Never ceases to amaze me ...

... How people can condone graphic violence but yet find sex unacceptable. And I'm looking at you, Utah!

My argument has always been that our naked bodies and sexual activity are both very natural (as it turns out, sex is even mostly necessary). These things should not be considered shameful or "bad." Sex should be framed as adult activity that requires responsibility, but in that light it's not much different from driving a car. You get to do both at about the same age, too. That's no real coincidence.

Sure, sex can involve seamy things, but mostly these are violence and degradation. Between consenting adults, I can't think of much (outside of violence, etc.) that should bother anyone. But that's me. Sex does not pull us down a hole (heh) to the Dark Side. Trust me. I've been married twice, and I can say with certainty that sex with my wife (both of them, but not at the same time) does no harm to either of us. Frankly, it's quite enjoyable.

So what's the deal? I'd like to hear an argument from someone for why sex should be banned (as in the movie theater example cited here), but violence is OK. Violence is not OK, and we should shun it with all the vim and vigor with which we seem to shun sex. Well, at least some of us shun sex ... (don't look away, Utah, this post's for YOU!)

I'm going to say it, but many will disagree with me. It's all about control. Religion, that is. They talk about not loving violence, abhorring it, detesting it, etc., but that's only violence directed at them. If they can get you to wreak violence on some other group, in their name, well then, that's different. But it's not different.

I can watch violence in popular entertainment almost as well as most people. It's all made up--not real--so altogether it has less impact. But I'm an adult and I know the difference between reality and fantasy, and between right and wrong, as well. Our children don't know these things, though, and they get confused. Arguably, that's a good reason for carefully monitoring the amount of exposure they get to things sexual, as well, but we really don't have an equal standard, here, do we? Well, that's my assertion, anyway.

YMMV.

I missed it last night, but here it is

It's worth listening to, perhaps even if you don't support Obama. We really need an injection of hope, and not just dire warnings and fear-mongering. We all have things we fear, and these times are becoming more and more uncertain, daily. But the best medicine for fear is hope. Roosevelt (FDR) knew that, and he was a strong voice during two times of great uncertainty.

I'm not saying; I'm just saying ...

Hat tip to ERV.

When you believe, but don't know why you believe

I caught this gem on Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's a clip from Fox News interviewing "Joe the Plumber" about his "statement" that electing Obama would mean the death of Israel.

The man is nothing but a parrot spouting words he doesn't understand. He believes, or so he says, but has no clue at all why he believes.

Here are some logical steps one could take to get from "Obama agreed to meet with our enemies without preconditions" to "Obama will cause the death of Israel." First one must make some assumptions, based on lack of trust (or faith, if you're so inclined) in Obama. We'll say he meets with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and somehow caves in and agrees to something injurious to our interests. Seems unlikely to me, but OK, let's assume Obama is weak and ineffectual (all evidence to the contrary). Now Iran, emboldened by the American President's truckling (look it up) decides to declare open war on Israel. Of course the US, having previously made bad decisions and agreed to something stupid with Iran, decides to abandon many very long-standing agreements and partnerships, and trust, and such that we've had with Israel, now decides to sit idly by while Iran sweeps through the region and obliterates Israel.

Wow. Help me out, here, in understanding just how all these things would come to pass. They must really believe Obama is a secret terrorist traitor, or there's just no way we could get ourselves into this position. Of course, let's not forget the impeachment power (so very much under-utilized these days) of Congress. Would you think they would just stand by and do nothing? Where's the will of the American people? *sigh*

Joe is right about one thing: Everyone needs to go out and do their own research and find their own reasons for voting. And then do it. Vote. But I would suggest he reevaluate his "reasons" and employ just a little bit of critical thinking before he opens his dumbass mouth again. Moron.

And I agree: "Man, it gets frightening sometimes," is spot on. Idiocy, as demonstrated by McCain's poster child is frightening. I'm grateful there is at least one person in this race who is using their brain to do the thinking.

One more discrimination straw man

Yesterday I posted a long article addressing some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage, but left (at least) one out. So, in the interests of completeness, I hereby provide my take on the following:

"Being gay is a choice; we don't have to permit these people to choose"

In some respects I can't believe I didn't think of this when I was running down the list. But let's take a look.

