure we're all aware, the customer is always right. Which means that simply through the act of intending to spend money, you can get away with just about anything short of bodily assault or theft. Certainly callous disregard of the labor of others is within that definition. The customer is always right, even if they're increasing the workload of a group of people who are already terribly overworked and vastly underpaid.

What this means, in practice, is that all my patience is all used up while I'm at work. By the time I get home and pick up my computer, I have very little patience left. When conservative trolls come onto a conversation thread populated primarily by myself and my fellow liberals and inform us that their ideology forces them to do to our nation what the thoughtless and inconsiderate shoppers do to my work space, I am not restrained by any measure in telling them exactly what I think of them, their ideology, or those who share it.

If you really want to increase civility, here's an idea. Be the kind of person who treats others, even lowly fast food and retail workers, with the kind of respect and regard you yourself would prefer. Be the kind of person who encourages others to do the same. Show us the same respect you would show a CEO, banker, or FOX News pundit, and act as though OUR labor is just as valuable to society as anyone else's. Act like we matter, and maybe you'll earn the kind of civility you seem to think is your due.

In the meantime, however, if you act like a conservative jackass in a public part of cyberspace, and wear your moral defects with pride, I will treat you accordingly and in a way I cannot treat you when you pull the same bullshit on me at work. If you don't like it, well, tough shit. I don't care. Get someone else to cry for you, because I sure as hell won't. You want civility, catch me at work. I have no choice but to treat you well, regardless of how you treat me and my coworkers. But out here in cyberspace? You'll get what's coming to you whether you like it or not. Out here I can call an asshole an asshole. And I often do. Get used to it. I have.

Battling the Hydra

2011-10-03T18:47:00.000-07:00

I really acquired my initial interest in politics when Reagan became President. In even my callow youth I recognized the fact that the man was full of shit. "Government is the problem," he'd tell us. I have an inherent suspicion of anyone who says that while pursuing a job IN government. If government isn't here to serve the people, why the hell would a right-winger want to be IN government in the first place? Oh... yeah. To serve themselves. And their cronies.

As a progressive, I refer to our enemy as The Hydra. We've got a thousand different causes attacking the different heads, but most of them tend to forget that the beast behind it all is the same. When you chop of the sewage spouting head and stop it from polluting in one place, another head is savaging a young immigrant worker trying to support a wife and a baby on less than minimum wage. While we celebrating the victory of the end of Don't Ask Don't Tell, somewhere there's a professional holding a pink slip because his firm outsourced his job. And as much as we'd like to pretend these things are unconnected, they're not.

Air pollution, outsourcing, abuse of labor, debit card fees, usurious interest rates, ecosystem and econo-system destroying oil spills. Bank Bailouts and State appointed "Financial Managers." Tax breaks and fee hikes. Attempted plunder of the National Forests. Endangered wolves with targets on their backs.

All different heads of the same hydra.

Had this broken open twenty years ago, I'd have been there with bells on. But now I'm relegated in many ways to the role of cheerleader. Because twenty minutes standing on my feet will send my back into spasms that, because of my fibro, feel a lot like someone punching me in the kidneys. I have a job that pays my child support, but besides that I do the majority of the cooking and cleaning around the house, and I've got my writing. My personal physical presence would do nothing to help the movement, but it would sure as hell kick my ass. I remember the days when I could sleep on the sidewalk... or under a bridge (which I've done more than once) with no ill effects. Now I have problems sleeping in a bed. Or anywhere else. I have a body that feels as though it's in constant revolt. There is never a moment in which I am not in some measure of pain. Damp weather and physical discomfort increase that pain considerably. My days of abusing my body with no repercussions are long over.

So the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak. But my heart is with these folks because I believe that it's time we tried to wrest our Republican from the hands of the powerful.

As Megadeth put it: "It's still We the People, right?"

Saw a tee shirt a long time ago... back during the Reagan era as a matter of fact. It said "If this is no longer the Land of the Free, I sure hope it's the Home of the Brave."

Mocktivism: A definition.

2011-09-22T15:33:00.000-07:00

So... Here's a new word. Mocktivism. Sounds a lot like it might be mock activism, and some people would say so out loud. That's because they believe the old standby of getting out in the streets and marching will do some good. Right--because the people who control the mass media are prone to being cooperative enough to tell the folks at home the truth. Or not.

"Use what works, discard the rest." This quote from Bruce Lee fits here like nowhere else but personal combat. Tactics must evolve with the battlefield, and I think many fall into the same trap that the military does in constantly trying to fight the last war.
This is a war in the information age. It is a war of ideas. A war between stupid, regressive ideas and ideas that will, like all liberal notions throughout history, will require revisions to work as planned. But that was the case when we replaced feudalism with capitalism and democracy and transformed an agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse. Don't let the conservatives fool you. They didn't do that. Liberals did. Conservatives, as a group, stick to the old ways.
As government must evolve with the changing times, a task it's performing poorly, we citizens must evolve our methods for dealing with government, our theories of what it is to be "involved." Right after Obama took office I wrote that this congress would be the first one to really know what it's like to have people looking over their shoulder constantly... something that wasn't really possible until the internet, and now with social media it's a 24/7 proposition. They can't do or say anything in the open without someone noticing, recording it, and making judgements.
Welcome to the 21st Century.

Mocktivism, as I mean it, is the practice performed by people like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher, and, to a lesser extent, Michael Moore. It's not your parent's activism. It's snark and sarcasm and mockery aimed at the sheer absurdities of the "conservative" position. On anything.
Studies have shown that most people make decisions on politics based not on the facts (something the Democratic leadership seems not to have picked up on, despite Republican victories revealing this very truth) but on emotion.
The Republican machine has cornered the market on fear and hate (not that we wanted those markets anyway) so we're only left with one real weapon. Mockery. Which is good, because we're good at it.

Hell in a hand basket

2011-09-10T00:46:00.000-07:00

I get aggravated by the hatred of modern society that permeates some sub-sections of the internet culture. You get it from both the left and the right. The right thinks it's lack of God that's doing it, the people on the left blame everything other than their own interests or fascinations. People are fucked up--it's television, or video games, or rock music.

Think again.

You do understand that we've always been like this, right? The world isn't going to hell in a hand basket. It's been there the whole time. What period of time are you comparing us to where we're coming up short? When we fought to keep the races separated? When we kept them as slaves or killed them and stole their land? When we treated women as chattel, or other races as children we needed to "civilize?" When we would pack up and go to the town square and have a picnic while they hang someone? It's so interesting how much we value diversity up until we have diversity of taste. Maybe it's heavy metal causing the kids to kill each other. Or rap. Or television. Or maybe it's the fact that every time we've built large cities--throughout the whole of history--we've had the same goddamn things going on behind the scenes. Theft, murder, rape, prostitution (of all varieties). That's mankind, and that's "civilization." We've vicious little monkeys at times. But it's not modern society making us that way. We're built that way. As says the Police song: there is no political solution for our troubled evolution.

We do what we can to drag us out of the hand basket. And fail as often as not. But every time we're getting a little closer to some sort of enlightenment. Don't think so? History disagrees.

Three sides to every story

2011-09-04T14:08:00.000-07:00

Can we stop playing the "Obamabot" and "Firebagger" cards now? Please? First of all, if you're reduced to nicknaming your opponent (I refuse to use the word "enemy" here) to reduce his or her stature, you've already lost your way.

Granted... there's a lot of different things we can choose to criticize this administration for. (Though, in all fairness, Congress is possibly the bigger failure in this regard). But if you do so while ignoring the things they've done right, you're being a pissface. Right--you're acting as though someone just pissed in your face. If you use the term "Obamabot" what you're actually saying is "I can't be bothered to debate with you--I'm late for a trolling date on a conservative page."

But--all you "obamabots" aren't off the hook either. There are several things not easily set aside, ranging from security policies maintained through the change of administrations to epic failures with regard to medical marijuana and wildlife conservation. I know you all think some of this is overblown but the fact is that we're fighting a hydra, and nearly every progressive out there is battling a different head. It's all the same beast... those with money and influence using it to the detriment of the environment, the economy, and the average American. Medical marijuana, for example, is strongly opposed by liquor companies, agencies that make money through prohibition--including drug testing and law enforcement agencies, among others. And the wolves? Well, they're opposed by ranchers, and, frankly, ranching is a far more lucrative profession than being a wolf. Those who stand up for the wolves have no dog in the fight. They're just fighting a battle in the name of creatures who have no idea there's even a battle being fought.

Does Obama come off as weak and conciliatory? Sometimes. Do his more loyal partisans stretch logic in order to excuse some of this? Sometimes. Do more strident progressives sometimes get a little carried away with their criticisms? Sometimes. Do we have to accept that we have very little choice right now, that we cannot afford to allow the Republicans to control the dialogue? Yes, but this also applies to the Democrats. We must, as a group, refuse to accept Republican framing and terminology--that's the progressive wing and the Democratic loyalists alike. If we see or hear a frame or term that is designed and floated by the Republicans in order to influence the dialogue, it is our responsibility to reject it and try to work up a way to reframe or refute it. If a term is likewise prejudicial, it behooves us to attempt to replace it.

We fight with words, with ideas. And with mockery. Studies have shown that emotion works better than logic or facts when it comes to bringing people around to your way of thinking. The Republicans have dibs on the emotions of hate and fear. We are left with mockery and humor. The most striking thing about mockery is that the right wing really has no defense against it. They don't understand mockery, since it's a weapon that can be wielded easily by the powerless against the powerful. This "does not compute."

The French Philosophs were instrumental in reducing respect and admiration for the nobility and the clergy leading up to the French revolution. I suggest that we become American Philosophs working tiredly to put pinholes in the inflated egos of our own aristocracy. Maybe with a little wisdom we can avoid making the mistakes the French did.

Well... with a little wisdom all the way around. Otherwise all bets are off.

Our Doggly Duty

2011-09-03T16:48:00.000-07:00

We created dogs. We are their Gods. The hundreds of recognized variations now exist because we've been playing with their genes for generations, designing customized abilities and instincts into them to serve our purposes. Everything from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua and all the sizes and shapes in between. They've had our collective backs throughout the whole of recorded history, and likely several eons before that.

Dogs are our responsibility.

I could get on a rant about PETA and the USHS but I think I've already gone there. Suffice to say they can go frag themselves. Or each other. I don't care. But keep their screwed up philosophy away from me and my dogs. My cats too, as it happens

Dogs understand humans much, much better than we understand them. And that's a tragedy, given that we're almost as likely to encounter a dog as encounter another human in any number of different urban and rural environments. We need a comprehensive program to teach people about them. And I don't mean the Dog Whisperer crap. Let me hand over a clue--dogs (and wolves) aren't little soldiers who need a drill sergeant in their lives. Pack order doesn't work like that. Not for wolves and not for dogs.

One of the most vital things people overlook is this basic fact: Dogs must be socialized. The higher potential danger the dog represents, the more s/he should be socialized. The excuse "I don't want the dog to be too comfortable around my friends" (just in case said friends are likely to steal all your stuff, I guess) doesn't really fly. I know you bought the pitbull to keep them in line, but dogs understand the concept of property just fine. They don't care if the guy scratches them in that special spot behind the ears if he's in the house without permission.

Exceptions might be found, but that's true of just about anything. The presence of the dog is a serious deterrent for strangers. If you're worried about your friends stealing from you, you don't need a dog. You need better friends. Dogs can read human expression rather well, which means they generally have some idea whether you trust someone or not and will act accordingly.

In my latest novella, I imagined a world where they'd bred dogs for intelligence and ability to communicate. It's interesting to consider what they might become if we did that. But then we'd have to confront our history--if dogs became as intelligent as, say, your average 7th grader, what would we do with them? Could we own them? Or would we simply become their guardians?

I believe that if we were really smart, we'd be breeding dogs for intelligence and ability to communicate, on top of more specialized talents like bomb-sniffing and the like. That, however, doesn't seem to be the goal. Too bad. We're instead breeding dogs for trivial cosmetic traits and the apparent purpose of passing along genetic damage. Tragic. We actually have some idea of what we're doing. We no longer have an excuse. We now understand why dogs are so easy to modify. They're built that way. Convenient for us... less convenient for them.

Dogs deserve better. There are anthropologists who believe that civilization might not have been possible if not for the assistance we received from dogs in the early days of our conversion from hunter-gatherers to herders.

Yes, it's vital we protect people from dangerous dogs. But we're also obligated to protect dogs from dangerous ignorance. It's entirely possible to do both at the same time. If we have the sense and the will. Maybe it's time we rethought what dogs should represent to us--and treated them with the honor and respect I believe they've earned.

Keeping our eye on the ball

2011-09-02T00:56:00.000-07:00

Make no mistake. Gawd only knows there's enough reason to be disappointed in the Obama administration. I think I've put enough energy into outlining what I think they've done wrong. And I'm hardly the only person doing so. But I draw the line at the whole "what difference does it make?" argument. As I've said plenty of times, it's the difference between rappelling into the mouth of a volcano and just walking up and jumping off the edge.

It's not hard to imagine which would be preferable. At least if you start rappelling into the crater, you have a chance to change your mind. Much as we have the chance, however slight, to turn this whole thing around as well.

I honestly don't know what to expect from Obama at this point. It scares me that so many things we hated about the last administration have remained in effect and ongoing. Only some of this is the war... I'm more concerned about the security apparatus that remained in place after Bush left office.

And I could go on about the failures of supply-side "voodoo" economics for days. We all know them. Or those of us with the ability to wrap our brains around the obvious. Employers don't hire people they don't need if they can, instead, push the current staff to handle the load coming in. Less expenditure, more profit. But, unfortunately, this behavior sends out ripples, affecting all other businesses in the area. Fewer people making money means less money spent, which means lower profits for everyone. A downward spiral. Every person who loses a job, or loses welfare, is one more person unable to make purchases to help drive the economic engine.

So, yeah... we all know this. So what?

Michele Bachman is what. Rick Perry is what. Mitt Romney is what. I'd add Ron Paul to that list, but the media won't take him seriously. The best thing for all of us would be if the old loon ran as a Libertarian. For the first time the Libertarian Party would have a decent showing and that would draw off votes from the Republicans. It's about time we had the chance to see them repaid for 2000.

As upset as we are by what we may (rightfully or otherwise) view as the failures of this administration and many of the Dems in Congress, we cannot allow the Republicans to win in 2012. Cannot. I don't care if you have to drag yourself to the polls by the scruff of your neck. Vote. And vote Democrat.

I don't want to hear "They'll never learn if we keep voting the lesser of two evils." Right now too much is at stake to be thinking like that. There's a good chance that the next four years will see the retirement of at least two, if not three, Supreme Court Justices. And anyone with any thoughts whatsoever about the Citizens United decision, to name only one, should be considering this very closely. Do we really want to allow a Christian Dominionist Republican to choose those Justices?

Not only no, but hell no. Not only hell no, but fuck no.

No excuses. I don't want to fucking hear them. I'd vote for a mewling lamb before I would stand by and let those freaks take control of my home.

Happy (Not Quite) Independence Day

2011-07-04T15:17:00.000-07:00

I heard recently that certain retail stores that have traditionally closed for Christmas may be canceling that tradition soon. So… you think the people who are required to work that day don’t have families to spend Christmas with? Is it perhaps that the American sense of entitlement has gotten that out of hand?

Funny… starting out a post about Independence Day with a statement about Christmas. Well, I was thinking about holidays and time with family. That’s what the “family values” crowd is supposed to be about, right? So why is it that they invariably support the right of employers to do whatever the hell they want and fuck the family’s time together? “Hey, you sleep in the same house… that’s family time.”

Another annoyance today is the damn automatic checkouts at grocery stores. I won’t use the things because they’re taking human jobs with no recourse—again, just to serve Americans’ sense of entitlement. “Oh, I’m in a hurry.” Yeah, well, maybe that’s the problem—everyone’s in a fucking hurry.

I hate waiting in lines. But I hate the thought of stripping away a person’s job because I hate waiting in lines. One of the things I believe goes with the rights we enjoy is the responsibility to give a shit about our fellow Americans.

Seriously, people… we’re getting damned inconsiderate. Our politics even reflect this. Republicanism is institutionalized selfishness and lack of consideration for others. They’ll happily trash the economy further and throw more families into despair for the chance to make Obama a one-term president. More notable, however, is the fact that they’re managing this feat not by following liberal principles, but by following their own. Isn’t that somewhat contradictory?

Go figure.

I’m constantly amazed by the odd double vision of the average conservative. They fear enslavement by government yet run into the embrace of the corporations. The government, as a general rule, is apathetic to your situation. Corporations, however, spend billion dollars a year to acquire your money, using the most advanced psychological tricks available to modern science. When was the last time you saw a commercial telling you that government was good for you?

Despite the fantasies of the Libertarians and Anarchists, government is a necessary evil… with emphasis on ‘necessary.’ Government, however flawed it’s become, is the only thing that stands between us and the rule of the powerful. Of course, the powerful have corrupted what government we had… but at least the damage can be mitigated.

Assuming the Republicans don’t get their way. The government small enough to “drown in the bathtub” is also small enough to fit in your doctor’s office, or even in your uterus. The Right Wing definition of “Freedom” is the “Freedom to think as we do.”

We don’t expect them to think like we do. We understand it’s impossible. But, damn it all, we do expect them to afford us some respect, and acceptance that there are other ways to be a patriot than be a knuckle-dragging would-be thug.

If we could only actually have our independence from these new age Tories, these folks who cling to the Constitution, yet spit all over it. That use the tools of technology to disclaim the Enlightenment. Now that would be worth celebration indeed.

As I have said before, quoting Captain Malcolm Reynolds of the good ship Serenity. “I aim to misbehave.”

Dogs and other critters

2011-07-01T15:01:00.000-07:00

I watched a few documentaries on dogs and animal intelligence in general last night, presented, respectively, by Nova and National Geographic.

Anyone who has shared his or her house with a dog, or multiple dogs, has seen, again and again, the animal's remarkable ability to communicate with you. Not only can you pick up on the meaning of your pet's barks, but you will swear that its language skills almost rival your own. At least where it comes to comprehension.

I know I'm continually awed by the behaviors of the individual dogs with whom I'm privileged to spend my life.

The above picture is of my "old man," my 11 y.o. Shiba Inu, Kitsune. He's epileptic, but it's not a particularly bad case. Unfortunately it seems to have taken a toll, in that he's aging far faster than most Shibas do. He also shows the signs of arthritis now.

Kitsune's the "mechanic" in the pack. (If one can say he's in the pack at all). He's the one who figures out how to open things, how to get around human safeguards. He also knows what "tomorrow" means. And has for some years. If you tell Kits he gets to go somewhere "tomorrow," he will be at the door waiting when it's time to leave. We've never tested this any farther, but it's impressive. It suggests some understanding of time.

Of course, I have to regularly remind them that they can't tell time. Kharma, our Pomeranian Devil (30 lbs of fiercely protective, astonishingly loving fuzzball) can tell time. Digitally, anyway. Dinner is at 7:30... regardless of time changes. And he's not fooled by the switch from DST or PST. It's the digital clock on the DVR he seems to rely upon.

He also has a huge vocabulary. (If you think Poms aren't smart, you haven't been around them much). It's clear he also understands context. He knows the difference between "Should we go out to dinner?" and "It's time for an out." It's not the word "out," he jumps on so much as the way we might use it.

We had some city water guys digging in our yard yesterday attaching us to a new hub (good thing, because the water from the other line SUCKED). Anyhow, the dogs were locked in, something we haven't been doing this year. If it's warm enough the back door is open and both our dogs and cats are allowed to hang out in the yard.

Anyway--I opened the back door once the men had completed their job and left. Kitsune was waiting, so he went out and laid down. Five minutes later the others hadn't noticed and were napping in the living room. So I called out "You've got your back yard back." Within 10 seconds they were all outside.

These, of course, are simply my observations of these particular dogs. The little one, our "walnut brained" miniature pincer "Bella," has a lap dog's sensibilities. If it comes to her comfort--or food--she's little miss on-the-spot. She's mom's little girl. Alert, agile, and greedy. But sweet. Her most unique command is "be flat." She dens in my wife's lap beneath a blanket and and her lap desk and lap top.

Our largest dog is Bejjing. She's a Jindo, and a rescue. She was abused badly by some male wearing a uniform, so she really doesn't like anyone who wears a uniform much. And she particularly doesn't like men. She loves and trusts me, but doesn't like me carrying anything in my hands

She's the guard dog and my wife's partially-trained service dog. It's Bejjing who helps my wife when her legs aren't working right and she needs something to steady her. Where Kharma is the loudmouth, the watch dog who sounds the alarm, Bejjing is the silent pain in the darkness.

She's also a dog-wrestler. Seriously. She dominates other dogs by rolling them and pinning them not with her jaws, but with her legs in a kind of hold. I've never seen anything like it.

Bejjing is also the most dangerous dog in the house when it comes to our cats. And the worst thing about it is it's not maliciousness, but a never realized mothering instinct. Cats are for grooming, even over their objections. If we're not there, the cats simply aren't safe around her. Kitsune is a hunting dog and Kharma is a dominant vermin killer. Excitement with the cats results in the activation of prey drive.

Let's just say we learned the hard way to keep her separate from the cats when we're gone when we lost my cat Bastion... who clearly died defending the other cats. Based on the evidence, anyway. Never heard of a male cat doing this, but that's what the scene suggested.