First, I would assert that being gay isn't just something you choose. But that's just my belief, based on my experiences with friends and family members. Yeah, I know gay people. And there are also those who are, at heart, bisexual and capable of having relations with persons of either gender. But for the purposes of this straw man, we assume being gay is choice, and an invalid choice according to some.

I can think of many things that are choices, but it's difficult to fathom a choice that would cause such difficulty, engender such discrimination, and/or isolate and alienate the one making the choice. I may be willing to accept that one's sexual preferences are simple preferences, but how far would you go in order to ensure your choice is realized? Seems to me that if a gay man could simply choose not to be gay, then in public he would do just that. What he does in private is nobody's business. But, he doesn't choose that. In fact about 10% of us don't "choose" that. Gotta be a little more compelling than mere choice, if you ask me.

So, if choice is all there is, then the case for permitting same-sex marriage is weak. A scam, perhaps. Maybe that's what I thought before. I'm not sure; I really hadn't given it that much thought. And that's the basic problem.

Now for the second part of the argument, that of not having to legitimize the choice. Other than the "moral implications" that some see, I'm having a really hard time finding fault with choices in human sexuality that don't harm anyone. Pedophilia and the like are clearly harmful, as children are not capable of giving informed consent. But adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves. And should. I can think of many sex acts heterosexuals routinely perform with each other that wouldn't be allowed if some folks had their way. I mean, no one should ever tell me what I can and cannot do with my wife, who certainly consents to our actions. I'm not doing it out in public and stopping traffic, etc., so what's the deal? For me, and I may be thoroughly amoral from your perspective, I really can't see the essential difference between various sex acts, whether the persons involved have penises, vaginas, or some combination of the two. Your equipment is just an accident of how you're made. All you really need to do is find someone else with the kind of equipment you like, and that likes the equipment you have. Period. Everything else is mechanics.

So, since the choice is as legitimate as any other, I'm hard-pressed to deny someone the right to marry any other kind of human adult that they choose. It's not a moral decision; it's no longer a matter of the impact on me (since in some situations children are involved, and they trump everything else). What I mean to say, if we must allow same-sex parents to marry so their children are taken care of, then the issue of choice becomes irrelevant.

Now, my argument may be specious because I'm using something I argued previously as "proof" in my current argument. Begging the question, as it were. But I still would fall back on the idea that being gay is not really a matter of choice. You either are, or you're not. Everything else in between is a choice. I won't even get into multiple marriages. That's another argument for another time, and the decision there is probably just as surprising.

My last point about not permitting choice is a fundamental part of my beliefs. Obviously there are choices that are harmful to others. But even the notion of "harm" can be a matter of opinion. Some feel "liberals" (a choice of political philosophy) are harmful to the political health of the country. Others might feel the same way about conservatives. But we still do need both sides of the debate. Governing in a democracy should be a balance, a compromise between extremes. You need dark for light to be important. Because the acts we perform legally with our spouses don't appear to rip the fabric of society, I can't really see how having a spouse who happens to have the same equipment as me is any more damaging. Not harmful if I don't have to see actions I don't like. And that's a choice I can make that no one is trying to inhibit. No one.

Denying choice for what are harmless relationships between consenting adults is not a strong argument. There are just as many currently legal choices that are clearly much more harmful, yet no one is proposing to limit those. Call it what you like, legally enabling parental partnerships is essential. The law must be clear and non-discriminatory, which implies that if we allow marriage between people of the same sex for parental reasons, we have to allow it for any other reason (or no reason), as well, OR we must limit marriage between heterosexual couples for the exact same reasons. No discrimination can be permitted based on sex, race, or sexual preference. What's good for one is good for all--or for none.

While we're talking about discrimination ...

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted a video where every reference to "same-sex" was changed to "interracial" in an appeal against Prop 8 in California. For those of you who might be living under a rock, that's the amendment being proposed that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California. Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal. A bunch of folks, many NOT Californians, have decided to weigh in on this decision by supporting the amendment. Yes, it's stupidly framed, but voting "Yes" here means voting "No" for same-sex marriage. "Yes" means you are against it. Got that? (Me, either.)

Here's my background on this: Some time ago I was opposed to same-sex marriage because I felt it would be extending certain benefits under law in situations where they should not be applied. Yes, it was a very naive perspective. So I got educated. Turns out (to no one's surprise) that many same-sex couples have children. Perhaps they're from a previous heterosexual arrangement, or perhaps from some other arrangement. For me, I would want the children to be taken care of, and that means that both partners absolutely MUST have the same rights with respect to the kids. I don't care what their sexual orientation is, you just don't take children from their parents (or their families, if 'parents' is too restrictive a term for you), and you don't deny the rights of any parent to care for their children.

OK, here's the logic I had to use to get from A) no same-sex marriage, to B) same-sex marriage permitted. I'm going to construct some straw men just to knock them down.

"Marriage is only between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else."

Good one! But now we have to define procreation, because my wife isn't capable (anymore) of having children. And I knew that before I married her. Oh, and yes, I did marry her legally. Just ask the State of Ohio, County of Franklin. Procreation is the creation of more human beings. But beyond simply getting pregnant and having a rugrat or two, it's about providing for the optimal care of the younguns. It's about having help raising your kids. From your partner.

We can't decide that men and women can't marry each other if they don't intend to have kids. No one can predict the future, and even if you marry someone with the intent to raise a family, you can't then go back and declare them unmarried if they fail in that regard. Maybe men used to divorce their wives because those wives couldn't bear pups (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII), but these days that's not going to hold up. So clearly it's not practical to deny marriage between heterosexual couples on the arbitrary basis that they can't or won't have children. The law has to be permissive, here, because no one can predict the future. Case in point: I have a grandson. If something terrible happened to his parents, then I would want to be there to care for him. And so would my wife. Having us married means we both have the same necessary rights to provide the best care for him. He may not be blood-relation to me, but he is family. I'm his "grandpa."

"Same-sex marriage will force us to do things against our will/belief/etc."

Ah, this is a subtle argument that says churches will have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Bottom line, it's an argument that because someone doesn't happen to like same-sex couples, they don't want to be exposed to them, see them, talk to them, interact with them, etc. OK, fine. That's the exact same argument Christians use against atheists. They don't like them around, so they want them to just shut up and go away. "If you don't like America, then get the hell out." Of course, who gets to define what America really means? Is it you? (Methinks not.) Ironically, opponents of same-sex marriage frame this as a First Amendment argument, claiming same-sex marriage threatens their rights of free speech or freedom of religion or choice. Huh. Odd way to think of it.

Let's play a quick analogy game. Let's say a new religion is starting up, and has strange beliefs that many Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Wiccans) find offensive. Not too hard to do, under the circumstances. So, if we see people subscribing to this new religion, the established religions start saying that it's somehow going to force them to acquiesce to these strange beliefs, thus robbing them of their rights to have whatever church services they want. But that's absurd, isn't it? You can do whatever you want in YOUR church, including throwing people out who don't fit your idea of suitable church attendees. No one is going to force you to admit these strange folk, if you don't want them. And that even includes interracial wedding ceremonies, too. Don't want them? You don't have to have them. I really cannot see same-sex weddings being any different. If you don't want to host them, you won't have to. Just don't do it.

But let's attack the "I don't want them in my face" argument. I've heard this argument many times from Christians in reference to atheists. Leaving my beliefs out of it, for the moment, I want to substitute "bricklayers" for "atheists" and repose the argument. I don't like bricklayers. Damned filthy men standing on scaffolds all day, getting their hands in all that muck and goo. Carrying bricks up, mixing mortar. Disgusting! Can't we tell them to go somewhere else so we don't have to see their despicable, immoral behavior?

This is a pluralistic society. It has all kinds of people, and in fact it takes all kinds. You can't simply tell one part of us to go away and get out of your face. No matter how strongly you feel that you represent the One True Notion of what being American means. It's changing all the time.

OK, so this isn't about atheists, but about gays. Frankly, the arguments are identical in my mind. Some states are trying to pass laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Yeah, let's see them try to keep openly gay people from holding public office. It would decimate the Republican party, at the minimum. And easily do worse to the Democrats. Those damn Liberals! They're all gay!! (And I'm kidding, of course. But you get my point.)