That's Bastion. Damn good cat. Listened almost like a dog. And went out of his way to communicate. We miss him.

But we still have Monster. His given name is Sterling, but my wife nick-named him Monster because of his size and he decided he liked that better.

Monster acts like one of the dogs. He goes in and out with them during the day, lies around the backyard on sunny days, gets cookies when the dogs do... He comes when he's called, answers when talked to, and accompanies my wife to work in the basement just like Boo and 'Jjing.

I'd probably be remiss if I didn't mention my wife's cat. He's the only critter we have with serious behaviorial issues. He's a sweetie, but either not very bright or far more of a smartass than a cat should be. I'm going for dumber than a box of pudding, myself. But sweet. He's a black longhair so I don't have any really good pictures of him. He's hard to get a good shot of.

So if you ask me whether I think animals are a hell of a lot smarter than we give them credit for, I have to say yes. All my life I've been around amazing animals, and I presume to continue to do so until my dying day. I pity those who can't, or won't, share their lives with these amazing creatures. And this is the reason I support the ASPCA and individual animal rescue groups even while decrying PETA and the USHS. Because I love animals--not just the idea of animals.

Voodoo... that thing they do.

2011-06-27T00:23:00.000-07:00

So... I've been thinking. (A dangerous pastime, I know). We're supposed to believe that tax cuts to millionaires will create jobs. Except they clearly have enough employees to serve their current needs. If they didn't, demand would force them to hire more people whether they kept their tax cuts or not. Ergo, they don't need to hire people.

This prompts a question. Why should they hire more people if they don't need them? For the sake of the country? Don't make me laugh to the point I choke and nearly die. Answer --they wouldn't. Thus, the holdup isn't really their unwillingness to hire, but the fact that that, from their point of view, it's unnecessary. And why is it unnecessary? Because the people who would ordinarily be buying the goods and services they provide can no longer afford them.

I can only come to the conclusion that not only are the Republicans and other supply-siders fiendishly short-sighted, but they've managed to cloud the issue to the point that few of your average Americans have the faintest idea what's going on. And that's to everyone's detriment.

When they talk about "cutting the deficit" at this point what they actually mean is firing government employees. In reality... it's just more downsizing. Cutting more American jobs. Putting more Americans on unemployment and putting them out there on the street in competition with everyone else currently looking for work. They're talking about modifying the child labor laws. Won't that do the same thing? Put more people in the job market? How will this help the country? Raising the retirement age? Keeping more people in the labor market? To what end? Increasing unemployment? That's the obvious effect, even if it isn't the plan. Not sure what the plan is.

If people don't retire, new openings don't appear.

All these people, but for a lucky few, are then fighting for jobs that don't exist. And won't exist. Because they're not needed. The more people out of work, the more people there are who can't afford to purchase the aforementioned goods and services. The fewer people the companies need to hire. This is simple logic. People spending money drives the economic engine. Or are we supposed to believe that the top two percent are going to be buying enough to make up for the bottom fifty to sixty percent who can no longer do so?

If people like thee and me don't have the money to spend, people who sell goods and services have less work. With less work, they need less people. It's a downward spiral. And that's all conservatives are selling. A downward spiral.

Hard to say if they know that's what they're doing. Some do. The very rich, perhaps... they might not even live here. Or only live here part time. The tax cuts we're giving them to create jobs they can't and don't create because they don't have the demand. Without demand, there are no jobs and no reason to create them. Not here, anyway.

So what what that about the supply side again? What was that, Papa Bush? Yes. You called it "Voodoo Economics." And you were right.

Time we put this filthy, stinking zombie in the ground, don't you think?

Everybody Matters

2011-06-25T17:46:00.000-07:00

Everybody Matters

From the tiny child laying in its crib, burbling in happiness, or wailing with hunger, to the arthritic fellow making his way to his mailbox to look for a letter from his grandchildren--from the young woman on the bus taking her from her childhood home to a dream of greatness in the city to the old woman sitting on her porch, cat in her lap, calling cheerfully to the neighbors tending their garden. From the homeless child sleeping on the school steps to the woman walking down the university steps, diploma in her hand.

From the guy standing in the unemployment line, trying to find another job after his was eliminated or outsourced, to the CEO who gave the order. From the long haired, bearded busker playing guitar at the market, voice raised in a song of hope or despair, to the slick haired concert promoter hob-knobbing with the stars.

Everybody matters.

We are all participants in what was once considered a grand experiment, a society in which we, the people, were all considered equal before the law, that insisted that each of our voices could be heard by those we elected to represent us.

It wasn't always true, of course, but it was a work in progress. One by one, the barriers were torn down and each segment of society became yet another to join their voices in the song of freedom. We believed that by working hard we could make a better world and a better life for our children.

When we stood and opposed the robber barons, fighting for the right to workplace safety, and the right to see our children to go to school rather than being forced to work alongside us, we did it for everyone. We did it for our children, and the children of our neighbors, and the children that would be born to them as well.

When we went off to fight the tyrant who tried to consume Europe, we did it for those who were dying, and those who were not yet born, because the hope of the future deserved it.

When we stood up against the war in southeast Asia, it wasn't just for ourselves, but for the children of all Americans, and the people there who also deserved to live in peace, to try to determine their own fate. We didn't do it because we don't believe in America, and what it's supposed to represent, but because we do.

When we protested the dumping of toxic wastes into the earth, the rivers, and the sea, it wasn't just to protect ourselves, or our own children, but to protect ALL of us, and all our children. When we fought for clean air, it wasn't to ensure our own breaths, but to ensure that all of us could continue to breathe air that didn't make us sick. When we stood up against the decimation of forest land, it was so all our children could enjoy the wonders of nature as we had. As our ancestors had.

America is more than a land mass, more than a nation of people. America is an idea. The idea that everybody matters, from the lowest to the highest, that everyone has a right to a decent life, and has a right to watch their children grow up in a world better yet than the one that they themselves remember.

Isn't that what everyone wants? That their children inherit a world in which more things are possible, in which they have every chance to succeed no matter where they were born and into which walk of life?

That's the one thing we liberals have been trying to say all along. That the farmer's daughter in Ohio, or Kentucky, is just as deserving of a chance to succeed in life as the CEO's son in New York or Chicago or Los Angeles. That's why we stand and fight against those practices and policies that make it that much harder for them. Because if we didn't, who would?

We believe everybody matters.

Don't you?

A radical suggestion for our foundering education system

2011-06-25T17:22:00.000-07:00

Much of our gamesmanship, as a culture, is antagonistic. You have winners and you have losers. As we’ve often seen, this can occasionally explode into an orgy of manic catharsis, resulting in loss of property and, not uncommonly, loss of life after high drama sporting events.

Can competition be carried too far? Can we become too invested in “our” team that we go a little nuts when something doesn’t go according to plan? Why do we do this?

My theory is that it’s similar to the reason people play video games. For the feeling of accomplishment—real or fabricated—that comes with succeeding at something, or being otherwise associated with success. Accomplishment, real or imagined, has a desirable affect on our psyche. We like it. It allows us to minimize the existence of imagined flaws, and pump up one’s confidence in the presence of potential romantic partners. Real or imagined.

But what about cooperation? Oh, we learn to cooperate in a team, but the ultimate goal is, then, to beat the other team. More winners and losers.

Now I’d like to stress that I think all competition is bad. It isn’t. It’s part of what got us this far… but in tandem, as if it and cooperation two horses hitched to the same coach. If one is stronger than the other, imbalance results.

Either way, isn’t it time we began to stress the power of cooperation at least as much as we stress competition? The world into which we’re being dragged—often kicking and screaming, but that’s another matter—is different than the one we thought we understood.

We can’t emulate the Chinese way… not and maintain our identity as Americans. It doesn’t suit us. As with competition and cooperation, individualism and community must also find a balance. RPGs can teach teamwork as well as any sport, as well as good sportsmanship and a certain amount of respect for rules. Even though it turns some people into lawyers. (Take my word for it--serious gamers are laughing at that). But, in allowing the player to immerse him or her self in the character, the provides both a means of stepping out of the “real” world, yet also teaches some valuable real world skills at the same time.

For example—use of resources. I’ve long said that they should put experienced gamers in charge of disaster relief teams. Why? Because one of the skills a gamer learns is how to use the resources available to him or her to their best effect. Resources and the skills and abilities of your fellow PCs. Which can also help a player pick up on similar things in the real world. It teaches you to think of others as more than mere extensions of oneself. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? But in a completely make-believe scenario, you have to be able to consider the skills and talents of everyone in the party and how they might be put to the best use.

That’s the kind of gamer I am, and the kind of gaming I’d stress.

“But what about physical exercise? some might ask. Funny you should mention that, because I myself came up with a way to drag pasty-faced D&Ders into the light of day. They did not burst into flames, much to my surprise.

Simple enough. I told them that the next game we played were going to feature ourselves as characters—as if we were pulled into a fantasy realm. Then I devised training regimens to add levels to our starting position. Everyone got some sun that Summer.

I’m not saying that any one of these things would hold true in every kid you introduced to the program. But all it might take is to pique their interest just a little bit. And if they happen to want to add a new element to the game, make them write the rules and turn that into a project. And, yes, spelling and grammar count.

Now this is all quite apart from my vision of video games that can be both educational AND entertaining. Right now you have two very distinct mediums within the whole gaming industry to, I believe, the detriment of both.

The Assassin’s Creed series is a great example of how real historical detail can be injected into what is, essentially, a fantasy story.

I invite my friends and other readers to consider the possibilities.

Historical/Time Travel RPGs

Near Future Science RPGs

Literature-based RPGs

Civics/Current Events RPGs

And consider that an RPG is an excellent way to teach the following skills in a holistic way.

Metrics

Mathematics

Geography

Geology

Spelling

Vocabulary

Creative Writing

Record keeping

Faith based governing

2011-06-22T13:08:00.000-07:00

The other day Bill Maher riffed on Texas governor Rick Perry for his comments that there were apparently some problems we couldn't solve and should leave in the hands of God. Perry called a state-wide day of prayer...for rain.

That's just fucking stupid.

As Maher suggested--one of the problems here is that we humans are fighting to abandon responsibility for our actions--and this new breed of so-called "Christian" is on the front lines of this battle. We're not responsible for pollution, or climate change, or driving multiple species on both land and sea to extinction. And even if we are, it has to be part of "God's Plan."

Let me make something perfectly clear. A religion based on the notion of a supreme monarch has no business dominating the political dialogue in what is ostensibly a democratic society. Those that advocate governance by religious principles are innately hostile to democracy and should be treated as the enemies of democracy they are. You cannot serve the King of Kings and the citizens of America at the same time. Pick your loyalties.

This goes along with something else that has occurred to me. If the purpose of government isn't to serve the people then what is it? To serve itself? Well, judging by the actions of some Republicans, this must be the case. Didn't the governor of Florida sign a law that would drug test prospective welfare recipients--thus enhancing the income of drug testing clinics that he himself has a financial stake in? Gee--nothing self serving about that.

The GOP calls itself "The Party of Personal Responsibility." Except, well, it doesn't take responsibility for anything. The massive deficit? Initially created by Republicans via Bush's tax cuts. They, in turn, blame Obama for the increased deficit, forgetting (or ignoring) that one must buy a ladder to climb out of the vast trench they dug for us.

Seriously... if tax cuts for millionaires create jobs--where are the jobs? They've had 10 years and what do we see now? We're still bleeding jobs, a circumstance not helped by fiscally decimating the public sector and sending all those folks into the streets looking for jobs. Along with retirees being asked to stay in the job market even longer. In some places they want to change the child labor laws to increase the hours that children can work.

Here's a clue, assholes. What we want to do is decrease the number of people looking for jobs, not increase it. And that's precisely what this will do. And something tells me they know it. Because the people are more worried about jobs than the deficit. By taking this tack, the Republicans are ensuring that the job market will continue to deteriorate. Deliberately, since they hope that it'll cause the voters to revolt and forget that they're the morons behind it all.

Let's hope it doesn't work out the way they want it to. It all depends on the average American's bullshit detector. And so far I've not been too impressed.

Okay, let's make another thing perfectly clear. Everything the Republicans want is the opposite of what we should be doing. This means that the neo-liberals in the Obama administration still attached to the supply side philosophy need to be kicked to the curb. It's a failure. We have ample evidence of this. What the right might call "Obama's" failure is, indeed, their failure--since he's following the recipe they initially devised and cling to with the desperation of a drowning man.

Oscar Mayer Winner

2011-06-08T03:52:00.000-07:00

We don't choose our kinks any more than we choose our sexuality. Whatever might turn us on is something that acts upon us without our consent. We may choose to act upon it or not, but it's there. We're supposed to be standing to condemn Anthony Weiner for his actions, and I suppose he does deserve some censure there. But treating him as anything but a man who let his libido get the better of him in perhaps one of the most innocuous ways it might do so would be, from my perspective, a serious mistake.

Oh, the right (wrong) wing will treat him like trash, ignoring the behavior of so many of their own that went far beyond anything Weiner did. Let's not ignore a basic fact here. Weiner isn't a "family values" politician. He didn't get where he was by attacking others for their sexuality. He wasn't like many conservative Republicans, who claim moral superiority yet never actually exhibit it.

He is flawed. He is male. And he made a mistake. Oh, I know what some people are saying--it's tantamount to cheating. I say there's a lot of different ways to cheat, but the accepted method is by physically being intimate with another person. That, according to Weiner, has never happened.

But he's spent a lot of time fighting for the most vulnerable amongst us, standing up to the powerful because someone had to do it. This is not a man without compassion, without heart. Let's not turn our backs on him because now he's the one who's vulnerable.

People are going to react according to their nature. Myself, I'm going to shrug it off and barely bother to shake my finger at him. I will, however, make jokes. He deserves that much.

Let he who is without kink throw the first dildo.

Upon Rocky Shores

2011-01-10T13:50:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure I can add anything to the conversation surrounding the tragedy in Tucson this weekend. That our current environment could become so caustic that such a thing is even conceivable leaves me nearly without words. Nearly.

I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, as I do the rest of the Bill of Rights. I consider it the numeration of the "right of self-defense," and therefore confers with it the right to ownership and use of any weapon necessary for the pursuit of that right. I believe that a law-abiding citizen should have the right to arm him or herself according to his or her conscience, and the strictures of legitimate possible necessity. We do no one a service but the worst among us to disarm honest citizens and thus create a class of easy prey for the predators to feed upon.

But I have no issue with background checks and other efforts to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of those who would wreak havoc because of their stupidity, insanity, or callousness. It's unfortunate that this young man, having long been showing the signs of being a potential danger to himself and others, hadn't lived in a place a little more... self aware than Arizona.

It says a lot that when news of the shooting went out, some of those who knew him immediately suspected that he might be the shooter. This wasn't the "quiet kid" who "no one could have imagined" would do such a thing. Quite the opposite. He was, instead, voted--at least in the minds of many who knew him--as the one 'most likely to...'

Problem is that mental health--and health in general, when you get right down to it--isn't a personal problem, nor a matter of 'personal responsibility.' To safeguard our communities, we need to know where risks might exist, and have the means with which to do something to allay those risks to the best of our ability.

I will not blame the tool, for a tool has no say in the manner in which it is used. A human does not require a gun to kill, but a gun does require a human hand, and a mind capable of conceiving of the action.

Many are also using this tragedy to highlight the dangerous and now deadly rhetoric of violence that has become all too common in today's political landscape. The "2nd Amendment Remedies" and "Don't Retreat, Reload" statements by people who should damn well know better. Like the death of Dr. George Tiller (called "Tiller the Killer") at the hands of a radical anti-abortionist, this may be another one of those "will someone not rid me of this troublesome priest" moment, where those who instigate certain actions through their amplified voice, manage to skate away unblemished by virtue of their option of "plausible deniability."

But the fact is that this drum is already being beaten hard and fast, and I need not add my voice to it.

Instead I believe it's an argument for comprehensive health care, not an environment in which we're simply 'on our own' until we fall on our face, or "lose it" in a big way and do something horrific because there is no system in place to catch us as we stumble. We are not alone in this, and one of the greatest moral crimes of the right wing is to suggest we are. The health of our neighbors--be it physical or mental--does effect each and every one of us.

Jared Loughner was sent away from college with the suggestion to seek counseling before he might return. He did not, but who knows if that's because he refused, or could not possibly hope to pay for it. We should not live in a society in which disturbed individuals drift alone on a sea of distress until they come crashing upon rocky shores. We should be better than this.

I'm all for individual liberty. I'm all for individual civil rights. But to suggest that somehow offering healthcare to all without forcing us into debt somehow restricts our rights is simply insane. And even in the atmosphere of hate and division spread so casually through the media, perhaps this tragedy would never have happened had Loughner received timely intervention with regards to his mental health issues. This is something we'll never know.

But we can speculate.

Actions have consequences. So, it seems, does inaction.

And I'd like to finish this up by submitting to you all the words of two other fine writers sharing their own personal perspective on the tragedy.

The Greatest Tragedy

The Wrath of Fools

Line in the Sand

2010-12-20T02:25:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid, my father explained to me about the whole ‘line in the sand.’ But his interpretation was a bit different than most, I suspect. I don’t know why—maybe it’s because he’s always been an odd duck, following the rhythm of a peculiar drummer only he could hear. He came up fighting because he thought he had to, and he fought the system, and fought for the system when he went to Vietnam as part of the Marine Corps Force Recon back in the early sixties.

Either way, he didn’t see the line in the sand as something you dared your adversary to step across, but rather a line drawn behind you that you refused to back across. The point where you would no longer retreat, and hold your ground no matter the cost.

The point, in effect, that defined you as a human being with a moral center and belief in your convictions. A place that to retreat from would mean sacrificing your self-image and your pride as what you perceive a decent person to be.

Gawd knows, he and I have had our issues. But not too long ago, he said to me that he respected me because I’ve “always been my own man.” When he calls me a “rabble rouser,” he says it with a certain note of pride. He’s a lifetime Democrat, and fairly progressive in thought if not in deed.

Over the past few days I’ve found myself in arguments with people over the Obama administration and it’s apparent surrender to the will of the Republicans and the measured disdain aimed at myself and other self-described “progressives.” And I find myself wondering whether it’s just a simple matter of where we’ve drawn than line in the sand, where our threshold may lie with regards to the man who is our elected leader—not only of the country, but of the political party we claim.

Thus I have to ask, all who still stand to defend President Obama’s decisions. And keep in mind that many of us have been taking steps back the whole way, feeling the push of that line against us with each and every one. The decision not to pursue criminal charges against those who clearly lied us into war. The decision to retroactively make their warrantless wiretapping legal. Not ending the wars. Bailing out the banks without insisting on concessions and regulations to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Saying that the public option was a must-have, and then changing his mind at the last minute just to get some legislation—even bad legislation—passed. Many of us are wondering at which point the President himself has drawn that line in the sand… at which point will HE refuse to back up any farther?

Each of us has to decide where to stand, and what spells the limits of our tolerance. A lot of us have apparently decided that he has backed us up too far, and that we can no longer consider him OUR leader because of it. Not necessarily because there’s something wrong with him, but because we expect a certain standard and cannot abide its lack. It’s not even that we’re suggesting he’s evil, or even bad. Just no longer acceptable as our leader.

Our threshold was surely much higher for a Democrat than someone like Bush. It took almost no time at all for him to spend what little tolerance we had. But we’ve come to the point that Obama has done so as well. And that doesn’t make us petulant, or childish. It makes us people of conviction. Different convictions than some, perhaps. But so what?

I ask of you, where do you stand? Where do YOU draw your line in the sand? At what point would you decide that your sense of honor, your sense of conviction, has been betrayed by the one you elected to lead you? Serious question. At what point would YOU consider the “compromise” too much to bear?

Who Dares Call it Treason?

2010-12-07T01:08:00.000-08:00

I should have been thinking about and composing my current novel in my head today at work, but instead the newest article from Thom Hartmann, an excerpt from his latest book, got under my skin and crawled around like an angry G'ould larva. (Yes, that's a Stargate reference, for those who are paying attention. I'm a SF geek... so what?) Just this fact alone would cause the right to label me as one of the "liberal elite," which, translated from native Asshole into English, would be pronounced "literate."

The fact that Ronald Reagan, proclaiming that it was "not the role of government to subsidize intellectual curiosity," set in motion the chain of events in which now, decades later, a person must choose to mortgage a large chunk of his or her future to a bank or other financial institution in order to pursue a higher education, really, really pisses me off.

I've been worrying at it all night, trying to get my teeth around this truly disturbing notion. This, the man who is often credited with almost single-handedly bringing down the Soviet Union, is actually also responsible for creating part of the reason the United States is on the verge of falling from its lofty perch as a world power. Had an enemy state intended to bring down this nation from the inside, they could have hardly planned a better master stroke than to deprive it of its most talented minds by depriving the less advantaged the chance to pursue careers in engineering or the sciences.

In fact, it became increasingly necessary for those who attended university to seek careers that would earn them high incomes, if only to pay back their loans as quickly as possible lest they become, instead, long term serfs of the banking institutions that financed their educations. Who could afford to become scientists, or teachers, or, indeed, take any job that served the common good, when the simple task of getting married and raising a family became an almost unreachable goal?