As as matter of law we have no choice but to rule on the side of what's best for our kids. This means we cannot narrow the definition of marriage, even between a man and a woman. If we accept that there are children in same-sex partnerships, today, and we must because there are children in these families, then if we are honest and truly have our children's best interests in mind, then we have to allow same-sex couples to marry, under the legal definition of marriage. As I said above, we can't take these children away--that's inhuman and does not provide the best standard of care for them. Whether you think the "beliefs" of gays is best for kids, or not, you have to allow that followers of strange religions will also have kids and want to teach them in their own, strange ways. Just as you want to do. Being gay, of course, is not a "belief," it's who you are. Like being short.

All it takes here is a shift in perspective. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion, or the removal of personal freedoms to act and believe as we all, as Americans, want the freedom to act and believe. Bricklayers are people, too, and they deserve the same rights (if not the privileges) that everyone else has. Two Wiccans can marry and teach their kids to be tree-worshipers, and no one bats an eyelash (well, except in one famous case, but that was ridiculous). Personally, I worry about the utter nonsense that some Christians want to teach their children, because those beliefs run completely against my strong beliefs in rational thought--my belief in reality. We need more rational thinking, not less, but obviously I don't have the power to force them to do anything. I suppose that's a good thing.

We need to keep matters of law separate from matters of belief, because I don't want to have to be or believe a certain way, just because it's the law. Rather, the law must allow all of us to be and believe, and more than that, achieve our own persoanl versions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(I didn't put in a bunch of links to the things I mention, above. Do your own damn research if you care enough about it.)

When do they get to be adults?

The Last Psychiatrist has posted about a new program at Vanderbilt University that seeks to create a "special environment" (quotes mine) for freshmen. Read the article; it's not that long. OK, here's my question:

How long before we need to create a special sophomore environment to coddle the "new" second-years? When do we finally expose these students to the real world? To real life? To real, adult responsibilities?

All right, that was more than one question, but it does make me wonder.

When my mother was a freshman at Ohio State, she stayed in a freshmen women's dorm. OK, in 1951 that made sense because she had just turned 17, and was still a minor on anyone's calendar. And let's not forget the quaint notions of that bygone era that said young women needed to be protected and sheltered from men. Adult men, in particular.

When do we push children from the nest and make them responsible for themselves? Clearly, this shouldn't be attempted too early in their lives, because our kids really deserve a chance to be children, at least for a time. But as a child enters high school there should be a gradual movement toward more and more responsibility and self-reliance. Then when your young man or woman is ready to leave home and go to college (assuming that's what they do) they're already doing things mostly on their own recognizance. No special freshman cocoon necessary. Or wanted.

Once someone is able to vote and join the army, we should accord them all the responsibilities of adulthood. They may have problems from time to time, so we should be willing to help (when asked), but otherwise they deserve the chance to make or break it on their own. Maybe that's not always going to work because the world is becoming more complex and difficult (i.e., changing faster than our ability to adapt), but we still do have to ask: If not now, then when? For individuals this point should vary, but in general we need to decide: If 18 is the age of consent, then that's the point we should all be working toward to have our children prepared for adulthood. And the same goes for them, to be ready for it.

Voter fraud?

Here is the money quote from the article:

Our nation's economic foundation is crumbling like sand beneath our feet. Middle-class families are losing their jobs, homes, savings accounts and college funds.

Retirement nest eggs are fried to a crisp. Nine million children in America don't have health care coverage. We're fighting wars on more fronts than we can handle.

And John McCain is talking about ACORN?

The charge that ACORN is a front for an organized program of voter fraud is almost as silly as the charge that it's destroying democracy. I saw a TV ad against Obama claiming that his giving driver's licenses to "illegal" immigrants will create voter fraud by more than 3M people. Sounds like flaws in the systems that grant driver's licenses, something correctable, or maybe it's just racist hype.

A personal anecdote

Racism is alive and regrettably well in my own neighborhood. My wife is Hispanic. Puerto Rican, to be exact. All Puerto Ricans are Americans, but since she was born in Manhattan--New York, NY--that point is moot.

A few years ago the homeowner's association in my complex circulated a petition to prohibit owners from a) selling to corporations, and b) renting their units to others (i.e., becoming non-resident landlords). Sounded suspicious to me. The main reason, I was eventually told, was to keep the neighborhood from becoming a jungle of corporate-owned rental units whose tenants had no vested interest in maintaining the property values. The argument was that having slobs living in the neighborhood would drive down property values. And by slobs they meant ...

Well, I objected to that idea mainly because I feel that anyone who can afford the rent on a unit in my complex, should be quite responsible enough. But that's not what turned me off. OK. Wait for it ...

The old woman who came to my door initially knew my cohabitor was Hispanic. Yet she was stupid enough to tell me to my face that their petition was "to keep the Mexicans out." I shit you not.

If you think Mexicans shouldn't be living in your neighborhood because they're dark, short, drive funky cars, have lots of children and eat funny food, then that's your business. Perhaps you can see, though, why I took exception to her statement. Her slam wasn't against Mexicans--it was against all Hispanics. And, oh by the way, against me as well.

So, that's my story of racism in the polite sections of town. I refused to sign the petition, but the bastards passed it anyway. If I cared I'm pretty sure it could be shown to be unenforceable, but I plan to live in my home, so it's not an issue for me.

I won't change racist attitudes single handedly. I simply choose not to add to the problem.

So what does this have to do with ACORN and charges of voter fraud? One word: Disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities. OK, more than one word, but you get the idea. Make them scared to vote as American citizens, claiming they will be arrested when they try. In this day and age I want to see everyone participating. The last 225 years' rule of the white and the rich (and the Christian) hasn't worked out all that well. Let's see what we can do with a slightly different perspective. Bring em on. America was designed to change--to evolve. It doesn't look anything today like what our founding fathers saw; in the future it won't look anything like what's here today, either. Frankly, I'd like to see the first Muslim (or even atheist) candidate for President, because that accomplishment signals something much more important than simply religion or race--it signals a desire to choose the best person for the job.

Remember they said JFK would turn the US into a papal state? How ridiculous does that seem, today? I'll bet you didn't even know he was Catholic, did you?

One more attempt to scare the rubes about Obama ...

At the risk of over generalizing, the woman in Pittsburgh who claimed a tall black man attacked her because she is a McCain supporter, and LIED ABOUT IT (making sure you can see this, cause, you know, rednecks can't read too good) is pretty typical of the whole approach of the Republican party. The lies keep getting bigger, and scarier, and more and more driving toward those buttons of distrust and hate that seems to underlie many poor, ignorant Americans.

Come on, give it a rest. This doesn't fool Obama supporters, and it won't fool the five people left in this country who haven't decided yet, either.

Let's do this thing, people

PZ Myers is controversial for many reasons, but he does have an argument about the election that I've been trying to make (and not quite succeeding).

... None of our candidates are perfect; there's a lot I personally dislike about Barack Obama, for instance. What we have to do on 4 November, though, is balance our concerns about the issues in the election, and perhaps follow a harm reduction model of politics — let's try to get a candidate in office who at least moves the government in a better direction. I think we all know what that means, and the choice is clear: despite his flaws, we need to put Barack Obama in office. Let's make the country better. Not perfect, but better.

There are two choices this November. Many might view this election as the lesser of two evils, hence why some support McCain. For them a black man with a strange, foreign-sounding name is waaaayy too scary, so they'll vote for the doddering, scary, blinking man with the fundy YEC running mate. Yeow.

Sady, there is a lot at stake, this time. More, I think, than any one of us can possibly fathom. So let's make this count. I want my president to be the smartest person in the room, and a damn good public speaker, too. Communication is essential, and a well-reasoned approach to governing has been distinctly lacking of late, and so very, very sorely needed. No "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" for me, or "drill, baby, drill," either.

"Constitution Free Zones"

I found this via Ars Technica. Betcha didn't know DHS could just search you anytime they want. No warrant, no reason, no restraint. I live in Columbus, Ohio, and I would never have thought we were "close" to a border. But of course, we are.

Thanks Bushies, you did more to harm our freedom and democracy than the terrorists ever could.

When they start breaking down doors, just remember I told you so.

It's rank politics, but the numbers are interesting

I just ran the numbers for Obama's proposed tax cut vs McCain's proposed tax cut.