This, as we know, wasn't the only trend that Reagan began. The 80s told us that "greed is good" and that "government is bad" and that you'd better learn to look out for number one because no one else would look out for you. Then, over the course of the next thirty years, the pursuit of greater profit and profitability led American manufacturing companies to dismantle themselves and ship much of their work overseas, taking advantage of low wages, far fewer regulations, and tax breaks granted to those companies who became "more efficient."

Quite aside from the impact on the environment this had, it destroyed America's manufacturing base--the very thing that had allowed the United States to rise to the challenge of the Axis during WWII--putting all of those civilian factories on a war footing and turning out weapons with which to help defeat the Germans, Italians, and Japanese.

Again, we have to ask--what better way to cripple America than to deprive it of something that it needed to maintain not only its standard of living, but also its ability to fight a potential military enemy?

And then, thanks to a confluence of events, we elect a man who's grossly unqualified to the office of President who then throws us into two foreign wars while simultaneously launching an attack on the treasury by granting massive tax breaks to the wealthy... resulting in a need to borrow the money to conduct these wars and other business of state from the Communist Chinese... at what ultimate cost, one might ask?

For the past several weeks I've been reading discussions about Assange and Wikileaks, and I've refrained from offering an opinion, or even forming one. I wanted to hear and assimilate all the arguments for and against before making up my mind. But I have. Finally.

People are actually calling for this man's death--for telling us the truth. Yet we've made a multi-billionaire of a man who created a media empire by lying to us. We allow him and his "news" organization to lie to our fellow Americans, to feed long tons of pure unadulterated bullshit to those who have been deliberately under-educated, deprived of decent jobs by the very policy of paying companies to send those jobs overseas, and we don't even have the sense to ask him or his minions "What in the hell do you think you're doing?"

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Or, rather, let's say I'm more inclined to see the likelihood of hundreds of small conspiracies than one overarching one. But here we have a political party that, while extolling the strength of this nation, has systematically helped deprive it of its greatest assets--that being an educated populace, a strong manufacturing base, a vibrant middle class, an agile, technologically advanced military, and a press the people could trust. And it's hard to argue that these policy decisions, carried forward across decades, haven't significantly enhanced the position of other nations ahead of the United States.

It's unquestionable that the policies supported by not only the Republican Party, but also their alleged grass roots cabal known as the "tea party" are specifically designed to continue to weaken the U.S. and strengthen its global competitors. At best, these are the result of a group of wealthy individuals seeking nothing more than increased wealth and privilege for themselves. At worst, it's aiding and abetting the dismantling of American power for the advantage of foreign nationals and foreign governments.

In short. Treason.

One can argue the ideology behind cutting the budgets to the bone, or depriving Americans of good paying jobs and an education for their children, but the simple fact of the matter is that it harms America's long term interests and deprives us of the ability to compete effectively in the global marketplace of goods and ideas. Unfunded wars of choice have crippled our military, our economy, and our ability to react to other crisis (such as S. Korea), our citizens have been deliberately deprived of educational opportunities in order to further the financial goals of a relative few, and our manufacturing capabilities have been reduced to near zero.

We have been dismantled as a superpower. And it's hard to imagine this was done by accident.

I hereby submit that Rupert Murdoch, for one, is a traitor, and a wannabe Bond villain. He pays millions of dollars to unscrupulous media caricatures to pass misinformation to American citizens in a time of war, depriving them of the ability to make informed choices. He also pays our elected representatives in a different kind of coin to pursue an agenda that is clearly contrary to the future success of this country. What coin? Free and continuous political advertising. And it's of particular interest that many of his current employees are prospective future Presidential candidates. Coincidence? I think not.

Who dares call this treason? I do.

Who put us in this damn handbasket, anyway?

2010-11-02T01:12:00.000-07:00

Should the worst happen tomorrow and the Republicans take control of one or both houses of Congress, there will be plenty of blame to go around. There isn't a single doubt in my mind that we'll be in for the ride of our lives into the absolute depths of political malevolence should this come to pass. The reasons for this certainty are too numerous to mention, but let's just start by saying I believe that the Presidency of George W. Bush will seem an idyllic dream compared to the chaos and destruction the Republicans will wreak should they get control of Congress.

But I, for one, didn't start this to outline the possible horrors we might have to face. No, this is a look backwards rather than a look forward. Any number of people can look forward at this juncture at least as well as I can, and I think this is precisely the time to play "the blame game."

Let me start out by saying this is in no particular order, and the exact nature and level of each target's responsibility for the calamity to come will be explained in more than adequate detail for my purposes.

We'll start with the corporatists and their Republican minions, those who are happily selling America down the river for a bigger piece of what they obviously perceive as an infinitely large pie. They see the emerging markets and cheap workforces of the third world as an opportunity to cash in on the future, but, in the meantime, are like carrion crows feasting on the dying remains of the very nation they claim to idolize and revere. They don't give a damn about us, and why should they? They abandoned faith in the god they claim while still in their mother's womb, turning instead to the love of the great and terrible Mammon.

Which brings us to the media, the slavish lackeys and lapdogs of the corporatists. Not just the FOX News pundits, but the whole damn media corps. The American media has long since abandoned any pretense of being a journalistic enterprise--of giving the "facts" and allowing us to decide what they mean. Not that they're to blame for our collective inability to do so. They've certainly helped with that bit of damnation, but they're not the instigators.

In this case the finger is aimed at parents, politicians, teachers, and administrators operating under the delusion that learning actually consists of absorbing great amounts of information to vomit them out on command days, weeks, or even years later. Parents who will do anything to protect their little darlings, teachers for whom the possibility of a little disruption is worth quashing individuality, politicians who see no profit in supporting education, but think that standardized tests are a viable benchmark, and administrators who believe that "zero tolerance" policies are in any way helpful. This isn't a complete list of the crimes committed against our young in the name of education that isn't, but they're a starting point.

Add to that the anti-science ideologues, who think it's A-OK to tell kids that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and that evolution is the theory that man evolved from monkeys. To be fair, this is because they themselves never grasped the concepts of natural selection and incremental change, but that's not really an excuse. These folks can accept the notion that an active deity chose to reveal himself and his "plan" to a bunch of illiterate, desert dwelling savages in one of the most inhospitable regions of the Earth--with the command to "go forth and multiply, and while you're at it, slaughter everyone who won't conform to worshiping the way I tell you."

Religion and science actually could have something in common... but really don't. The asking of questions. "How did we get here? Why are we here?" Intriguing notions to ponder... but worthless if we already assume we have the answers before we ask.

So our kids are forced to swallow gallons of information they may never need in order to repeat it back, all under the mistaken assumption that this is "learning," when real learning is the ability to take information and use it to reveal larger amounts of information associated with it. Like the fact that, for example, the first world war was caused by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria by a Serbian separatist, after which, due to a complex weave of treaties and mutual assistance pacts, most of the world was forced to participate. And that the groundwork for the second world war was created in part by the truly vicious reparations laid upon Germany by the allies that utterly destroyed them as a working society. A society in such dire straits that a charismatic madman could find a convenient scapegoat and work the people into a frenzy due to the desire to retain some sense of control over their lives.

For example.

Education and critical thinking are the manipulation of information to create a workable whole, a place from which to make other connections. History is vital because it explains the world in which we live. Language is vital because it allow us to communicate with one another in a mutually agreed upon fashion. Mathematics is necessary because an understanding of the uses of money, and misuses of money, is the key to avoiding being savaged by predatory criminals and those businesses that operate like them. Science is important because it allows us to grasp the nature of the precipice upon which we--as a species--now stand.

There's a movement now attempting to blame all the failures of education on bad teachers, when they are as much a symptom of the problem as anything remotely resembling its cause. Remember that most of them are also products of our education system and are working within a structure of assumptions that are, in the end, ultimately erroneous. The question is not whether the children can repeat back what they've learned, but if they can use it in a real world context.

All too often, our most successful people are those who can rise above the limitations of our educational system, not those who are best served by it.

Which brings us to our tea party friends. Surveys suggest that they're relatively well educated (keeping in mind what this means) yet exhibit a frightfully limited world-view with regards to the value of government, taxation, political science, and (in many cases) our Constitutional rights. Parroting their darlings in the media, they decry this administration's policies as "socialist" when they're as timid and tepid an example of liberal social engineering as we've ever seen. Many past Republicans have gone farther than has the Obama administration.

Yet clearly we're not dealing with critical thinkers here, just people who know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to piece together what's happening. They blame the government for bailing out the banking institutions and wall street, and yet embrace the very party that makes such constituencies a core part of their political base.

For which I blame the Democrats, at least in part. They rose to power this time around through the justified anger of the masses after seeing the abuses of the last administration, and the clear crony capitalism that made that regime such a fitful host for our democratic aspirations. Yet, upon gaining power, they took to the capital as if nothing had changed, as if it was just another cycle of political fortunes coming around. The Republicans had been given their chance and failed. So what?

The problem is that once ousting the Republicans, the Democrats climbed right into bed with the very power brokers that had corrupted their opposition. Aside from a few notable exceptions, the Democrats were all too happy to take money in order to further the ambitions of wall street brokers, bankers, and oil men. And when it all came crashing down, who did they look to save? The corrupt and calculating power brokers. All that righteous populist anger that had swept them into power easily became co-opted by the Republicans who'd set the stage for the collapse in the first place. And the tea party was born.

I also blame Obama. Not because he wasn't the progressive leader I didn't believe he was to start with, but because he didn't once turn the skills he exhibited as a campaigner to the work of being the President and the leader of the Democratic Party. When he sat back and allowed many of the questionable policies of the previous administration to continue, he never bothered to reach out to any of us to explain why he made that choice. We were left to imagine, and our imaginings weren't good. He failed as a communicator and as a leader, and invited us to pressure him and his fellow democrats with one side of his mouth, yet condemned us for doing so from the other.

The rank and file democrats didn't help matters either, giving Obama a great deal of cover during his early weeks... "He's playing chess." No, not really. I know you wanted to think so, but he was playing another game entirely. A game called Stroking the Military-Industrial Complex. We stood by and let him maintain many of the things Bush had begun without even speaking up about it, and attempting to silence those who dared criticize.

But if things go sour tomorrow--now today, actually--the bulk of the blame rests on the self-righteous shoulders of the professionally disenchanted... those who said "Democrats are no different than Republicans" when it's closer to the truth to say "Democrats aren't different enough from Republicans." Basically, by saying the former, one suggests that voting is pointless. Saying the latter would suggest that it may be mended by a concerted effort on our own part. And a portion of the tertiary responsibility goes to those who happily bought into this argument. "I'm not going to bother. It's all rigged anyway." Even if it is--and I'm not saying either way--it doesn't let you off the fucking hook.

And, lastly, we can place a certain amount of blame on those who decry our interest in the whole thing, who make false comparisons between the anti-science, anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-gay, and pro-corporate side and those of us who are trying to fight for a handle on an equitable future. Those who don't "get" politics, or don't think it matters. It matters.

You don't like the tone? Well, maybe if you'd stood up for us while the Republicans ramped up the FOX News scream engine and did every single thing it could to bring us down, we wouldn't be left trying to defend ourselves so valiantly this late in the game. There's really no comparison, and if you hadn't been so badly betrayed by the aforementioned educational system, you'd know that.

If you don't like the way things are, stand with us and change them. Fight for public financing of elections and instant runoff elections... if not proportional representations. Don't like the vitriol? Do something to change it. Stand with us. It's the only way things are ever going to get better. This is a perfect storm of cultural destruction coming down the pike, America's Katrina. And it was all of us who didn't bother to fix the levies ahead of time.

Taxation without Compensation

2010-11-01T02:03:00.000-07:00

The tea-partiers will tell you that their terminology was based on an acronym "Taxed Enough Already." But are we? Taxed enough, I mean? Oh, I'm not arguing that we should be taxed more than we are, just that we don't get near as much from it as we should. And the reason? People like the Tea Party who throw fits when we TRY to get more for what we're paying. Rather than having our tax money go for things like education and health care, opening them up to all Americans, they'll fight tooth and nail to take out exorbitant loans from massive financial institutions, at whatever interest the market will bear--not to mention risking bankruptcy should they have a major medical issue.

What's not to like?

No, I say the problem is not that we're taxed enough, but that our taxes aren't used to benefit us enough. Europeans pay more or less the same tax rates--perhaps a little higher in some places--but they get so much more for their money. Healthcare on the spot? No debt? Sign us up. College tuition as a perk of citizenship? And why exactly why do we think we're falling behind the rest of the world? Do we really think the children of the indolent rich are champing at the bit to study science or anything else that might actually help people? No, as a general rule, they're studying new and improved ways of stealing peoples' money. Our money.

Add this to things like paid vacations, generous retirements, sick leave, maternity/paternity leave, and a political structure that isn't winner take all, nor driven entirely by the engines of wealth, and you have a far more equitable, democratic system.

Instead of taking lessons from the Europeans, we allow the terminally ignorant to decry anything socially democratic as "socialistic" without explaining, first, what they mean by the term, and, second, what's so terrible about a little socialism anyway? If it means that the vast majority of people have a decent quality of life at the expense of a very few having a frightfully lavish lifestyle, well, so what?

Fact is we're being ripped off, we Americans. Big time. By the greedy rich, the corporate interests, and, yes, by our elected "representatives." They'll take our money, but we're not really the ones paying their bills. So they take our money, give our needs lip service, and turn around and service their corporate donors.

And, yeah, the right wing will point out that there are other special interests besides corporations, and they would be right. None of them, even combined, have the kind of reach and power that corporations have in the United States, the power to throw money around as if it were nothing. Of course, the unions don't have the ability to cheat their employees out of a couple of dimes worth of raise in order to pass along a hefty donation to the anti-worker, proto-fascist candidate their CEO favors.

Are our unions flawed? Fuck yeah. Starting with the fact that when they earned a permanent place at the table--at least in some industries, including civil service--they pretty much forgot about the rest of us. They no longer chose to help drive industry toward a more democratic agenda for everyone... they took their money and left the rest of us to rot. When a neighbor confessed to me that he makes 80 dollars an hour, including benefits, I had to stop and wonder... and people ask why there's such a strong backlash against the unions? We've got enough problems with the whole "I've got mine" crowd. Unions have become, at least in some minds, a refuge for incompetence, cronyism, and corruption.

The Tea Partiers accuse Obama of having a socialist agenda. Hah. If only. A tepid health insurance reform law and a very necessary agency to regulate the interaction between wall street and consumers does not a socialist agenda make. Not even close.

I'd settle for a touch of social capitalism, myself... for our workplaces, and the industries which control them, to be more democratic. I'd like to see companies be about something more than making money... I'd like to see them dedicated to making America a better place to live. For all of us.

I maintain that government exists to protect the vulnerable from the powerful, and suggest that, right now, it's doing a fucking shitty job of it. I'm not getting nearly enough for my taxes, and I want that to change. I'd like to have the chance to elect members of a party that actually reflects my views, not one that reflects some of my views some of the time. The Republicans don't know how good they got it. Sure, their elite may also think they're a bunch of dumbasses, but at least they try to hide the way they feel. Those we elect, and fight hard to elect sometimes, seem to be as happy to use us as a punching bag in public as acknowledge how important we are to their success.

It's the mathematics of enthusiasm. We're about as enthusiastic about voting for you as you are about delivering the goods. It may not be taxation without representation, but a lot of us more liberal folks sure find reasons to question that assumption from time to time.

Restoring Sanity (or keeping fear alive).

2010-10-30T23:19:00.000-07:00

Let me just start out by stating the obvious. This isn't a fucking squabble. We're not school children having a tussle on the playground, or a round of "would you stop touching me" in the back seat of the family car. We have a group of people who deny science, who deny the right of a woman to control her own body, who deny the right of honest, hard working Americans to legally bind themselves to the people they love. Who wish to do so in the name of religion, or an equally obtuse ideology like faith in free-market gnomes who will somehow make everything work out right if we all just believe hard enough. We have folks who swear up and down that our duly elected President is an illegal immigrant, a Kenyan anti-colonialist, a Muslim, and a Socialist. We have people who believe that their taxes went up when, in fact, they've gone down. And why? Because we have a "news" network devoted 24/7/365 to lying to anyone willing to buy what they're selling.

And these false "moderates" that are calling for "an end to the bickering" don't grasp what's going on. We're not bickering. We're fighting for all of us against a threat you haven't even clued into yet. A massive conspiracy of would-be theocrats and fascists who want to use democracy to dismantle democracy. These are people who see no value in a separation between church and state, and no value in preventing large corporations from spewing toxic contaminants into the air, water, and earth in all directions... as long as it's not in their backyard, we must presume.

If you want to "restore sanity" you have to understand that the high ground isn't on some nebulous island in the center of it all. You can't say "Oh, let's just find a happy medium." Because where is the middle position between sane and fuck-all batshit balls-out crazy?

That's not to say there aren't some crazies on the left side of the fence. There are a few. But the difference is--we don't take them seriously. We don't let them RUN things. Who do you think is calling the shots on the right? Here's a clue... it's not the Eisenhower Republicans. No, the group that's wrested control of the Republican Party--with the aid and comfort of the fine folks at FOX "News"--make the Neo-cons of G.W. Bush's administration look like rational adults.

But by all means, keep pretending that we're not up to our collective ass in tea-bag alligators. In fact, it may be those who don't bother getting involved until "things have gotten out of hand" that are really to blame for the current state of affairs. You abdicate any responsibility for the political situation for years--maybe decades--thinking that it has nothing to do with you, then turn around and look down on us for being in the trenches and aware of what's going on.

You know what? Thanks. Thanks for nothing. Thanks for leaving us to try to defend your freedom to worship wherever you like--or not at all, if it suits you. Thanks for just sitting back and allowing us to protect your right to drink clean water, and breathe clean air. Thanks for not pitching in when we went to bat for safer workplaces, and some kind of income if you somehow lose your job through no fault of your own. Thanks for being too busy to give a shit about protecting social security, or medicare. For the right of a woman to control her own body, or a child to get some kind of education rather than being forced to work for a living the minute he learned to tie his own shoes.

You know why? Because every one of these things were opposed by the conservatives. Every fucking one of them. And yet we kept fighting for everyone--even the conservatives who hate us--because we ALL need clean air and water, safe workplaces, a safety net in case of catastrophic circumstances, and the right to go to school and worship or not worship in our own way. We ALL need the right to have a say in what happens to our bodies.

So, please, go ahead and pretend you've got the high ground. We'll be out here in the trenches, fighting the good fight. We'll let you know when we've won. Because you'll sure as hell know if we lose.

A little foreign action

2010-10-17T00:55:00.000-07:00

I've watched two movies this week I've been waiting to see for a while. One was a sequel of the fast-paced and entertaining "Distract B13," a French action flick featuring a lot of parkour and free running, as well as some very well choreographed fight scenes. The sequel was B13: Ultimatum, and brought back the pair from the first film--cop and criminal--for some more of the same. Two fighters against corrupt politicians--apparently thought of as much of a problem there as it is here in the U.S.

Simply put, I loved the film as much as the original. Having never been to France, I can't say how much reality they've mixed with their fiction, but I imagine it's probably about the same as a U.S. action flick. If you watch American action movies, or tv crime dramas, you probably get the idea that crazy shit happens every five minutes ago and most of us are lucky to be alive.

Nonetheless, I recommend the movie highly. At least as good as anything made here, and as fun a buddy movie as I can remember seeing in a long time.

The second movie is a Thai martial arts flick, starring Jeeja Yanin, the star of the excellent "Chocolate." Though she seems so far to change her billing with each movie--so far. In this one she was billed asYanin Vismitananda.

I really wanted to like this movie. I loved Chocolate. But there were entirely too many glaring holes in this one. The premise, that girls were being kidnapped off the streets of Thailand, isn't all that far-fetched. Sex slavery is a great problem in southeast Asia, and it happens probably more than anyone would like to admit. But that's not the case in this movie, though they do mention it. Instead, they're being stolen away for their pheromones, marked by a sniffer as possessing a particular body chemistry that can be as addictive as a drug. Fine. It's got a weird SF angle and I can live with that.

But the martial art created for the movie is, in a word, ridiculous. In Chocolate Yanin was able to show off her considerable Muay Thai skills to great effect, but this film's premise in this regard is just plain stupid. It's basically what you'd get if you crossed Drunken Monkey (as popularized by several Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks) with break dancing. Drinking makes you fight better.

Ugh. There are so many things wrong with this I won't bother getting into them. But what's even worse is that it seems like half the villains--mostly introduced in the last half an hour or so of the movie--have some knowledge of and/or skill in this allegedly secret martial art. The people who've been training arduously to free these captured women are soundly beaten by the villains because these unique fighting abilities are, in a word, useless.

I won't recommend not watching it, but only because I think Yanin has the potential to be a worldwide martial arts star. Her skills are that good. But I really hope she doesn't hitch her wagon to something as bad as this again.

She's not a bad actress. Maybe she should learn French and go act in some french action flicks... It's an idea.

No common ground

2010-10-12T01:58:00.000-07:00

No. As a matter of fact, we can't just get along.

The media likes to pound this drum. "People are tired of partisanship." And maybe they are. But the political divide gets wider and wider by the day. They decry our beliefs as "socialist" and we decry theirs as "fascism." And no amount of hand-wringing by the generally uninformed or uninterested is going to make this go away. We possess completely different world views. We have completely different road maps to the future. (Especially since their particular road map leads to a single weekend in 1952 where "men were men and women just shut the fuck up already.)"

Partisanship isn't really the problem, though the media wants us to believe it is. They like being able to exacerbate the difficulty, and then say "hey, why are you such partisans?" Maybe it's because we see the world in that handbasket and are trying desperately to get it out.

That's one of the differences between so-called "conservatives" and liberals. Conservatives look at the world, imagine an idealized past that never was, and say to themselves--and everyone else--that the world is "going to hell in a hand basket."

A liberal, on the other hand, thinks the world started out that way and it's our job to figure out how to get it out. It seems like every time we get close, some authoritarian asshole shoves it back in and jabs a thumb in our eye.

The right wingers like to use terms like "freedom" and "liberty," but it's clear to anyone willing to pay attention that they don't really mean them the way we liberals would. In general, it's the "freedom" and "liberty"of those with money and power to use that money and power to get other people to do what they want. It's never about the freedom of those with no money or power to live without fear of going hungry, or going deep in debt because of a surprise medical condition, or losing their homes because they trusted the wrong bank. Right Wingers put ideology before people, put artificial institutions before human beings. It's more important that a business isn't put out than its neighbors be guaranteed they're not spreading poison across the landscape. Profit before people. Always.

They use the term "socialist" as if it were a club, swatting down anything they don't agree with like Captain Caveman bringing down a fly. Well, except for Glenn Beck, who seems to use "socialist" and "Nazi" as if they were interchangeable. They're not, and everyone but the most rabid right winger knows it.

I almost regret making the attempt to reach out. In response I had someone tell me he fantasized about kicking my teeth in. Because nothing says "I'm right" better than threatening violence against those with whom you disagree. Of course, that's the whole idea behind their "second amendment solution." Or, as some of us like to refer to it, "fucking treason."

They've got politicians and pundits who think it's okay to dress up in Nazi SS regalia as a "re-enactment." Except, well, they don't even have the excuse that the civil war buffs have. If you're dressing up as a Nazi, you're pretending to be a bad guy. At least one can argue that some (if not most) of the kids in confederate gray were just that--rural kids who didn't know any better.

The Republicans deny the possibility of human-caused climate change (and even if we're not changing the whole damn environment, we're certainly pouring toxic substances into the earth, air, and water. Hard to believe they don't recommend feeding tuna to children more than once a week because of the mercury levels). Why is it that we've had to fight them every step of the way to give our children clean drinking water and air that's breathable without mechanical assistance? Because it might get in the way of profit.

They think their religious beliefs should trump freedom when it comes to the right of gays to enter into marriage contracts with the person of their choosing--even though they have no reason to oppose it other than it offends their religious sensibilities. They certainly wouldn't want any other religion to dictate to them what they could and couldn't do--why should they have the "special right" to do it to the rest of us? They equate gay relationships with bestiality, child molestation, and necrophilia, all the while ignoring the great big Catholic elephant in the room. As long as they oppose gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion, all the child fucking in the world won't turn the right wingers against their allies in the Church.

They say they're afraid of a "ground zero mosque," and cower in terror at the notion of "Sharia law" being enacted in the United States. Don't worry, you yahoos--we'd oppose that as stridently as we oppose your attempts to overthrow the natural order with your religious fanaticism. We'll take our government secular, if you don't mind. Come to think of it, we'll take it that way whether you mind or not.

So you folks are perfectly welcome to continue believing the Earth is only 6000 years old, that the Bible is literally true, that gays are an abomination (but eating shellfish or wearing polyester isn't), your brand of Christianity is better than any other brand, opposing gay marriage isn't exactly like opposing interracial marriage back in the day, and that there's a secret society of gay European socialist Muslim atheist scientists trying to take over the U.S. and put you in FEMA internment camps (where you secretly believe we should be putting Hispanics), but don't expect us to listen to this drivel without laughing at you.

Seriously--if the premise of your conspiracy theory begins with "there's a vast group of scientists..." you've already lost the battle.

And to all you middle-of-the-road moderates out there? If you actually think that people who believe this shit are in any way equivalent to those of us who believe science is as much about asking questions as answering them, that we may gain as much from cooperation as from competition, that it's good to regulate how much poison corporations can put in our air, water, and the earth itself, illegal immigrants should be treated like people rather than animals on the wrong side of a fence, we should actually have to prove someone's a terrorist before we lock them away until the end of time, and that drilling in the ocean without suitable safety measures in place is pure stupidity, then you're as fucking daft as they are. If you don't see that it's unconscionable to take away a safety net for the most vulnerable even as our wealthiest citizens are raking in the money hand over fist... You're not part of the solution... you're a major part of the fucking problem.

One thing's for certain. The only common ground we can find is in the middle of a swamp, three inches under water, and in the middle of a nest of breeding alligators. That's not common ground. That's a killing field.

An open letter to the Tea Partiers

2010-10-06T01:20:00.000-07:00

I might well be flying in the face of conventional wisdom here, trying to reason with people who are generally considered to be unreasonable and irrational. But it occurs to me that at least some of us are coming from the same place initially, in that we're sick of the status quo and want to see meaningful change that doesn't involve selling us out to multinational corporations and Wall Street.

Am I wrong?

Many of you, like us, are angered by the Wall Street bailout. They gambled with our money, lost it, then turned around and extorted it back out of our government--out of our taxes--by threatening to take the whole economy down with them. Infuriating, right?

We're on the same page here, believe me. Now what I'm asking you to do is to stretch your imagination a little. Imagine for a minute--just a minute--that there may be an element of truth in the things I'm about to share with you. Imagine for a moment that the people who you currently get your information from are misinformed or just plain wrong. I know it's a stretch, but I have faith that you can do it.

Now you've been led to believe that FOX News is the only source of news that isn't slanted to the left. So you don't trust any other source at all--be it CNN, MSNBC, Routers, AP, the BBC, the New York Times, or anyone else. So imagine for a second if your only source of information was a channel maintained by the government for just that purpose. Imagine that you were told not to trust ANY other source of information. Would you trust it? So why would you think a private organization with a clear profit motive would be any more honest? Why would ANY source of news declare all other sources suspect? Perhaps because they'd invalidate their bias? Saying one source--maybe MSNBC--is heavily biased (a recent development, really) might be okay. But all of them?

Imagine you knew a socialist. You may, but you may not know it. Or you may not. Imagine asking him (or her) if they believe President Obama (or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid) is one of them. I will guarantee you that your most likely response is a snort of derision. What you're being told is a "socialist agenda" is seen by those who actually are socialists as nothing of the sort. Unless you think this is deliberate misdirection, it's pretty clear at this point that someone is embellishing the truth. The agenda isn't remotely socialist. It's barely even liberal.

Why do you think this so-called 'enthusiasm gap' exists? Because many of us on the left feel betrayed by those we have elected to represent us. You've been there. You're there right now, as a matter of fact. You're trying to replace those you don't feel represent you well enough. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Except, honestly, you're walking into precisely the same "hope and change" trap we walked into.

How do I mean? Well, imagine you've picked a couple of choice apples. You've got them in your hand and you want to take them home. But the only thing to carry them in is a barrel full of already rotten apples. Do you think those nice crisp apples will refresh those in the barrel, or do you think the ones in the barrel will infect the shiny new ones? Congress is like that. You can send your best and brightest, those with all the idealism in the world, into the fray. But here's something to remember. Junior senators have no power. They don't make policy. They barely influence it. So therefore, by the time they rise to the level of being able to do something about the mess, they've become part of it. Why do you think we're all still fighting the same battles? Some of them have been going on since the dawn of the Republic.

Ain't that a stinker?

What's worse is that, by replacing our people with your people, you risk handing power back to the same exact people who have betrayed you again and again and again. Oh, sure, they say they're concerned about the same things you are, but when have they ever done anything to change it? Did the last Republican Congress--teamed with a Republican President--do anything at all about the issues you consider the most important? Did they balance the budget, create jobs, eliminate pork, return decision making ability to the states, or did they simply set the stage for the economic collapse we're experiencing now? No, you can't blame the Democrats. This mess belongs to all of them. It's the responsibility of both parties, and neither seems to be able to see its way out of it.

The notion that simply leaving the tax cuts in place will somehow magically heal the wound is ludicrous. They've been in place, and yet, things aren't getting any better. The same things that motivate companies to off-shore the best jobs, leaving behind only low-level service jobs--haven't gone away. And even if one buys into the idea that it's all the regulation and taxation--well, what kind of a working environment do you want, anyway? Do you want to work in a place where they can put your life and limbs in jeopardy for a little higher profits, where if you are injured, there's no recourse but begging on the street? That's what would happen without safety regulations and worker's compensation. The people you'll be putting into power don't believe in limiting what corporations can do. At all. You'd have to strip yourselves to the level of Chinese slave labor to make it worthwhile for this organizations to bring those jobs back into the country. And what will you have gained?

You don't have to accept any of this on faith. I wouldn't expect you to. But I implore you to ask yourselves--what if I'm even a little bit right? What if the people you support don't have your best interests at heart? What then?

And, by some chance, if you're one of those for whom it's really about the so-called 'culture wars,' who really wish this country to 'return to its Christian roots,' might I ask one question? Which sect do you follow? Anyone who's studied the history of Christianity knows it's a long history of breaks and schisms, often followed by bloody warfare. Let's assume for a second that the religious wrested control of this nation from the secular. Let's say you actually won this culture war. How long would it be before your differences began to bleed through and infighting began? It's easy when you have a common enemy--the atheists, pagans, and secularists. But, defeated, they'd no longer be an issue. Then your enemy would be your former ally. And before you say it wouldn't happen, think again. That's the way it works. One group would gain ascendancy--let's say the Baptists--and the Catholics would resent it. And start working against them. So the Baptists would have to pass laws limiting the Catholics... and the Mormons, and the Lutherans, and who knows what other sects. This is why the founding fathers created that (allegedly mythical) wall of separation in the first place. Because nearly all the original colonies had their own church, and they knew that the most destructive force in Pre-Enlightenment Europe was religious infighting. So they made it so no sect could gain power over another by keeping government separate from religion. No sect could command the government, and the government could hold no power over any sect.

The individual beliefs of the founding fathers don't matter. What matters is the reason why they thought this wall a necessity. Violate it at your peril.

All I ask is that you consider my words. I'm not lying to you. Imagine, for a moment, that you believe that. What then? Where do we go from here?

He said WHAT?

2010-10-03T23:07:00.000-07:00

Today I scandalized several of my fellow liberals by calling President Obama a "moral coward." One went so far in retort to state that I "couldn't possibly understand his position and responsibilities." Seriously--really? Because I don't agree with his actions I obviously don't understand. How convenient a rationalization.

I began by declaring straight out that I considered him a moral coward, referring in part to this article at T/O. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (my title, not theirs, btw). Either way, the notion that this administration is not only following the same failed policies as previous administrations, but hiding them behind judicial gag orders after campaigning on a platform of transparency really chapped my hide.

It's bad enough that they're continuing some of the less than ethical security policies of their predecessors--can you say 'extraordinary rendition?'--but to announce in particular that they weren't going to be pursuing cases against medical marijuana growers, and then doing so behind the public's back while knowing the public doesn't support such actions, is an act of supreme hypocrisy.

This isn't all, of course. Obama has repeatedly told us that he wants to do the right thing, but it's our job to "hold his feet to the fire" to make sure he does. And to make sure Congress does. Okay--first of all, this isn't leadership. This is an attempt to use us as political cover. This is suggesting that he's unable to do the right thing unless he's forced to do so by public pressure. But what's worse is that we're supposed to do this foot holding thing while being sneered at by those he chose to fill his cabinet in direct opposition to the wishes of every single progressive constituent out there.

And it's not as though he or anyone else can claim ignorance. This administration may be the first one that came into power knowing very well that the people (it is still 'we the people, right?) would be looking over their shoulder and commenting more or less in real time.

What I get out of all of this is "I want to do the right thing, but I'm afraid to..." And those who seem to feel they have no choice but to carry his water--those who hinged everything on his success, take anything criticizing this side of him as a personal affront.

Speaking well does not make one a good leader. Coming up with a great catchphrase like "Yes we can" doesn't mean much if we're left asking "Yes we can what?" Try creating a bipartisan coalition with people who pretty much think you're the antichrist? Good luck with that. Negotiating from a position of weakness by taking the best possible option in health care reform off the table before negotiations even begin? From the beginning I saw a flaw in his strategy--and people would say "oh, he's playing chess... he's two, three, four, ten moves ahead." Near as I can tell at this point, he's an even shittier chess player than I am.

Then again, I'm not a strategist. I'm a tactician. That offers the ability to change directions swiftly, as events unfold. Strategy is more long term, and tends to be more... conservative. The Marines of my father's day were taught to improvise on the battlefield, to use the tactics that would do the job, regardless of the strategic choices that came down from on high. Get the job done.

I think Obama made the same mistake as Clinton did when he stepped into the oval office. He chose to "look forward rather than back" and therefore left enemies armed and dangerous drawing targets on his back. The criminals who started unnecessary and quite possibly illegal wars, helped their friends make billions in obscene profits off the suffering and death of our own soldiers--not to mention innocent foreign civilians--, deregulated the banks and energy companies to the point they were more or less policing themselves (badly, I might add), lost billions of dollars through malfeasance and incompetence, conducted questionable (at best) warrantless and unwarranted surveillance of law-abiding American citizens, and committed a multitude of other acts of an ethical, immoral, and at best quasi-legal nature. Not investigating their crimes left them in place to almost immediately begin a campaign of disinformation and obfuscation aimed at destroying and/or negating every single possible progressive policy change that might come down the pipe.

We're not only still in the middle of the Great Recession (despite the nonsense spouted by economists), but now have almost no chance of enacting the kinds of programs necessary to drag us out of it. Partially because this administration's ineffectiveness at communicating both the problems and their causes has given the right the freedom to co-opt a surge of populist anger aimed at the people actually responsible for our situation, and instead aim it directly at those with the best chance of getting us out of it.

For the longest time I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. I was willing to blame Congress for a great deal of it. But now I simply can't. Because the man with the tools and the access to connect with America in a meaningful way, the man who can easily outline not only the difficulties we face, but the potential solutions, cannot, or will not, do so.

We needed a Roosevelt. We didn't get one. And we'll all pay the price.

Damn That Government

2010-09-27T16:52:00.000-07:00

I think it’s ironic that the same people who want to get government out of the boardroom want to place it squarely in your bedroom. They just want to shrink it enough to fit in such a confined space.

We don’t need Social Security, Medicare, SSI, public roads, public schools, fire departments, the police, armies for national defense, nor spies and intelligence analysts, nor should we support minimum wage and child labor laws, nor workplace safety regulations, nor consumer protection laws that say kids’ toys shouldn’t burst into flame if light touches them. Corporations should be able to say anything they want and spend any amount of money to make commercials that use clever psychological tricks to confuse the issues and manipulate peoples’ emotions to produce specifically calculated results. Why should government insist that restaurants and bars not discriminate against whole groups of people? Why should anyone expect government to make businesses accessible to the disabled?

Yes, government is the problem. They’re so bad at taking care of us.

Well, okay. Certainly true when you add Republicans into the mix. They’re only interested in one thing—taking care of their rich cronies. Is it any wonder they continually vote against the interest of the ‘little guy?’ Maybe because they’re all millionaires. Or hope to be soon. Nearly every one of them can expect to walk out of government into a cushy private sector job that will more than pay them back for their years of whoring. Must be nice, eh?

See, humanity tried that laissez faire stuff at the beginning of the industrial revolution. It resulted in terrible working conditions, massive environmental destruction, and the realization that entities that only care for profit can’t be trusted to act in the public interest without specific guidelines. Liberalism, which embraced laissez faire in the beginning, slowly adapted its viewpoints due to the evidence. Conservativism, which fought to maintain feudalism, finally came to realize the advantages of capitalism long after the liberals realized that capitalism wouldn’t work without restrictions. Conservatives embrace our leavings and claim them for their own.

I find it ironic that someone would quote that definition of insanity while embracing the ideology that embodies it.

In general, one finds that nearly everyone who’s ever actually experienced first-hand the social democracies of Europe vastly prefer it to the “free market” capitalism of the United States. There may be fewer billionaires, but there are also a lot fewer people who are destitute. And I can’t see that as a bad thing. If our current administration has a failing, it’s allowing the clearly deficient ‘logic’ of the right to control the discussion even now.

And that’s the fault of everyone smart enough but too disinclined to follow the conversation to its inevitable conclusion. The Republicans keep lying because the people keep buying.

And before someone chimes in with the inevitable “they’re all the same,” nonsense, how about you consider this. When has ANY prominent Republican—or conservative of any stripe—said anything remotely favorable to paganism or any other minority religion? Hell, you’d be hard pressed to find one that doesn’t think any religion but Christianity should be banned. People like Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell are fighting a religious war. And we’re the enemy. But, by all means, any caribou has a right to vote for the Wolf Party. Just don’t be surprised when they show up at your door with knife and fork in hand and a napkin tucked into their shirt.

Sure, there’s corruption on both sides. But at least the Democrats don’t despise everything you are.

Okay... and I know there are a few people who will inevitably respond (we don't know what the other person said--how do we know you're being fair?). I don't have permission to post his words on my blog, but the gist was that "if you don't believe government should try to take care of us--something they're not good at anyway... blah blah blah..."

Paraphrasing, of course. This is what I'm responding to. Make of it what you will.

God may not play dice with the universe, but we might want to start...

2010-09-15T21:09:00.000-07:00

I've long said that I think the only long-term hope for human survival is to get off the planet--at least in part. Not only can our hunger and our current economic system not be sustained on one world for long, but our inevitable waste--both toxic and relatively innocuous, must have a limit. There must be a point when we refuse to refuse.

I believe space exploration and eventual colonization is our destiny as a species. Not because some almighty deity declared it, but because we have all the tools to make it happen. Sure, there are those who are skeptical, who think we should 'take care of things down here first,' or fear 'they'll just take our disease into space,' but I say to them that I, at least, am not so far gone that I thirst for the end of humanity.

I believe that there's something worth saving in us, despite our missteps. I believe we are a clumsy, inept puppy of a species, just beginning to figure out how to toddle to the threshold leading out of our den and peering into the outer world. And we are bold puppies, full of mischief and trouble.

I have little patience for those who would throw humanity on the discard pile, be it for religious reasons (hungering for a little Armageddon, are you?) or secular, philosophical reasons. Despite our foolishness, despite our destructive tendencies toward our environment and our fellow creatures, we have within us the capacity to accomplish wondrous things if given the chance. Those who feel as though we should turn away from that, slink back into our caves and forget the light we so briefly held within our hand, I have only one thing to say.

We're running out of options.

The debate over our rights and obligations regarding the fallout from our industrialization has waged for centuries, when we first began to venture away from a feudal economy into a capitalistic one. People once thought even the river Thames was too large to be fouled by industry, but they found out quickly enough that the were wrong.

Now conservatives want to pretend that it's impossible than man's emissions are affecting our entire world, and the notion that it isn't seems so ludicrous that we find it hard to take them seriously. We are poisoning the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the very Earth in which we grow our food. And those who are making the most money from it will do nearly anything to keep us from impacting their profitability.

But we all know it's unsustainable. There's no such thing as infinite growth in a finite system. Something, somewhere, has to give. And we can only hope that it's not our ecosystem.

There are those who have embraced the lifestyle of what I might call a neo-luddite, people that would like to reject the modern world and its vagaries. But in the end the modern world will find you, and the very corporations you wish to ignore will happily shit in your pantry. Witness what happened to the backwaters of Louisiana, as the oil from the gulf spill seeped slowly into their environs.

No one is safe, and it is not possible to hide from what's happening. There is no going back, no forcing the genie back into the bottle. Even assuming you could get every American on board with what you believe must be done, there are several billion people looking to live a Chinese version of the American Dream. And a government and social structure that doesn't have our inherent checks and balances--regardless of how ineffective they may seem.

Honestly, it may be our only hope is to go forward, to strive with everything in us--our ingenuity, our ambition, our fear of calamity, to seek a solution to the problems we have caused. Technology has put us here, but it's possible, just possible, that technology might also be the answer.

There are those who might scoff. But let's remember how long we've been at this, and how many changes we've initiated already. We stand on the brink of as many as a million world-changing discoveries and inventions, from protein farming to new sources of energy, from super-efficient batteries to nanotechnology. We may not have the option of pulling back, reining in on our "carbon footprint" and environmental impact. It may be too late for that.

Our best answer might well be "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." And this is not to say we shouldn't take into consideration possible negative consequences of some decisions... but we have to balance those with what we're likely to face if we do nothing.

Some might be able to argue that we should have exercised restraint, but I'm not sure that was in the cards. This modern world, for all its problems, has either solved, or is on its way to solving, many of humanity's long-term problems. Each leap forward carries all of us with it, whether we understand what it means or not.

Our only hope is to get "out there," to find and make use of the resources that we now know are abundant. Our solar system awaits. Let's stop fiddle-farting around and put our mind to not only repairing our mistakes, but transcending them.

I don't think we have a choice.

Is it a risk? Yes, but is it a larger risk than sitting on our hands watching our planet come apart around us? I don't think so.

Fighting the Future

2010-09-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

The Conservative agenda. To fight tooth and nail to bring America back to some alleged "better time," (conceivably when women shut the fuck up, gays were buried in the back of the closet under a blanket and a dozen pairs of shoes, negroes knew their place--at the back of the bus--, and those who disagreed with the status quo knew how to keep their traps shut).

They claim to want to "take back America." From the "socialists," conceivably. Certainly from us liberals--you know, the people who gave the world the reformation, the enlightenment, modern democracies and republics, the industrial revolution, an end to slavery, woman's suffrage, child labor laws, workplace safety regulations, The GI Bill, pensions, health plans, clean drinking water and other environmental protections. Not to mention social security and unemployment insurance.

Sure, the corporate fat cats bankrolling the Republicans and the whole Tea Party morass want you to swallow that many of these things are UnAmerican, but we argue 'what's more American than justice? Parity? Making sure people get a fair shake? They'd like to take us back to a time retirees were lucky to survive on something better than cat food. They say "it's your responsibility to plan for retirement" and yet attempt to pay people as little as possible. Doing it through the power of taxation allows for a shield from the vagaries of fate. One cannot be destitute for life because of a single bad decision, or a stroke of ill fortune. For every person who could (theoretically) manage their retirement better than, say, social security, there are several who would choose badly. For all intents and purposes they might as well suggest the "Circus-Circus Retirement Package."

They don't believe in regulation because they believe that "market forces" will somehow balance out the profit motive, ignoring exactly how effective Madison Avenue and advertisers have become. BP caused the greatest environmental catastrophe in American history and still people are buying their products. "What, ARCO is owned by BP? But they have the cheapest gas..." And, after all, didn't BP suffer enough?

Here's a clue. Rich Republicans don't give a SHIT about any of us. Can't say for sure that rich Dems do either, but they'll at least suggest and support legislation about more than giving away the treasury to their rich cronies. They know what lending a helping hand means. Republicans know how to help themselves, and suggest to the rest of us that we do the same.

They scream about anything that "smacks of socialism," but the fact is that anyone with even the slightest brainpower knows that the current model is unsustainable. It assumes an infinite supply of material, an infinite supply of capital, and an infinite space in which to dump goods once we're no longer satisfied with them--once the planned obsolescence has kicked it.

People might well decry me as a "socialist" for even saying so, but anyone willing to look at the current model with an ounce of honesty will realize that something has to give, somewhere.

History Lesson

2010-09-12T20:43:00.000-07:00

Conservatives proudly embrace ideas we abandoned generations ago. And think this is a GOOD thing. There's a reason we moved beyond these notions... and a reason you folks have not. Clinging to outdated ideologies is what conservatives do ...best. You fought the reformation, the enlightenment, the establishment of democratic/republican forms of government, the industrial revolution, workers rights, the end of slavery, the end of child labor and unsafe working conditions, women's suffrage, social security, environmental protection (you can thank us that your water is actually drinkable--if left up to conservatives we'd be drinking lead soup), minimum wage, etc... etc... etc...

And let's not confuse "liberal" with "Democrat" here. Anyone with any knowledge of history whatsoever know that the old Dixiecrats abandoned the Democratic Party in droves when it became clear that liberals were taking over and fighting for equality and decency. They became the backbone of the Republican Party. It was called "The Southern Strategy."

Conservatives have always held on to outmoded notions with the fierceness of delusional certainty.

Not all liberals are Democrats, nor all Democrats liberal. And that's a shame. A crying shame, since the Republicans have never in their life had an original idea. Even their propaganda campaigns come directly from the diaries of Gobbels and Stalin.

"Restoring Honor."

2010-09-02T22:36:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck's newest incarnation as a preacher dedicated to "Restoring Honor" to America would be funny if it weren't so horrifying. Even pretending to be a "Good Christian" or, in his case, a "Good Mormon" doesn't excuse his behavior. How can a man whose whole professional life is "bearing false witness" claim to be any kind of Christian at all? Glenn Beck preaching from his tower of libel. How ridiculous.

I'm not a Christian. I don't claim to be. But I know that telling lies about other people is a seriously fucked up thing to do. It violates not only the whole "false witness" thing, but it seems also to directly conflict with Christ's command to "Do undo others..." The so-called "Golden Rule."

Folks like Beck and Palin possess no true moral compass. Anything goes in what they see as "defense" of their religion. Even if it means violating the tenets of that religion.

I guess if your faith required you stand on your roof at dawn and yell "I'm fucking special!" to the world at large with the most expensive P.A. system you could afford, you might feel as though we were oppressing you if we yelled back "Shut the fuck up!"

Gays, humanists, pagans, atheists, and the agnostic ask one thing of the Christians. Since we don't tell you how to run your religion, don't presume to tell us how to live our lives. You don't have the right. Don't tell our kids that science isn't real. Don't tell gays they can't marry. Tend to your religion and stay out of our secularism and we'll be good.

Because, well, if there's any such thing as "special rights," it's you folks chasing them. The right to tell people of a different political/religious/sexual persuasion what they can and cannot do. The right to demonize those who believe differently than you. The right to yell "I'm fucking special!" any time you want.

No one gets special rights. Not you, not anyone. How's that for a compromise?

A little parity would go a long way toward "restoring honor" in this country.

It's On!

2010-07-30T16:51:00.001-07:00

So...

We're hearing cries (from the media and various alleged "pundits"--well, the usual suspects, really) for "unity" and "an end to partisan bickering."

"Bickering" can be defined as "pointless" arguments with no purpose behind them. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "A petty quarrel; a squabble."

Oh, we're not bickering. In fact, it's offensive that anyone would suggest such a thing.

We're in a fight for the future of all of us. Not just Americans, but the whole human race. This isn't between some school kids calling each other names just to prove how tough they are. This isn't a sitcom marriage. It's a VERY serious disagreement about the rights and responsibilities of us, as U.S. citizens, as men and women, as human beings.

Anyone who calls it a mere "squabble" doesn't take it seriously enough. Not by a long shot.

We'll make peace with the Republicans. On OUR terms. As soon as they surrender their racist, sexist, homophobic, holier than thou certainty that THEY are right and WE are wrong. As soon as they apologize for calling us traitors, or allowing others who claim to represent them to do it. As soon as they apologize for branding people like Natalie Maines, Dick Durbin, Tom Dashle, and others as "traitors" or "terrorist sympathizers" for disagreeing with former President George W. Bush on the way to handle the so-called "War On Terror."

We'll bury the hatchet as soon as they repudiate the self-centered, self-aggrandizing, and inflexible "conservative" notion of "voodoo economics." As soon as they recognize that not everyone in America gets an even shot at success, and as soon as they join us in fighting to change that. As soon as they step up to defend the middle class, and the helping hand the middle class extends downward to those in need. As soon as they realize that the ultra-rich shouldn't be able to decide for the rest of us what our priorities should be.

We'll shake hands with the Republicans as soon as they admit that their religion, and their religious book, should NOT be the answer to all arguments about the nature of the cosmos, the history of the human race, and whether gays have the right to live in peace. We wouldn't put up with the Taliban here in the United States, and we will NOT put up with similar inflexibility from them either.

We'll kiss and make up when they recognize that we have a duty to this planet, to all the other forms of life that live here, and that we are both responsible for the damage we've caused and for striving to fix as much of it as we can. When they roll up their sleeves and stand beside us, working to make this world a better place again. When they too decide that the long-term fate of their children and grandchildren are more important than short-term profits.

We'll play nice as soon as they stop insulting us, insulting our intelligence, treating us like second-class citizens, and tell people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and their ilk that they DO NOT speak for them. As soon as they make it clear they DON'T want us jailed, or killed, for the crime of disagreeing with them or the actions of the previous administration. As soon as they stand up and say to their representatives that they respect the Constitution and don't respect anyone who refuses to abide by it.

We'll work for "unity" as soon as they repudiate all the evil that has been done in their names--as soon as they call for justice for those who've been ignored in Katrina's aftermath, those who've been sent off to war to die for a lie, those who've been turned out on the street because we have other priorities than protecting the most vulnerable among us.

We'll quit firing back at them when they set aside their unreasoning, racially based hatred of President Obama, their insistence that a clear centrist Democrat is a "radical" "socialist" "Muslim." When they stop referring to him by his middle name to incite even more suspicion and distrust. When, in fact, they stop being such racist knee-jerk assholes.

Until then...

No quarter given, no quarter asked.

It's on.

Back in action

2010-07-22T23:48:00.000-07:00

Yep. It's been a while since I've posted anything. The last few months have been, if anything, extremely wearying. Working on finding a new place, getting all our ducks in a row for that, doing the shitty day job thing. Health has been better in general, now that I'm going to the gym all the time. Picked up a copy of the Dragon Age expansion and had to beat it. You know how it is.
Haven't been doing much writing in general. Or reading, for that matter. Just putting out fires on Facebook responding to Reich Wing smears, disinformation, and spin. Started a FB group to deal damage to such people. Calling it "Two-Fisted Liberals." Because we'll fight back where others won't.

Other than that, not much to report.

Left of Liberty

2010-06-08T02:53:00.000-07:00

When most people are confronted with the word "Libertarianism" they tend to think "Oh, a Republican who smokes pot." The Libertarian Party, for example, is full of men and women who don't really understand the purpose of government. They expect somehow that a group of privileged white men from the earliest days of our founding as a nation could possibly have imagined the world as it exists today, and yet, if they could have, would never have contemplated any possible need to expand upon both the authority and responsibility of the federal government.

Clearly absurd. And even if it wasn't, we can hardly take a group of men who saw both women and blacks as unworthy of inclusion as citizens as the final arbiters of what is right and just in America.
We just can't.

It could be said that these Libertarians are Republicans who haven't been corrupted by the insidious poison of Christian Dominionism, and haven't yet been put into a position where it was in the least useful for the powers-that-be to purchase their loyalty. By powers-that-be, I mean, of course, those who serve what Eisenhower (often seen as the last honest Republican President) called the "Military-Industrial Complex"). They still operate under the illusion (or delusion) that in the society they imagine money and the power it grants would not unduly influence the democratic process. They believe somehow that they could stay above corporate control, that "liberty," as they imagine it, would belong to all men and women and the government would not be necessary to keep certain forces in check.

It is idiocy, of course, to imagine any such thing. Government, if it could be to have one single purpose above all, exists to protect the weak from the powerful. They ignore a basic truth. As Frank Herbert put it, "It's not so much that power corrupts, or that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but that power attracts the corruptible".

We've lived in a world much like the one they envision. We knew it as the Wild West. Power tended to gather in one place, resulting in the creation of what we grew to refer to as "robber barons." These were men who ruled their little fiefdoms with an iron hand, who hired gunslingers and other thugs to do their dirty work--to intimidate, batter, or sometimes even kill those who would stand in their way. This mindset existed through the turn of the century, and resulted in some of the fierce battles during the formation of trade unions which were born in an attempt to, among other things, free individuals and their families from the tyrannies of these robber barons and their "company towns."

Americans are often accused of being forgetful, of not really having a sense of history. And, fact is, this has some basis in fact. But one might also say that we've all too often become the victims of historical revisionism. Hollywood's version of history becomes "real" to us because most of us aren't inspired or entertained by the way real history was introduced to us. Given that we now have conservative (read regressive or even reactionary) folks trying to rewrite our history books to negate the influence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the foundation of our country, some understanding of our true history is vital at this point in time.

We have to truly understand where we started and what we went through to get to where we are now.
All of this aside, there is another brand of Libertarianism you don't hear much about. It's because it has no official party and, in fact, represents perhaps an even smaller number of people. If that's even possible.

I'm talking about left-libertarianism.

If liberals and Democrats are hard to herd, imagine trying to collect and count the heads of the left libertarians, those who hold corporate America and the vast bureaucracy of our government in roughly equal distrust and disdain. That perhaps understand the necessity of both, but believe they should be at best adversaries rather than any sort of allies. That government should, first and foremost, concern itself with what corporate America does because where individuals may affect the lives of those closest to them, corporations can and do affect the lives of millions. (Ask anyone currently living on the Gulf Coast).

Left liberatarians may understand the need, for example, to spend money on public service announcements to promote public safety. But they may also question the passing of laws to enforce certain behaviors, particularly ones that involve the choice of ostensibly reasoning adults. They may question the ethics of sin taxes, particularly with regards to addictive substances such as nicotine. Should the state directly benefit from the sale of a product as addictive as tobacco? Is this not a conflict of interest?

The questions important to a left-liberatarian are probably as numerous as there are left-libertarians to ask them. Why are mega-churches that meddle in politics allowed their tax-free status? Why are car insurance companies allowed to run credit checks to determine rates? Why are credit scores used as a method of pre-employments screening? Why are adults required to wear seat belts?

Left liberatarians are often as frustrated by the nanny state as the daddy state. Don't tell us to cut our grass, or our hair. Don't tell us we can't brew our own beer, or distill our own alcohol, or grow a little pot to keep us mellow and content in the dead of winter. Don't tell us we have to jump through the corporate hoops to get a job, get (mandated) car insurance, or a bank account. Don't tell us we have to play along when we know we're being ripped off or poisoned just because BP or its siblings owns our local politicans.

We believe that if government was doing its job, we'd all have decent medical care, a decent education, and fruitful, somewhat fulfilling employment. And the corporations would be dutiful citizens paying their share of the taxes, obeying the laws that pertain to them, and be held accountable if found to be playing fast and loose with the rules of probability and the laws of nature.

And the media wouldn't be able to pretend that it could call lies "news" and that asking a preacher or pundit or career criminal about evolution or other scientific matters is being "fair and balanced." They wouldn't get to pretend that crazy as an outhouse rat was an equal point of view to actually knowing what the heck you're talking about.

Businesses are licensed under government authority to even exist. We, as free Americans, need no such licensing. We're born with the rights enumerated in our Constitution, acknowledged by our founders, and defended by generations of soldiers, sailors, and flyers. It is we, the living breathing Americans who have the right to exist here, for whom America was intended. NOT the corporations. They exist on our sufferance. Our sufferance. Our, as in "We, the People."

We do not accept the clearly bought and paid-for ruling of the so-called Supreme Court insisting that corporations are, indeed, people. People are born, breathe, grow, fall in love, grow old, and die. There is, and has never been, any such thing as an immortal person. Thus, clearly, corporations are not people.
The Tea Partiers and their ilk are prone to such expressions as "give us back our country." Yet they don't seem at all aware who's actually taken their country from them. They blame "foreigners," or, even more amusing, "socialists," (as if the socialists have ever been of any real consequence in this country), when clearly the perpetrators of Grand Theft America are the Artificial People so recently annointed by the Surpreme Court.

You folks want to rail against something, rail against that. Then the rest of us might come to the conclusion you actually have a clue.

In the meantime we left-libertarians will be over here. Minding our own business. And the business of business, which is also our business. Because we're the real Americans... flesh, bone, and blood humans born of woman. No matter where that woman originally came from. As long as she was human, it's American enough for us. Or at least deserve to be more than any "artificial" person ever will.

Thanks, Obama. No, really. Thanks for very little.

2010-06-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

I wasn't a big supporter of Obama from the beginning. It had nothing to do with his ethnicity, or his alleged origins, and everything to do with his remarkable oratory ability. What--I didn't like him because he spoke well? Yes, it was a marked improvement over the previous nitwit, but being well-spoken does not alone a leader make. It requires courage and vision, and, sadly, a certain aspect of cynicism, something I believed Obama lacked.

My initial choice turned out to be an idiot. Not necessarily because he cheated on his cancer-ridden wife, but because he somehow assumed his indiscretions would remain hidden through the general election. I repeat. Idiot.

But the one thing I was fairly certain we wouldn't get from Obama or Clinton would be the kind of change we needed. They barely acknowledged the true nature of what was confronting us in this country, the nature of the precipice we found ourselves balanced upon. And, yes, many of us knew ahead of time that the housing bubble was primed to pop. They'd been using it to prop up a failing economy for quite some time. When every other business out there is a newly-minted mortgage company trying to get you to refinance in order to put some money in your pocket that your job is not, there's a problem. A big one.

As I have said before, if you don't stand for something, you'll stand for anything. The "forward-looking" Obama model who wanted to put partisanship behind him and forget about all the questionable things the previous administration had done, simply emboldened those who had reason to hate him the most. It's the classic expression--the reason Democrats, and by extension, liberals, are painted as "appeasers" so successfully is that our leadership, in particular, spends an awful lot of time appeasing their political adversaries.

People respond better to impassioned argument than they do to dry facts. Sure, it's manipulative, which turns off a few folks, but it's also wildly successful. Look at the Tea Party movement.and its trademark "conservative populism" (honestly, about as obvious an oxymoron as "jumbo shrimp" or "Civil War." They've managed to get folks riled up about the bank bailouts (precipitated by the fact that any other option might well have crashed our economy for good) and yet somehow avoided the distinct odor of a "class war."

It was fairly clear from the beginning that Obama's fascination with the myth of "bipartisanship" (which, ironically, only becomes an issue during Democratic administrations) was going to lead us down the primrose path to the monster at the heart of it all. Yes, I mean appeasement. Lots of it.

Rather than swinging for the bleachers, the Democrats tried to bunt on healthcare reform. Rather than trying for the absolute MOST that might be gained, they came on their knees begging for the least they could hope for. And "least" is what we damn well got. And even still the unwashed masses screamed "socialism!" as if they even understood the concept.

I don't blame Obama so much for the legislation--he's the President, not a congress-critter. But I DO blame him for not advocating strongly enough for a tangible separation from the course that got us into this mess in the first place. Namely the use of middle men to disburse medical funds and make decisions based not on medical necessity, but shareholder profits. Namely, the health insurance industry. The whole debacle surrounded the need to keep the parasite alive while not killing the host. Fact was, the parasite was, indeed, expendable. The host--not so much.

But this is, in fact, the least of his missteps. He alienated many of his liberal supporters by continuing the morally questionable operations of his predecessor, be it the wars, the illegal wiretaps, the now obviously failed supply-side "voodoo" economics that have again shown themselves to be based upon nothing more than smoke and whispers.

The ignorant accuse him of being a "radical" and a "socialist" when, in truth, he's an average center-right politician being used by the unscrupulous to rile up those who couldn't tell a socialist from a Nazi. (And, yes, there is a difference, despite their use of the word in their acronym.

Obama may talk a good game, but he's 90% talk and 10% action. We needed a Roosevelt--a Teddy, if not a Franklin, and we got another Clinton trying to be everything to everyone and, in the end, being nothing for anyone.

I applaud America for electing the first mixed-race President. It was a significant step. But, like I said in the beginning, he'd best be after doing something remarkable to be known for something else. Otherwise he'll be little more than an interesting historical footnote. And no, that crap they served us on a silver platter pretending to be healthcare reform doesn't really count. The only ones who should be happy about it are the parasites. Those bugs should be dancing in the street.

So was electing him a mistake? Not really, since Crazy McCain wouldn't have been a better choice, and, seriously, Nader wasn't going to happen. Nope. The mistake was his, for thinking that he wouldn't have to take real risks to be the leader we needed. He didn't take those risks, wasn't the leader we needed, and yet has been vilified for it anyway.

The worst of all possible worlds. For him, as well as for us.

My top 10 ultimate badass movie and TV heroines

2010-06-04T18:13:00.000-07:00

Okay... let's preface this by saying that I had to be able to suspend disbelief and actually think that the characters were truly badass. This is typically accomplished by fusing convincing acting with good fight choreography and excellent camera work. Having athletic, hot actresses doing the ass-kicking doesn't hurt, but somehow it isn't as necessary as one might think.

10. Victory Nelson. (Short lived Lifetime original series, Blood Ties--based on the works of fantasy author Tanya Huff). I'm afraid Vicky comes in at number 10 simply because of obscurity. Played by actress Christina Cox, we didn't get to see more than a hint of what Vicky could do. She was damn quick with those telescoping batons, though. Christina herself is a trained kickboxer, and moved like she knew what she was doing. I bought it.

9. Sarah Connors: (The Terminator franchise). I'm actually talking about Linda Hamilton here, not the television version of the same character. Linda was convincing as Sarah because she had been stripped down to the bare necessities like a woman who'd been burning from the inside out for far too long. Lean, corded muscle and a thousand-yard stare made her really come across as someone who'd seen the devil and spit in his eye. And crushed his robot body beneath her boot heel.

8. Buffy Summers. (Buffy, the Vampire Slayer of TV and Film). I'm going with the TV version because Kristy Swanson couldn't convince me of anything. Despite her slim and willowy form (and, my gawd, the girl's turned into a stick figure) actress Sarah Gellar managed to make me believe she could kick the snot out of even the badest vamp without once breaking a nail. Kudos to the choreographers and camera technicians, as well as her trainer. She was quite convincing. Yes, I know she started out with a belt in Tae Kwon Do. But I know it took a lot of hard work to make it all come together.

7. Faith Lehane: (BVTS, once again--the TV show). All things considered, it was much easier to buy Faith as a "chew em up and spit 'em out" vampire slayer. She just looks more solid than Sarah Gellar. Plus the character was balls-out. Where Buffy relied on her friends a lot, Faith just relied on good old fashioned ass kicking craziness. Maybe not the best strategy in the long run, but I never got the idea Faith planned to be around forever.

6. Lara Croft: (Tomb Raider 1 and 2). I was impressed to discover that Angelina Jolie did many of her own stunts for this movie. She looked solid and her kung fu skills were impressive. Okay, maybe not kung fu, but at least kickboxing. The bungee cord ballet was fucking amazing. Large, megalithic props to the choreographers on this one. She looked like she could wade through a whole army of illuminati assholes without batting an eye. I miss that Angelina.

5. Elektra: Setting aside the debacle that was Daredevil (one of my favorite superheroes growing up--after Spider Man, screwed up by so many things I don't want to discuss right now) I honestly didn't think Elektra was that bad. Garner certainly managed to pull off the badassery as well as anyone could have. I know, like Angelina, that she did many of her own stunts and lost the tip of a finger during the rehearsal of the sword fight with the Big Bad). I can respect that level of dedication. And, yeah, I thought she might've been all that.

4. Zen: (From the Thai film, "Chocolate.") Really she should have rated higher, and would have if not for what I see as the director's few glaring mistakes. The girl is remarkably athletic, and has one hell of a future ahead of her. But, despite some truly remarkable stunts, there were a few techniques performed that threw me bodily out of my suspension of disbelief. For a little thing like JeeJa Yanin (or, if you prefer, Yanin Vismitananda) to get any power (without presumed supernatural assistance) into her blows, she can't be performing them at a distance of a couple of inches. That kind of punch/kick might rock his head back, but it won't knock him flat. But all in all the girl was the shit.

3. River Tam: (Firefly and Serenity). Another Joss Whedon offering featuring a little girl who can kick ass. Of course, we don't really see that side of her until the movie. Summer Glau is a dancer, and, as we've seen before, dance translates very well into martial arts choreography. Yes, you too will believe this tiny thing can kick the living shit out of a whole army of wild, savage, cannibalistic Reavers. And that, my friends, is impressive indeed.

2. Alice: (Resident Evil 1, 2, and 3). I just recently watched RE 1 the other day. Milla Jovovich looked solid, like someone who COULD kick a zombie's head clean off. It's been a while since I've seen the others, but I remember thinking she'd lost a little muscle tone, particularly in the last one. I know she's been genetically altered, folks, but a little bulk makes the pill go down easier. Yeah, she kicks ass. But it helps that she LOOKS like she can kick ass.

1. Violet Song jat Shariff: (Ultraviolet). Milla again. This girl makes a remarkably believable action star. Some of it is, of course, attitude. You watch her and you believe she can go from stone killer to sweet thing and back in seconds flat. Violet is a thief, assassin, and "terrorist" in her world, and, as she says more than once, killing is "what I do." She'd lost everything that mattered to her and wanted revenge. And got it... in spades. Live or die, Violet was going to take as many of the motherfuckers with her as she could. A lot of people hated this flick. I loved it. Some of the special effects were sub-par, but the story and choreography were top-notch in my book. Massive amounts of violence and, yet, heart. I get it.

I should include an honorable mention category, but not this time. Let's see what everyone else has to say first. I await your responses.

Elaine

2010-05-31T23:56:00.000-07:00

She was the first real mother figure I remember, in my life between the ages of 4 and 12. In many ways, it was Elaine who first started me on the path to becoming a writer. She sat me down and read half "The Hobbit" to me. I picked it up where she stopped and started devouring everything I could find to read from that moment on. By the time I finished LOTR later that year, I knew I wanted to be an author.

She and my dad had problems I knew nothing about--thank whatever Gods there may or may not be. They weren't the kind of issues children should know anything about. But once they'd broken up for good--I think I'd just turned 13--it came to our attention that she was living with another woman. Elaine, as it turned out, was gay.

This was in the late seventies, mind you, and in Central Oregon. All these years I have to applaud her for her bravery for daring to come out in the first place. It couldn't have been easy, particularly not after struggling so long with her identity. My father, needless to say, was blown away and I believe, on some level, offended. Rather than seeing her coming out as a lesbian to be her finally realizing who she really was, he saw it as somehow reflective of him. "Oh, my Gawd--I turned her gay."

For many years I believe he resented her, though recent discussions have led him to realize that he may have been in error. This is quite something for my father. He's not good at admitting when he's wrong. And, after all these years, I am probably the only person in the world who has a chance of getting him to see something from a different perspective.

I like to think she'd be proud of me now. I lost contact with her years ago, after my father and I moved away. I went back down to Oregon for a year or so and lived with some former friends of theirs when I was 15. At the time I was trying to find something that I couldn't have, at the time, found anywhere on Earth... a place where I would be truly comfortable in my own skin.

I learned a lot there, as a matter of fact. I learned the value of hard work. I learned how to grow a garden, and even more about taking care of farm animals than I had as a child. I also learned about homophobia. I learned to hate it, because it stole from me a relationship that I should never have lost.

I spent a weekend visiting with Elaine, her girlfriend, and her girlfriend's father. They were nice people, and it was probably the first time Elaine and I had ever bonded as something approaching equals, the first time I think she began to see something of the man I'd become.

But Bruce, the so-called "man" of the family, later told Elaine that it would be best if she stayed away from me from then on. Something even my dad agrees that he had no right to do. He was acting as my guardian, legally speaking, but he overstepped any authority he may have had by saying this to her. She was, and is, my family.

Bruce didn't really have much moral high ground, though I suppose someone who actually thinks being gay is sinful rather than just "icky" might disagree. Not that I give a fuck about that. Bruce was a big-time pot grower, a Charles Manson lookalike, and a bully. He could go from being the coolest guy you know to an abusive freak in seconds.

I finally left and returned to Washington to be with my dad. Our relationship wasn't perfect, but it was better than living with that asshole. Unfortunately, I lost all contact with Elaine. And now, some 28 years later, I haven't been able to track her down. I don't know what last name she uses, nor whether she stayed in Oregon or moved back to San Jose to be near her family. I don't know if she's on-line (though I suspect she might be) or anything else about her this far down the line.

I never knew my mother. Elaine was the first, closest thing to a mom I had growing up and I regret like hell being the vulnerable kid I was when someone who had no right stepped in and cut off contact between us. This is one of the reasons I'm as anti-homophobia, pro-gay as I am. I understand a little of what kind of courage it takes for people to be who they are despite all the forces lined up against them.

Bruce--you're an asshole. I hate to think what you did to your wife's kids, or your youngest son, once I was gone. I hope you got your just desserts in the end.

Elaine--If you're out there, or if anyone recognizes her from this description (I'm not so crass as to make this any more explicit than it already is) I'd love to hear from you. I've sought you on FB and Myspace, but I have no idea if you'd involve yourself in either. But maybe some of your friends have. And maybe, just maybe, people will point you in the right direction to get in touch again.

I'd love to hear from you.

The Infinity Project

2010-05-11T00:40:00.000-07:00

Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.

Metal All the Way Down

2010-05-04T01:04:00.000-07:00

So... I'm a member of Last.fm, which is a great place to search out new music of the kind you like. You can set it up on an iphone or Droid phone to stream music based upon what you've chosen, or based upon recommendations based upon your library or playlists. Very cool if you want to discover new music in your favorite genre.

Of course, for me these days there's only one genre. Metal. Symphonic, European Power, and Progressive metal, to be precise. I prefer female fronted stuff, but there are some very nice male vocals out there. As long as it isn't Death or Black metal or what they call "Screamo." Please.

My favorite male vocalist? Mathias Blad from Falconer. This guy fucking rocks. I'm also fond of Roy Khan from the (American) European Power Metal band Kamelot. The former singer from Thunderstone was pretty damn good too, but he's replaced on the new album by one of the singers from Tarot--which isn't as bad as it sounds.

It's getting to the point I prefer male vocals in the lower registers. I don't mind if they can GO high, but they shouldn't stay there. Exceptions, of course, being the stuff I grew up listening to. But newer metal? If I want to hear that stuff, there are plenty of bands from back in the day where that's common. Give me Blad's "Clarion Call" or Khan's "March of Mephisto" any day.

And my taste for female vocals is all over the map. I like Tarja Turanen, Simone Simons, Floor Jansen, Cristina Scabbia (Yes, I KNOW there's no 'H' in Cristina... NOW). Though my issue with Scabbia is that I'm still not a huge fan of Lacuna coil. I prefer the vocals to overlay the music, not the other way around. Her voice is too often half drowned and hidden within the coils of the music, and her fellow vocalist's voice is just grating.

My top 3 bands as of this moment are Epica, Edenbridge, and Gwyllion, though following close behind are Delain and Stream of Passion. I'm also very interested to hear what Amy Lee has up her sleeve, and how it'll compete with former bandmates' new band, We Are The Fallen. Yeah--that's definitely the way to do it. Snatch up one of the better female runners-up on American Idol and make a run for the charts with her. She's got some talent, that's for certain.

Suffice to say I don't really care for modern hard rock all that much. Certainly not the American brand. One exception is Shinedown, but I've been a fan of theirs since I first heard .45 on some obscure radio program. That dude has a serious set of pipes. Their rendition of Skynyrd's Simple Man is boggling. But the rest of 'em? Who's who again? American rock needs a good kick in the balls. American metal needs a singing lesson.

Having two Evanescences might actually kick start more female fronted metal. It doesn't all have to be symphonic. But ixnay on the ethmetalday, eh? No room for "Angry Dog Rock" in these ear-holes.

I've been a metal head the first time a friend dropped a needle on an old Sabbath album and played me "Iron Man" and "War Pigs." I was blessed to hear the first stirrings of Queensryche before they forayed out into the world. And was left in despair when bands like Motley Crue, Ratt, Def Leppard and Poison became the nation's "heavy metal" heartthrobs. Puhleeze. Back then we had Metallica, Megadeth, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Queensryche, Fates Warning, Metal Church, and Savatage. We knew real metal when we heard it.

Still do. It has to have power, sure. But it also has to have majesty. All the fucking way down.

Oh, and I'd also like to recommend you check out reverbnation.com. Why? Because they have charts of local, national, and global acts that often offer free downloads to fans. You might discover some really terrific music just around the corner. Or discover some really nice people making music you like half a world away.

Just thought I'd mention

2010-04-30T07:48:00.000-07:00

I've started another blog, this one dedicated to television shows I like. Yes, I'm beginning my campaign to work for TV Guide. You've caught me out.

But seriously, this allows me to write about my favorite shows without having to break into this blog--which is supposed to be about my life and observations about such--to say my piece. If you like television, or any of my favorite shows--it's a pretty long list--head on over to check it out.

Living in the shadow of a giant

2010-04-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

The recent eruption of the Icelandic volcano has brought up a few thoughts on what it's like to live within the blast shadow of one. Our beautiful mountain is a sleeping giant. We all know it. And, like the possibility of a devastating earthquake, there's some likelihood that it'll wake up and smash us like the ants we might resemble. But I refuse to fear such an event. For one, there's nothing I can do about it. For two, natural disasters are something it's almost impossible to avoid no matter where you live. Here on the west coast it's earthquakes and volcanoes. The southeast has hurricanes. The midwest has tornadoes. The southwest has droughts and flash floods. Only the New England states and their nearest neighbors seem generally "safe," but are they really? Given global warming it's only a matter of time before a hurricane ventures up that direction.

Mt. Rainier. Too beautiful to fear.

Some may call it fatalism, but I tend to think of it as a kind of optimism. I'll go ahead with my life not worrying about big volcanoes and possible meteor strikes caused by passing across the middle plane of the galaxy (one of my father's big concerns, apparently). Because, well, there's not a fucking thing I can do about it. I could avoid the mountain by moving, but, seriously, that would be a little like wearing a hazmat suit every day of your life just in case a toxic spill happened. Shit happens. But you can't and shouldn't, as they say, borrow trouble.

Probably doesn't hurt that I'm not particularly afraid of death. I don't know what comes next, if anything comes next, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a heaven or hell. Both are absurd concepts when you get right down to it. An eternity bowing and scraping to a narcissistic deity or eternal torture as punishment for a few temporary misdeeds? Seriously? How anyone can actually buy into this crap is beyond me. Reincarnation actually makes a bit more sense. But even oblivion is okay with me. It's nice to think that something may continue, but anyone offering guarantees is selling something I don't want to buy. If the coin is "faith," my pockets are perpetually empty.

So, yeah, the mountain may explode and squish us all in massive mudflows, boil us in lava or pyroclastic clouds, or choke us with ash. Or a meteor may slam into the Earth and snuff all life as we know it in a nanosecond. But, despite my lack of what would traditionally be called "faith," I like to think there's a reason we're here, a reason not served by the casual snuffing out of our existence. The universe may be a matter of random chance, but maybe, just maybe, there might be a reason behind it all. And maybe sentience has a purpose beyond what we can see or understand.

And, then again, maybe I'm just telling myself the things I need to tell myself in order to roll out of bed every day and turn a smile to the world.

Seattle

2010-04-29T23:20:00.000-07:00

So, we went to Seattle last weekend for an anniversary dinner at the Fisherman's Restaurant on the pier. (I always forget which one, but I know it was a pier). My wife has always wanted to live in Seattle, an experience I personally place on my list just under getting torn apart by wild dogs. I say "but parking's so expensive," to which she says, "I wouldn't own a car."
Thus speaks the woman who has NEVER been without a car. I have. Hate to say it, but the only way I'd live in any city like that is if I were independently wealthy and could afford to keep my car. Besides, I love my car. It's only the second vehicle I've ever owned I've felt this way about. I'd no sooner give it up than I'd give up the thing which it allegedly symbolizes.

To distract you from thinking about that, here's a couple of pics.

This is where we had dinner. The crab feast is phenomenal. We got it with a 2 for 1 special, so it wasn't as spendy as it sounds.

And here's a picture of the skyline from the pier. Not as iconic as, say, a picture of the space needle, but still very cool.

I've nothing against Seattle, other than I think it sucks to drive there. And the fact that I'm not really a city boy at heart (despite having spent time in many different cities). I like Tacoma because, though it's a city, it's still got a smaller town feel to it. I'm not even sure why. Maybe because it's so close to Puyallup.

So... Norwescon, a week or so late

2010-04-14T02:42:00.000-07:00

I really meant to get this put together right after the Con, but I've had a problem focusing. Probably because I haven't been sleeping all that well since getting off the post-op pain meds. I prefer to sleep on my right side and now that it doesn't hurt quite as much, I'm trying to roll over on it in my sleep. Which does hurt. And wakes me up. Plus my restless legs are kicking up a fuss (not today, since I started working on my walking regimen either to and from PT or in the pool at the gym. Now my legs are just sore as hell. Going to have to get my stamina back before heading back to the day job.

So... How about some Norwescon pics, eh? Some great costumes, ranging from the barely adequate (mine, since I'm just getting started putting a real costume together) to extraordinary. But how about I stop describing it with words when pictures can do so much better?

Now, honestly, these are some of the most impressive costumes I saw the whole weekend. A whole clan of dark elves that never once seemed to slip character. They were silent and slightly menacing every time I caught sight of them. Daunting.

Now, this steampunk couple obviously go all out for their costumes. I can imagine them setting sail in their dirigible for parts unknown once the con was over. Good thing there's plenty of balloon parking on the hotel roof, eh?

And what SF convention would be complete without Darth Maul, right? Downright fiendish. Of course, I can't help but think those dark elves would've made short work of him.

And, of course, the inescapable troll pirate. Hold tight to your grog, mateys... no one can drain a barrel dry faster than a troll flying the jolly roger.

Guess who? Don't worry, the costume will be much better by next year, if not by the Witches Ball. Oh, yeah.

Surgery, recovery, and Norwescon

2010-04-01T23:39:00.000-07:00

I don't like feeling vulnerable. And I'll tell you, after my surgery I felt like a grounded bird. I can't go back to work until the end of April, I can't drive, and I'm practically useless around the house. Sucks to be me right now. I haven't even been able to write until fairly recently because to try to type stressed out my arm too much. I'm finally getting that back, which is a definite improvement.

I had shoulder surgery. Had to be at the hospital at 5:15 AM--I never see 5:15 AM. I don't want to see 5:15 AM. Surgery was scheduled at 7:30, so the two hours were to get me in and set up and so forth. Last thing I remembered was being moved around on the operating table like a piece of furniture myself, waiting for the anesthesia to kick in.

Operation went well and apparently everything was fixed the way it was supposed to be. That's good... I'd hate to think of how it would feel if it weren't. The fact that it's my dominant arm--my right--makes things that much more difficult. I can't even shave. Then again, I now know I can grow a beard. Sounds like a no-brainer, right? Except that I didn't even really need to shave regularly until I was almost thirty. So now I've got a beard.

Now today was the first day of Norwescon and we went to get all signed up and everything. Spent some time in the Green Room, then dropped in on the Press Party to mingle. Met a nice fellow who used to do some work for WOTC and White Wolf. Didn't take long before it got so tight in there we had to leave. My wife told me I'd stuck it out longer than she'd expected. Crowds like that freak me out a little, particularly now that I have to watch out for someone jostling my shoulder.

I'm doing FB and Twitter updates with my new phone FROM the Con. And, yes, I'll have pictures.

Some of the artwork we've seen (We bid on a couple pieces) is simply amazing. If we don't get the originals, we'll be looking for prints. We'll put them up on the walls once we move.

Anyhoo, that's all for now. I'm going to settle back and watch the newest Human Target and enjoy the "hey, it doesn't feel like a monster's gnawing my arm off" feeling I get from the painkillers.

Surgery in my future

2010-02-25T01:22:00.000-08:00

Well, as most of you know by now, I fell down a hill and busted up my shoulder pretty good. Was waiting for it to heal and it kept not healing so we did the doctor dance and I got a CT scan. Turns out I tore the ligaments away from the bone so I have no support anywhere away from my body. No wonder I can't lift anything or move my elbow away from my body worth a damn, eh?

So I've got surgery coming up, which will be my fourth surgery in my life. This might be the most serious, considering that it's trying to reattach something that's come completely loose. I figure I'll be down for a little while before I can even go to PT. So that's some short term disability before I can go back to work.

Time to finish my newest novel.

With any luck I'll have something new and shiny to show off by the time I head back to the day job. Something that isn't connected to my Infinity stuff.

So far it's coming along quite well, thanks for asking. I just started Chapter 5. Which is roughly 12,000 words or so. Not too bad.

What can one expect? Well, it's a Saje Williams novel, which means it's going to take myths and legends and do something twisty with them. If you've read my Infinity novels, you have some idea already. If you haven't, maybe you should.

The one thing the Dark Alliance books will NOT include is vampires. No blood-suckers. Psychic vampires--well, that's a different thing entirely. I'll be introducing you all to the notion of 'Travelers...' Souls that can travel from body to body at need.

And I won't be giving any more of it away than that right now. Suffice to say that it'll be another wild ride. I promise.

Climate Change

2010-02-21T13:27:00.000-08:00

Oh, yeah. People all over the world, particularly the east coast of the U.S. and parts of Europe, might be looking up and saying to one another and themselves "what global warming?"

Well, it's the middle of February and over 60 degrees here in the great state of Washington. We've had one of the milder winters on record (pretty much the opposite of last year's big snow) and I, for one, am not complaining. I'm tired of cold and dreary. I was tired of it in early October. Looking forward to Spring, even with the hayfever.

Took advantage of the weather to head out to Pt. Defiance and take a few pics the other day.

And here's a nice shot of the Olympics

And the Tacoma Narrows Bridge

I'm loving the new camera, as one can tell. Even if I'm having to do a lot of things one-handed right now. That's why I'm particularly happy I have a tripod.

Oh, and here's another shot after being run through a Paint Shop filter. I like the way this looks. Anyone else?

One of the corner towers of the Fort at Pt. Defiance.

Somehow I don't believe it was ever used to defend against attacks by hostiles.

And another shot of the Olympics

Character Studies Part II

2010-02-13T10:59:00.000-08:00

While the first book of my Infinity: Earth series is labeled a "paranormal romance," the second one is most definitely a critter of a whole 'nother breed. It's a coming-of-age tale, featuring young Cory Flynn. His mother is Rachel Flynn, a detective on the small Redburn police force, investigating a spate of murders with definite vampiric overtones. She thinks it might be one of the new "freaks," who started turning up after the plagues that swept across the world the previous couple of years. But she's not at all sure.

Cory and his best friend, Ben, are attacked and Cory is dragged away while Ben is left to explain his disappearance to Cory's mom as best he can.

As it turns out, Rachel is on the trail of a vampire. But she's not the only one. The creature that snatched young Cory is a vampire as well--her creator. He gives Cory a choice--either accept what he offers, or die knowing that everything he loves will be destroyed. Cory makes the only choice he possibly can. The vampire, Dave, drains him to the point of death and leaves him there in the darkness to be transformed by the nosferatu virus as it has its way with him.

He awakes ravenous, but remembering what Dave told him before leaving him to die. He begins recruiting soldiers to his side in the coming war. The self-proclaimed Queen of the Night, the vampire bitch who's been killing his neighbors, is building an army of the undead. He has little choice but to do the same.

Cory is young to have such responsibility thrust upon him and ends up making several missteps right off the bat. His situation makes an enemy of his best friend, and his thirst gets the better of him several times before he gets a handle on it.

In the meantime the townspeople begin dying or disappearing in greater numbers while Rachel and her fellow detectives try to make sense of it all. Rachel is caught between concern for her son--whom everyone else fears is dead--and a driving need to solve these terrible crimes.

Enter Amanda Keening-Grey--Federal agent, mage, and all around kick-ass heroine. Even though she doesn't look a day over thirteen or fourteen. She's been sent by Athena Cross, temporary head of the Paranormal Affairs Commission. Taking care of this little problem is her graduation exercise, the one thing she has to accomplish to be promoted to full agent.

And what's worse is that in the midst of all of this, Rachel and Amanda discover that some people are not at all what they originally seemed to be.

Character studies Part I

2010-02-13T01:24:00.000-08:00

What do I mean by that? Well, I've spent a good part of the day trying to come up with suitable quotes for various characters--quotes I mean to use on tee-shirts featuring different characters. Like Loki.

Most people know Loki as the Norse god of mischief and/or evil. In old Pre-Christian mythology he's more a god of chaos--the Lord of Misrule. In later tales he begins to shift toward evil, taking on aspects of the Christian deity of evil.

In Marvel comics, particularly the stories of Thor, Loki is also considered a villain.

I, on the other hand, wanted to something different. In my universe Loki's one of the immortals, a race of beings who fled to an Earth very much like our own after their own world was destroyed. Loki's a scientist, though not what anyone would consider a particularly good one. While most scientists would prefer to make a rational, reasoned approach to things, Loki tends toward gut-level inspiration and experimentation. Which, as one can imagine, leads to a lot of trouble.

Take "Loki's Sin." It's the title of my very first book, as well as a term coined to describe what Loki did. he has a habit of going off half-cocked and doing things without considering the possible ramifications. The law of unintended consequences has Loki's name written all over it.

In trying to recreate the virus that made him immortal to save the life of a young woman with whom he'd grown rather attached, Loki accidentally turns her into a vampire. The first real vampire, as a matter of fact. But he's just getting started. He also discovered that humanity had lost its ability to work magic not through anything we had done, but because the alien Cen (or Centians, in the first book) had damaged our DNA to take away the gift. Loki introduced a series of nanoviruses to fix this malady, as well as other perceived maladies, but didn't really grasp what he was setting in motion.

Loki killed tens of thousands of people as their bodies fought and rejected the viruses. Those who survived, however, were enhanced in various ways. They became superheroes and wielders of magic.

He'd honestly only had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, we all know where that particular not-so-yellow brick road leads.

So Loki's neither hero nor villain in my universe. Just a guy prone to making really big mistakes.

Where my characters' get their kick-ass

2010-02-09T01:11:00.000-08:00

Despite popular opinion, not all writers are weedy little geeks blinking at you from between horn-rimmed glasses. Okay, yeah, some of us wear glasses--probably a side effect of squinting at pages under harsh sunlight. Or something like that.

Fact is that many writers have spent considerable time learning various combat arts--from the proper use of firearms to archery and even the martial arts. I'm a firm believer that one should try to know something about the subject about which you're writing. If you're describing a sword-fight, you should have some knowledge of the mechanics involved.

My own personal love affair with the martial arts goes all the way back to 1971... and a little movie called "Billy Jack." Probably something your typical 5 year old shouldn't see. But I did. And seeing this character, this Vietnam vet (like my dad) standing up to a bunch of bullies picking on a bunch of hippies (like my dad's friends) hit me right where I lived.

This was the movie that started it for me. I was in Kenpo classes by the time I was 6. Between them and tumbling classes I had a fairly strong foundation by the time we moved to Oregon.

My dad's knowledge came from Force Recon training, and he passed that along at the same time he tried out some of his weirder training techniques to me. I swear, though I don't think he ever watched a Chinese kung fu movie in his life, he took more than a few pages from their book. I got to carry half-full five gallon buckets of water 50 yards to water the animals in the barn...for example.

I was a little kid, so I got really good at dodging. I didn't have the strength to stand up to most of the people who wanted to wallop me. My mouth got me into a whole lot of trouble, though. I learned very early on that no matter how fast your mouth moves, it can't defend you from a punch in the face. That's where the first and most vital animal-form martial art comes in. Rabbit. I was the fastest kid at my school. I know that for a fact.

When I was 13 and we'd left the farm life behind, my dad put me in kenpo school once again in Boise. That lasted six months or so until I dropped out. Yeah, I know. It was hard and I had a lot of other things I wanted to do. But it worked as more grounding.

For the next several years I picked up techniques and things from adults I met--people skilled in one art or another, from Wing Chun to Tae Kwon Do. But in my early twenties I was introduced to escrima in a college self-defense class and I fell in love. Simplistic in concept, but eminently variable in application, escrima was like the embodiment of everything I'd ever discovered about the martial arts. As Bruce Lee taught--it's not about form, but technique. It's about what works. (Something my father and Bruce believed in common, as it happens).

Before anyone starts to wonder, no--I wasn't ever some great martial artist. I considered myself adept, merely competent. The only fights I lost as an adult were those in which I was sucker-punched. If that says anything. I'd always been taught that the real reason to learn the arts was to avoid fighting--to have the confidence to stand tall and not appear an easy victim. And eventually I mastered my greatest weakness--my big mouth.

The personal style I developed from all these disparate sources over the years was ultimately adaptive, and ruthless. My dad always taught me that fighting wasn't a game, that it didn't have rules. He opposed competition fighting because he always figured it would interfere with the ability to fight in a life-or-death situation. I don't know, but I know that several of my lead-in moves wouldn't be acceptable in a ring.

One of the things I passed on to others was that nearly anything can be a weapon--or, if not a weapon, at least a distraction. I more than once used a cigarette as a means to stop a fight from starting. And if that isn't successful use of one's environment, I don't know what is.

A few people have observed that my fight scenes reflect first-hand knowledge, and that the way the fights go seem somehow inevitable. And yet natural. My characters aim for weak points, not strong points. They won't fire a punch to someone's jaw, but strike instead to nerve clusters between muscle groups, or to the side of the neck (right or left--both relatively effective and not likely lethal), or to the eyes, nose, groin, solar plexus. Ruthlessness in a fight is something nearly all my characters have in common--regardless of the style of martial arts they supposedly studied.

These days the only martial arts I'm really capable of are in my head. All the knowledge is still there, the reflexes still as tuned as they ever were. But performing most of the techniques I once threw off as casually as a fire emits sparks would cost me in residual pain. Particularly now that my shoulder's all messed up due to my carelessness.

I'm not half the man I used to be, but maybe I'm twice the man I thought I was back when I was young and stupid.

All in all, I prefer writing about fighting than participating in it. I'd rather gather friends than best my enemies--even assuming I had any. Which I don't. Oh, okay. I sent Bill O'Reilly an email suggesting he put me on his enemy's list--since he was advertising that he had one (couldn't resist) but I doubt he's going to be coming around wanting to beat my ass.

Besides, I'm pretty sure I could take him.

Big booms come in little packages

2010-02-04T00:51:00.000-08:00

I have a new favorite martial arts flick. The people who know me best know of my love for the genre. My love affair with the martial arts goes back a long way--to Billy Jack and Enter the Dragon... In the theaters. I was barely old enough to be in school, but I was on my way to being a serious martial arts junkie.

This movie, a Thai offering called--of all things--Chocolate, features the skills of a young woman I've never heard of before and the direction of the man responsible for the Tony Jaa films "The Protector" and "Ong Bak, Thai Warrior."

I've also got a fondness for kick-ass heroines. As anyone who's read any of my books might already know. If it would fit into my WIP I'd be writing in a young Thai heroine in homage to JeeJa Yanin. This girl kicks serious ass with high-flying style. Supple, quick as a striking serpent, and acrobatic as a bounding spider monkey, the autistic savant Zen strikes confusion, if not fear, into the hearts of her enemies.

I enjoyed the other two Thai action flicks I've seen, but this one hit all the right notes. Just perfect. I'm pretty sure I'll watch this movie again and again, just to see JeeJa do her thing. Move over, Milla... this girl is poised to take your crown as kickass queen of the universe.

When I start making films, my heroines are going to have their work cut out for them. It's a good thing my choreography isn't going to be quite as high-flying. But if I can get them to work even a fraction as hard as JeeJa did in this film, I'll feel like I've accomplished something.

It's good to dream.

Our Menagerie

2010-01-29T13:08:00.000-08:00

Yep. I got 'em. My wife calls 'em furkids. I call them self-motivating obstacles. Especially the Big Dog. She likes to lay right in main path through the living room. She's a big sweetheart, but she's taken to chastising Kharma, our Pomeranian Devil, for no discernible reason. She's a dog wrestler, intent on pinning her opponent. He's getting a little old and she not only pisses him off, but she hurts him while doing it. He thinks he's the dominant dog, so having her do this makes him a bit crazy. He's smart, but a bit... narrow. Can't conceive of not being the alpha, so the whole thing confuses him.

So, left to right, we've got Kitsune, Bella, Bejjing, and Kharma.

Dog-wise we started out with Kitsune, then got Kharma to keep him company--and because the wife thought she wanted a lapdog. Kharma turned into a 30 lb Pomeranian Devil, and therefor not lapdog material. He's our watch dog. And, yes, yappy as hell. He's bitten my dad twice, but there's certainly no love lost between them. Dad doesn't like little dogs much and Kharma knows Dad doesn't like him. So he makes his own mutual dislike known.

This is Kharma with our poor lost Dami-cat.

We don't get a lot of company, and probably won't until we relocate to a place where we can... isolate... the little beast. Unlike Jing, he doesn't take our word for it that someone's okay. They have to prove it. And then he's just annoyingly friendly.

Boo's the min-pin. Momma's baby. She's a bold, energetic, black and tan piglet. Who sleeps under the covers between us in bed.

Boo hanging out with my cat Bastion

Kitsune's the world's friendliest dog. He just loves people. Particularly people he doesn't see all the time or he hasn't met yet. He wasn't a decent watchdog even before he got old and lazy. Fair warning: his is not a typical Shiba attitude toward humans.

Kitsune

Bejjing's a rescue, and the reason we had to quit fostering. She decided that no other dog not already in the pack had any right to get between her and Mom. Which really wasn't fair to the poor fosters. But she's fiercely loyal to Mom and far more trusting of me than she started out. She'd been abused and didn't like or trust men in general for the longest time. Even now she's not a big fan of anyone in a uniform. She's Kharma's silent backup--55 lbs of canine recon specialist. She moves damn silently for a dog.

Jjing--taking a well earned break from guard duty

On to the cats. It wouldn't be fair if I didn't introduce our late Dami-cat. My wife had him before we met. He tried to brain me with a potted plant by dropping it on me when I was housesitting soon after we got together. I was amused but I always got the feeling he was waiting for me to take my revenge. He got diabetes and despite all our efforts we lost him in the end. He passed in my lap late one night. You'll see him above in the picture with Kitsune, sitting by the heater.

Now we've got Bastion, Deja, and Sterling. Bastion chose me the moment we went to see him as a kitten. He's a weird cat, but not quite near as weird as Sterling. Deja's a long-hair, which means he's a 24/7 cuddle. And more or less a normal cat. Bastion, on the other hand, acts as though he thinks he's a dog. He comes when he's called--every time--and actually does what he's told most of the time. He also likes to close the door and lock himself in the bedroom--and then bitch about it. And he doesn't like wet cat food. Dry only, thank you very much.

Bast showing me what he thinks of photography in general

Sterling has a fascination for water. Flushing the toilet or running a bath will bring him straight away. He's thrown himself in the bathtub more than once without first checking if there's water in it. He's not so weird that he actually likes getting wet. But he likes playing in the bathtub right after it's drained. Apparently he enjoys wet feet.

He's a polydactal. Six-toed cat. Into everything. He likes finding bits of plastic and dragging them out of various places to play with them.

Which leaves us with Deja. He's just a sweetheart. Who doesn't eat nearly enough. He's all fur. Bastion, like Dami before him, is a brick with legs. Deja is like a big fluffball with no substance. He's taken Dami's place as Mom's cat.

Deja as a kitten.

So that's our menagerie from bottom to top. It's only been through great effort on my part that we haven't found ourselves with a miniature goat or domesticated pig. That and the fact that we have hunting dogs--as I keep telling my wife. A big goat, maybe. But a miniature one? Forget it.

Goats and pigs don't belong in the city. Having grown up on a farm, I know a little bit about it.

Labor's Love Lost

2010-01-29T00:19:00.000-08:00

Those of us fortunate to have a job right now, particularly with a big corporation, are beginning to notice a certain trend, though maybe we haven't precisely put our finger on it yet. Those of us who remain at our workplace are being asked... no, expected... to do more with fewer resources for no more pay than we were already receiving. It'll be passed off as a "everyone has to pitch in and contribute a little more," but what it translates to is that they intend to squeeze every last drop of blood from you until you crack, or until you fail. Either way it hardly matters, since you're eminently replaceable. We all are. A corporation's only moral and ethical duty is to maximize its shareholders' profits. The physical and emotion stress laid upon its workers to accomplish this is of no concern. It is a vampire, draining you dry, and you have no recourse other than either complete surrender or allowing yourself to break beneath the lash. If you're an ordinary citizen in this country, driven to the edge of solvency by the multitude of things on which you must spend money, you cannot afford to break.

In a just world there would be some recourse, some way that you, as an individual, could somehow fight back and still retain your position. Some way that you and others like you might stand together to show that you are not grist for their mill, that you are more than simply meat to be fed on until you are gone.

But those of us of Generation X and later generations came into this with a vague and unnamed feeling of betrayal, that somehow organized labor had let us down. It made us more than a little vulnerable to the lies of the Republican party, and the various and sundry corporations who spend millions every year to produce propaganda attacking organized labor.

It never occurred to me to wonder why until I began thinking about it this very evening. What was it that broke labor in this country, that turned a movement that used to involve a reasonably large percentage of the American population into a shadow of its former self? I have a few theories, but honestly I believe it began when organized labor declared victory, beat its swords into plowshares, and sat down at the table to dine with those who would be our masters. Labor began in opposition to the system, but it was eventually co-opted by it. Its leaders were brought to the table and allowed to "negotiate" with the people who made the decisions.

This wasn't what killed it. It just made it vulnerable. Labor wanted this access, this... acquiescence. Its leaders were tired of fighting, particularly since some remembered when it was really a war out there. When people actually died fighting for the things we've since learned to take for granted.

Then the counter-culture had its semblance of victory at the end of the Vietnam war, and through the scandal of Watergate. The Old Guard was thought to have toppled, to be replaced by young and vibrant people interested in changing everything from the inside. Except it turned out that, at least to some extent, the forces that ran things in this country were a bit like ancient China. In conquering it, invaders found themselves becoming Chinese.

We stumbled through the next few years, and watched as a wise man failed miserably as President to be replaced by someone who believed government wasn't worthy of his greatness. When Ronald Reagan became President, he broke the back of the Air Traffic Controller's Union and, in so doing, broke the back of organized labor. The Air Traffic Controllers were the only union that supported his candidacy, and almost immediately he turned on them.

And when it happened we saw precisely what union solidarity meant in this country. Nothing. No one wanted to risk their hard-won access, their place at the table. In one fell stroke it became illegal for those in occupations "vital to national interest" to strike. The capitulation became finalized because their ultimate weapon had been stripped from them. And no one else dared strike in their stead. From that moment on, organized labor became a bit like a toothless dog. It could bark, but became very unlikely to draw blood.

Employers found ways to make organizing less attractive. They saw the value in treating their employees with some measure of respect, in offering benefit packages that might draw the best and brightest into their fold. Why pay union dues when you could get the same thing for nothing? What could they offer that the employers didn't offer already?

Aided by the so-called "liberal" media, strikes began to be seen as the actions of greedy workers just "out to make even more money than they already do." Rumors began to circulate, sources unknown, that they protected lazy, unproductive workers and did nothing else of import.

So now we stand fractured, in the middle of the worst economic downturn in decades, unable to even stand up for ourselves against the cry of "more profit, damn you!" We are islands in a sea of mindless greed, alone beneath the lash.

We are not ourselves blameless, of course. We took the beating, accepted their vampiric bite year after bloody year, and did nothing even when we knew we should. We stood by and let anti-labor people conquer the polls time and again, saying nothing, doing nothing. When we heard the word "labor," we thought of the unions, of the organized labor we felt had abandoned and betrayed us. But they're not the only aspect of labor that exists in this country. Most of labor is unorganized. It's us. The little people. The modern peasants so easily dismissed.

But the irony is that we have the greatest tool of organizing there has ever been. We have nearly instantaneous communication and social media to make it all possible. We could do it ourselves, without the unions who have so clearly failed us.

But only if we have the courage and strength of purpose to stand not up not only for ourselves, but for our neighbors. Imagine--a spontaneous protest nationwide at any one employer... where 50, 75, or even 90% of the employees simply walked out into the parking lot and said "We have had enough. We will not return until something changes."

It could happen. They forget, this is a pyramid. It is the people on the bottom who keep everything going. If "Atlas Shrugged" no one would even notice. The world would keep turning as it was. But if we shrugged it would be a whole different story.

Would it not?

One of the richest men in the world, Warren Buffet, said "This is a Class War, and we're winning... even though we shouldn't be."

Why should we stand by and let them take potshots at us from higher ground without ever once firing back? Yes, it's a class war, but it wasn't the lower classes who started it. But it is the lower classes that can win it. Unless we follow in the footsteps of organized labor and simply surrender.

Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

Used to be wild, now... not so much

2010-01-28T11:47:00.000-08:00

Some folks might know I went out and injured myself a couple of weeks ago falling down an embankment. The wife was a bit miffed at me. I wanted to take some pictures of a couple of my old haunts, starting with Game Farm Park.

A nice little waterfall along the White (Stuk) River trail.

The White (Stuk) River. In the Spring it looks like milk--I'm told it's the glacier runoff. I'll try to get another pic in the Spring to show you all.

The trailhead to climb the hill from the back of the park. This is quite a climb, especially for a middle-aged dude like me. I wasn't happy when I got to the top, but I did it.

A view of the river from the top of the hill.

A view of the park from our old hangout, a place at the edge of the hill we used to call "The Grove." It used to be really nice but now it's littered with garbage and the trees marred with graffiti. Who the fuck writes on trees? Oh, yeah... This jerk who calls himself "Mimic." What a fuckhead.

I fell down coming off the hill and injured my right arm/shoulder. It's been a couple of weeks and now I've finally got about 75% of its mobility back, though I still can't put too much pressure on it.

I swallowed the pain so I could visit and photograph one other location in Auburn. This is what I presume to be Auburn's newest park--or prospective park. Back in the day it was our favorite camping/party spot. While all the other kids were out at Beer Bottle Beach or 3 Bridges, we were at Big Bend. It was a swimming hole and a great place to host a small party because it never got busted. For my 19th birthday we carried a keg through the woods in a blanket--one of us on each corner--and drank for 3 days on it.

Good times.

This is the entrance now. Some 24 years later. I feel slightly violated.

And here's the crook in the Green River known as Big Bend. In Winter. I took my boys here last Summer and noticed it's easily a more popular swimming spot now than it was back then. More of the local teens know about it, at least. It was a well-regarded secret back in the day. Local legend has it that THIS was the spot CCR sang about in their song "Green River." It looks a LOT different in the Summer.

Retail Hell Part II

2010-01-28T01:24:00.000-08:00

Okay... So my last post outlined the annoyances of working retail. Mainly obnoxious, inconsiderate, and sometimes downright disgusting customers. It's not uncommon to find half-chewed food lying on the floor, dropped and left there by someone's child. I'm not sure how someone can walk away from that... I'll bet they also do the same thing if their dog shits on the sidewalk.

Anyway... So this elderly lady--I think she may have been French, but I'm not sure. The accent wasn't all that clear--just definitely not American. She came in looking for one of the new Zero Water filtration pitchers she'd apparently seen on TV. It always amuses me when the customer looks at me and asks "So, what can you tell me about this?"

My answer, if I'm being honest, and I really can't help myself, is "Pretty much what it says on the box."

She seemed a bit disappointed, but not upset. We just sell them, we're not given any training on the items we sell, or a free trial to see how they work. I opened a box and looked for some documentation at her request, but found none.

So I pointed to one of the PUR filtration pitchers and said "That's the one I have. I imagine it works pretty much the same way." More or less. I have one of the flavored pitcher ones, though we haven't bought any more of the flavoring since we first got it.

I explained how it worked and showed her the display model. She wasn't interested in the flavorings, but seemed to really appreciate that I didn't know something about that particular item. She thanked me for my assistance and sent me on my way. As far as I could tell she intended to buy one of the PUR pitchers because, first of all, it had documentation, and, second, it had been personally recommended. I certainly like it. The amount of water I drink has gone up considerably since we got it--mostly because I can't stand the taste of chlorine in water. Comes from growing up drinking well water for a good part of my childhood. City water tastes like crap.

I like helping people find what they're looking for. It's one of the things that makes it worthwhile. And one of the reasons I know the store as well as I do. Yeah, I know sometimes people are just out buying crap they don't need for whatever reason, but that doesn't matter as much as the feeling that I'm making someone happy. It's especially gratifying when I help a parent or grandparent find a particular toy for a grandchild for their birthday or Christmas. It gives me a sense of accomplishment when I'm told "You've just made a kid's Christmas."

That's why I do it, and why I'm as good at it as I am. It's also the reason that everyone assumes I'm a supervisor when I'm not. I'm a trainer, which at my store is just a glorified sales floor employee. I've trained the vast majority of new hires, including many of the supervisors, and yet I'm just another peon. But what makes up for it to at least some degree is knowing that my co-workers trust and rely on me. They know I won't bullshit them, even if that's the manager's plan for the night.

Like tonight, for example. She tells me at closing "Oh, I'm letting them think we might be going home early so they'll work faster and we can get a few extra things done."

I looked at her and said "I didn't think we were, so my team doesn't think so either." I know her well enough to know better. If she expected me to play along with her deception I'm reminded of a line from a Bugs Bunny cartoon. "She don't know me very well, do she?"

I don't lie to my people. I don't manipulate them either. If they work a little harder for me, it's because I respect and trust them to do their jobs. And that's a lesson a lot of my so-called superiors could stand to learn. But much of corporate America is really about exploitation, and exploitation often requires some level of deception. Trying to trick people into giving you something to which you're not really entitled is a kind of fraud. Earning that sort of regard, respect, and reward is something else entirely.

God, gods, and gawd...

2010-01-27T16:02:00.000-08:00

I don't believe in God. Not the way most folks talk about it. Some supernatural being looking down at us from some extra-dimensional space in the sky, reading our minds to make sure we're all being good little boys and girls as if it were a great cosmic Santa Claus with a really big carrot and stick set? An omniscient, omnipotent being that needs our worship as if it were heroin and our slavish devotion was its next Big Fix?

Uh...no. Not buying it for a second. And I'm not sure what's more unsettling when you get into the whole heaven and hell thing. If you're a good person and follow all the Do's and Don't, or at least pretend you'd like to as long as you seek forgiveness and keep a little Jesus in your hearts, you'll to heaven. Where you'll spend the rest of eternity bowing and scraping to the almighty Slave Master. Sounds positively joyful. And Hell? What a stupid idea that is. Do the wrong things (such as being gay, questioning all this, or--gasp--being born in the wrong place and time) and you'll suffer forever in a lake of fire.

Maybe it's me, but this God fellow sounds like a complete asshole. But, wait, there's more. He's omniscient, omnipotent, and all-loving. Yet he not only tolerates suffering, but in the Old Testament, he all but demanded it. He promoted slavery, genocide, and rape. Nice fellow, eh?

Now several of my closest friends (and my wife) are pagan. Some folks just roll their eyes at that and all I can say is I hope your face gets stuck that way. Still makes more sense to me than Christianity, but just about anything does at this point. And, no, don't try to "explain." I don't distrust Christianity because I don't know anything about it, but because I do.

Now I can accept little 'G' gods better than one big 'G' God. Why? Omnipotence is a ludicrous notion, particularly when attached to all the rest of it. Little 'G' gods are associated with one or two aspects of nature--human or earthly--rather than EVERYTHING THERE IS. Makes more sense from that point of view.

So am I pagan? At one time I defined myself that way, then "pagan by default." These days I'm just pagan-friendly. Agnostic humanist pantheist is the way I describe myself, as far as that goes. I don't know anything more about the ultimate nature of the universe than anyone else and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. That's why some brands of atheist get on my nerves as much as heavy duty Christian crusaders. Because they act as though they know the unknowable. God/no God, afterlife/no afterlife. I don't know. But I am pretty sure there's more than just the material world out there because of my own personal experiences. I've seen and experienced shit that defies "rational" explanation. Unless one, of course, expands one's notion of "rational."

When using a generic "god" phrase, I substitute "gawd," for the 3-letter version because I'm deliberately suggesting no religious affiliation with the word. "Gawd" only knows, or "By gawd." Silly, but I can be that way sometimes.

So that's my current rant on religion... and the lack thereof. I don't care what anyone believes until they decide it should somehow affect my life. Guess again. Keep your religion to yourself. Gawd wants it that way.

Retail Hell

2010-01-27T14:27:00.000-08:00

What is it that prompts total strangers to come into someone else's place of work and feel okay about trashing the place? You can always tell someone who's actually worked in retail because they're at least moderately considerate of both the retail employees and the other patrons. They don't leave stuff on the floor, or toss it carelessly on a shelf where it clearly doesn't belong.

The funniest thing is that some folks excuse this sort of behavior by saying "I'm providing job security." Wow. Now there's some mighty unconventional wisdom for you. Making someone else's life and job more difficult is providing job security. So is that a good excuse for going out and robbing a bank? Job security for the FBI and police?

"Gee, Saje, now that you mention it..."

I'll never cease to be astounded how thoughtless people can be. Retail is not an easy job and yet some folks act as though the employees have nothing better to do than pick up banana peels, apple cores, and empty (and sometimes not-so-empty) cups from various around the store.

Okay--I know what some of you are thinking. "I thought you were an author." Well, yeah. I am. But I also have a day job... in retail. I don't advertise that because, well, my employer's brand doesn't need to be tangled up in mine. Make sense? And since the corporate dickheads in charge refuse to advertise for me, I sure as hell have no intention of advertising for them.

Only about five percent of the authors I know make enough money to give up their day jobs. It's a dream of someday, not a reality, for the vast majority of us. A goal? Sure. To be able to give up grinding my soul into dust for people who really don't appreciate it? Where do I sign up?

So next time you're shopping, take a minute to consider us poor overworked and underpaid retail employees. If you happen to pick up something you don't actually want, wait to give it to a cashier. Don't be embarrassed. We much prefer you do that rather than leave the dish soap in the toy department because it's gotten too heavy. Really. I promise. If you remove something from a peg hook, take that extra ten seconds to put it back. We'd do it for you.

I bring all this up because after three days off, then one day on, then two more days off, I'm heading back to the salt mines today. Be nice, people. There are a lot of reasons this job is aggravating. Don't make it any worse than it has to be.

And have a lovely day!

Heroes return to form

2010-01-27T01:58:00.000-08:00

I was reading comic books almost before I was in school. In kindergarten I remember following the adventures of Spider man, Iron Fist, and Doctor Strange. It was one of the things that helped turn me into the reader and writer I am today. Anyone who's read my books should be able to recognize the influence the comics had on me.

In their earliest incarnations, comic books were as much propaganda as entertainment. Very pro-American, racist, and militaristic. It was a different time, a different set of principles at work.

But by the time I came into it the whole atmosphere had changed. The art form had developed into a social commentary ranging from the hidden mystique of the martial arts to the dangers of drugs. Most folks were able to draw the connection between the mutants of the X-Men and the civil rights movement. Society needed to come to terms with those who were "different," much in the way it does today.

Comics have gotten a bad rap here and there throughout their history, but the fact is that a lot of the movers and shakers today were brought up on them. The idea of super-powered individuals standing up for what's right is something that seems uniquely American for the most part. We want to believe in heroes. Maybe because we have so few real ones to look up to.

The thing about fictional heroes is that they can be trusted to remain who they are. Even if a new writer signs up to the franchise and takes it different directions, the fan can keep his or her own image of his or her hero in mind. The hero doesn't change, just peoples' different interpretations of him, her, or it.

So anyone who's paid any attention to Marvel's comic books in the past several years knows that they took a turn into serious dark and gritty territory--tackling the whole idea of superhero registration and how this might affect our concepts of liberty and freedom. But now apparently they want to return more to the old days, the days when the heroes stood for goodness and justice above all.

People are worried that Disney's purchase of Marvel will turn them all into a bunch of family-friendly softies... I think they're evolving, like everything else evolves. But the core of what makes them what they are, and the reason we love them, will remain the same.

We need heroes. Comics are our modern mythology. And we all know what mythology does for us. Or, if we don't, we should take the time to find out. It makes us strive to be better than we are, to stand for something besides just ourselves. And if people like Spidey, Captain America, and Iron Man don't do that for us, who will?

The Joy of Twitter

2010-01-26T20:49:00.000-08:00

Word has it that Twitter's rapid ascent might have peaked--that folks are starting to drift away from it. Twitter, of course, responds that it's busier than ever. The people who don't get it, or don't get anything out of it, have wandered off, but the millions of folks who like conversing in 140 character or less spurts are still absolutely joyful about it.

That's not a quote. Really.

I like Twitter. I've been engaged in conversations with a few people all over the world on a regular basis--people whom I might or might not ever actually had a chance to speak with. It's a place where one might engage in conversation with just about anyone, from TV stars to authors to would-be new media superstars.
Or the ordinary fellow down the street, or all the way across the world.

That's pretty cool in itself because it allows person-to-person communication between folks who might otherwise never have occasion to meet.

But beyond that it offers the chance to visit websites one might never have considered, reading about things one might never have imagined. From strange 3d urban artwork featured in Woman's Day to an article about an epidemic of rape in the military.

It's about people not only connecting personally, but passing along information. And thanks to people like Alyssa Milano, people responded quickly to help with the disaster in Haiti. Twitter, and social media in general, is helping to bring people together. And that's a good thing.

Is it a "fad," as some folks are saying? Perhaps. Time will tell. But for some people, even fads last a lot longer than one might expect.

Rock and Roll After Forever

2010-01-26T09:10:00.000-08:00

By the time you're my age you're supposed to be waxing nostalgic, remembering the music of your youth with great fondness and grumbling about modern music. Well, I do have some grumbles about modern American music, that's for sure. Not that I'm particularly up on some of it, but all in all, the "angry dog rock" that seems so prevalent makes me want to scream. And not in a good way. Yeah, metal went a bit too far with the pop shit back in the 80s (and let's not even get started on the lifestyle--sheesh). I hated grunge when it hit but I had to agree with the Wilson sisters (Ann and Nancy) who said in an interview "Whew, were we glad when that was over."

I'm a metal-head. I banged my head to Ozzy, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Savatage, Queensryche, and Metallica in particular. In the 90s I discovered Dream Theater, but found successive albums just didn't hit the mark. But I was always on the lookout for something special. When the Scorpions unloaded their album with orchestral accompaniment, I was like "Hey, now this is something I could get behind." Then Metallica did something similar and I was like "Uh... wtf?"

I was a man in search of my music. I've found bands I've enjoyed over the years, only to watch them fall by the wayside as I grew bored of the music they were making. None of it fit. None of it was the timeless sound I was looking for.

Now, I like classical. I never knew much about it, but the sound of the bow sliding across the strings was like an angel's choir in my ears. Violins, violas, cellos... all make music I love to hear. Over the years I discovered artists who used such instruments in their music and I took what pleasure I could from it.

Evanescence hit in the early part of this century and for a moment I was thinking "Shit, yeah!" Amy Lee had a voice like we'd never heard in rock and metal and I was ecstatic. The first album was phenomenal, the live show at Bumbershoot nothing short of sublime. I was suffering from a blown out back (and, yeah, I mean 'suffering') yet it remains one of my favorite concerts ever.

Then a couple years back I was scanning the On Demand music menu on my local cable and stumbled across a little song called "Bye Bye Beautiful" by a band called Nightwish. I thought it was okay, but wandered off to watch a video by another band called Kamelot entitled "Rule the World." I loved the progressive flavor of the Kamelot song. So I started looking for other stuff they'd done and stumbled across "The Haunting," featuring Simone Simons of Epica.

Simone has the voice of an angel. I searched out some of their music on YouTube and then last.fm and was instantly hooked. That, of course, led me back to similar music and I got to hear more of Nightwish. Let me say that while I like Tarja's voice, for what she does with it, I think she could do a hell of a lot more. That's one of the reason I actually prefer Anette Olzen's voice fronting Nightwish. More variation. Sure, Tarja's voice is cleaner than Anette's, but I think the range of, say, Floor Jansen or Simone is far more accessible.

I told my wife soon after stumbling across all of this that "This is the music I've been waiting my whole life for." She doesn't get it, but that's okay. She's never been one for female vocals and I always have been. I lamented that the few real female rockers in the eighties got short shrift. I wanted to hear them let loose. Unfortunately I had to wait nearly another twenty to twenty five years to get what I wanted.

I've even discovered, much to my surprise, that I like the gothic "beauty and the beast" flavor of bands like Epica, After Forever, and other similar acts. I don't mind the "death grunts" if they're contrasted by the ethereal power and beauty of a prime female voice.

I think bands like these are poised to explode into America. It's just a matter of time. Evanescence was merely a hint of what was possible. Compared to bands like Flyleaf and Paramore, the gothic and symphonic metal bands from Europe are a veritable nuclear blast of intensity. These are musicians and composers at the top of their game, with female vocals ranging from the graceful to the truly amazing.

I added a link to last.fm to this post. My user name there is saje3d, my library featuring many of the bands I've mentioned, along with many others. Pay no particular attention to the number of plays, if shown, because I also rely on Grooveshark and Pandora to give me a full taste of the music I enjoy before buying it through either itunes or my emusic membership. And, yes, I buy the music I hear. I happen to think downloading music illegally (or anything else for that matter) is the act of a common thief. I use services like last.fm, grooveshark, and pandora to discover music. But I like to take it with me, which requires me to actually purchase it.

If any of this sounds at all interesting to you, go have a listen. Pay particular attention to Epica, After Forever, and Edenbridge... along with Within Temptation, Lunatica, Gwyllion, and Nightwish. If you like male vocals too, check out Kamelot, Falconer, Sonata Arctica, and Amorphis.

Go forth and be saved, my children. These bands are the worthy successors of such luminaries as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Queensryche, and Rush. This is the music I've waited my whole life to hear. How about you?

Downtime

2010-01-26T03:04:00.000-08:00

Sometimes the words just won’t flow. Concepts are there, but everything is building in the back of my skull and nothing I write does the idea justice. So in situations like these, I sit back, watch a little TV, and find some games to play. Thankfully the net is full of new free-to-play MMORPGs out there. I’ve tried several of them over the past few weeks and figured I’d put a little effort into writing a review of those that passed my first test—attracting my interest.

First thing—it can’t be pay-to-play. I refuse to get sucked into the WOW phenomenon. I played a few of the earlier versions of Warcraft and, while enjoyable, they lacked a certain something. Then a couple of years ago I picked up a copy of Guild Wars. If you’ve never played it, let me put it this way. It’s a great game. Visually stunning, with intuitive mechanics and User Interface, it’s something anyone can start playing almost immediately. And it’s a lot of fun. Sure, GW has its faults—it’s a bit tough for some folks to get used to the idea of only having access to 8 skills at a time, but since skills and attributes are always open to redistribution based on quest requirements, it tends to promote tactical thinking.

I like the fact that you can control the character with either the arrow keys or mouse clicks.

It does, of course, require the initial game purchase, but no more. One can buy more character slots and a few other items through the game store, as well as a few expansion packs, but none of this is necessary to enjoy the game to its fullest.

Okay… enough about GW. I’m waiting with great anticipation for the next installment—GW 2—but I’m hardly the only one. The makers have proven themselves to be very good at doing what they do so most of us are happy to let them take their time to produce a game worthy of being GW’s successor.

Next in line is Dungeons and Dragons Online… usually known by its abbreviation DDO. For one at all familiar with the universes of Dungeons and Dragons, DDO fulfills at least part of the requirements for a reasonably enjoyable MMORPG. There are aspects of the UI and mechanics I don’t care for, having been spoiled by the auto-attack features of such games as Neverwinter Nights and Guild Wars, but once one becomes accustomed to the interface it isn’t bad. Graphics are okay and the rules are fairly straight-forward for an old D&Der such as myself. I like the fact that you can climb and jump, but be careful—this also means you can fall. A lot.

Beyond that, of course, there’s a whole bunch more. I typed in Free online RPG and came up with TONS of them. So far I’ve tried only a few. Shaiya is similar to Guild Wars except not nearly as pretty. And the UI is rough. I tried it and didn’t like it much. What else can I say? Then I found a few more. Fate isn’t bad, if you like the simple 2D hack and slash. Me, I got tired of that stuff back with Icewind Dale. Neverwinter Nights more or less ruined me for anything 2D.

So I tried a few others. 4Story isn’t bad, but didn’t really catch my interest. I couldn’t even say why. The next game I tried was Perfect World International. Let me start by saying it’s really pretty. The UI isn’t bad, and it puts a lot of emphasis on jumping—you can even double jump, which gives you a rather Incredible-Hulk like feel for the territory you’re soaring over. Game mechanics… A lot of what seems like grinding. Kill, kill, kill… go back to base. A lot of time traveling here and there, killing, and then running back over ground you’d already covered. Which, it seems to me, is one of the biggest flaws of a lot of them. Even in GW one spends entirely too much time slogging through the same territory—mostly because you died trying to accomplish the mission and have to start from the beginning again… One of the things about PWI that’s amusing is the really bad English. You can make sense of it, but it’s obviously translated.

My newest discovery, and so far my favorite of all the free-to-play games, is Cabal Online. It seems like a smaller world than a lot of them, but that more cuts down on the slogging portion than anything else. The storyline is rather engaging, if also obviously translated into English from another language. It’s not as blatant as PWI, but there are subtle clues. It’s a little cartoony, but not too bad. The combat system and UI are easy to learn, though the skill mechanics are more complicated than one might be used to. Cabal is a 3D game, but there is NO climbing… At all. A little bump is all it takes to impede the character’s travel… slightly reminiscent of Neverwinter Nights, to be honest. If anything, I find this to be a bit of a flaw, but not a big one. Of all the free games so far, I’ve found it to be the most intriguing. Why? I think it’s the combat and skill system, honestly. It’s unique, and just complicated enough.

So all in all I’d recommend in this order… Guild Wars—if one is willing to put out the initial cash. It’s something I play on occasion even now, though I’m waiting with great anticipation for the 2.0 version. DDO, for the old D&D geek in me, and then Cabal Online. If you’re looking to wile away some time doing something that gives the illusion of accomplishment, any of these options will do. And face it… this is why we do this whole gaming thing anyway, right? For the illusion of accomplishment?

“Oooh! Another level! My character is a BADASS!”

Uh-huh. Be honest now.

So if you’re tempted to join any of these games, feel free to drop me a line and let me know. I might hook up with you. I don’t socialize in-game, generally, preferring to go my own way. I know, they’re MMOrpgs, but I don’t care. I just want to kill monsters as a stress relief. All that typing to chat—I can do that in IM for gawd’s sake. Besides, I haven’t figured out how to switch between the two modes in Cabal yet. And having to sign on and off just to do it is a pain in the ass.

As they used to say—“See you in the funny papers.” Or, in today’s version, “See you in the MMORPG.”

2010-01-26T02:13:00.000-08:00

And so much for Live Journal.
I know, I know. WTF did I even try that for? I liked the idea of Live Writer, where I could write my posts completely off-line and then upload them. And then I found out it didn't quite work out the way it was advertised. I know. Go figure, right? At least MS 7 seems to be doing what it's supposed to do.

Oh, yeah. You'll notice that this blog has existed since 2003 yet, miraculously, there are no posts before today. I deleted the two I wrote back in 03 because, well, they really no longer apply. My life is a lot different than it was back then. So...

Now what you can expect from this blog? Hard to say. If you follow me on Twitter, or befriend me on Facebook, you already know I'm an opinionated sort. My wife says I wasn't nearly as opinionated back in '03, but I think that's pretty damn unlikely. I was just less vocal about it. She's had a strengthening affect on me, for good or ill. You be the judge.

So here you're likely to encounter the occasional social commentary, political rant, news about my writing--or lack thereof--gripes about the day job, and that sort of thing. I don't censor my language, which is why I filed this under the "Adults Only" category. If I want to drop an 'F' bomb, I will. Consider yourself warned.

Speaking of warnings... a bit of politics here...

Also, I have no patience for Right Wingers, from the Ayn Rand "Free Market" nuts (as if there's any such thing), to the religious crazies looking for an excuse to practice and perfect their bigotry. Having religious sentiments is all fine and good, but don't expect me to alter my life choices because of your religious views.

I consider myself a Left Libertarian, which means I think the government should stay out the peoples' business as much as possible, but be all up in the corporations business. A citizen's choices may affect a handful of people, generally speaking, but a corporations can affect millions.

Especially now, considering the newest Stupreme Court ruling on the subject. We should all be up in their grills about now. Corporations are not people. They are artificial constructs that operate under license granted by the government of the People of these United States. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw loose.

And can we just toss out that "far left" bullshit the right has been spouting. That would be the communists and, last I checked, the communists had far less of an influence than the barking mad fascist right wing, especially given the fact that the press drags those assholes out to comment on just about everything these days. "Hey, let's get a convicted felon's opinion on that. Here's G. Gordon Liddy with some feedback."

Shit... why not just ask Charles Fucking Manson?

Okay... That's over. For this blog post anyway.

Today I picked the panels at Norwescon I was most interested in. And yes, that's a fucking preposition ending that fucking sentence. And, yes, fucking can be an adjective or an adverb in that context. Take your pick. Let's keep in mind that the whole "ending a sentence with a preposition" bullshit is a hold-over from languages in which it made sense because it screwed with the meaning of the sentence. In English it doesn't. 'Nuff said?

I pretty much chose those things that fit within the Urban Fantasy genre, with a few in Writing in general. That's where most of my interests lie--though I will be attending other things like the film-making discussions because that's my newest obsession. Along with my rediscovered love of photography. More on that later, given that I injured my shoulder getting some great shots and my wife will never let me forget it.

So, this is a taste of what my blog will be like. Welcome to the madness.