Believe them, or don't believe them. Mine was more than $1000 (Obama) vs $0 (McCain). I ran the numbers for a friend who I'm sure will vote for McCain, and his cut was the same as mine, and he has 3 kids. Of course, I'm pretty sure he's not sure he's paying as much income tax as I am, because of his kids, and because his wife is not employed outside the home.

Honestly, I'll believe it when I see it, but lower taxes aren't the reason I support Obama.

The impact of choices made (or not made)

From The Last Psychiatrist I came across this recent post. He couches his post in terms of the recent economic implosion, and the effects that getting out of the market would have had on your investments, had you gotten out of the market during the five biggest days of each year. Instead of making an annualized return of 7% (which he says sucks), you'd almost be even money (worse suckage). Truly there are key, crucial points in time (i.e., decision points) that have unknown, significant long-term effects on us. Pro and con.

Then he goes on to talk about those points in time that, one way or the other, have had the most significant impact on ourselves. And I'm all like ... wow, that's sooooo like ... spooky. Because I just posted an article where I talk about a personal realization I've recently had, and about a story I'm writing, and they both involve choices made and circumstances, and ... well, you get the idea.

I have one very vivid "regret" about a choice not made at a certain point in my life, but if I can predict how that would have turned out, I think I made the best decision. Yeah, I wanted to tell a woman I was in love with her, and I didn't. Actually, I think it's better as fodder for another story. I put the word "regret" in quotes, above, because while it plays in my mind as a "what if I had told her ..." kind of thing. I think things have turned out and are evolving in pretty good, interesting ways today. Meaning, I don't at all regret the choices I have made.

I'm so glad I had the judgment and determination to follow through with my intuition. As I've told my wife, the good things that have happened are the direct result of good decisions we've made, and I give myself full credit for believing in my own good judgment and following through. We're on a path that was set in motion some time ago, and our successes are not completely by accident. Or by luck, either. We are making our own "luck."

But regardless, there are all those years I "wasted" by not focusing on the things that, not only was I good at, but that would have provided me truly significant personal satisfaction. And of course, I'm speaking of writing. Like I said: spooky-ish. But not really.

I have a personal philosophy not to spend time worrying about the past. I'm smart enough to realize I can't change the past, only learn from it, and once I've learned what I am able, to move on. I know I can affect the present, and plan for the future. Not every bad/missed decision turns out badly; most are just different. Who's to say what alternatives would have been better or worse? And I am not just rationalizing away my choices. Truth is, we have to live with the way things are--what is--and not what isn't or what could have been.

Except in fiction, but that's a post for another time. (Heh.)

Taking a break, and developing a new idea

I determined I was becoming jaded and depressed while trying to finish my "latest" story, A Far Sun. I needed to take a break and get away from the story awhile, so I did. I am.

I began looking through some other writing projects I had. (And you know A Far Sun is/was one of those projects began long ago and never finished, until now. Well, it's almost finished.) I found some pages I'd originally written back in 1993/94, originally about the inevitable divide that would be caused between the have Nets and the not have Nets. Yeah, the premise was that the Internet would create a bigger social/cultural divide than what we have, today. Cheap PCs and the Woolly Wild Web have allowed even idiots to get on-line.

The problem is the story was based on what we thought back then about the interwebs. A lot of stuff has happened in the intervening 15 years, so the original premise is no longer valid. Or interesting. Can't undo history, as it turns out. But don't you know I can rework the premise, keep the characters and the opening scenes, and make it into a different story, a better story with all kinds of twists and surprises!

So that's what I'm doing. I'm developing another story. I don't have a good/final title for it, yet, but the old title "Rider on the Storm" isn't too bad as a working title. This story will be short, as in about 25K words. (All right, I know I suck at predicting story length, but really, you have to trust me, here. It has to be short, or I won't be able to finish it in time. In time for what? Dunno.)

Last night I read the story (i.e., what I have so far) out loud to my wife, just to test it and get her initial reaction. Yeah, she was pretty confused, which really means TOTAL FREAKING SUCCESS!!11!!eleventy!11! It's supposed to be really unobvious what it's about. That's most of the final punchline. The reader can't find out what's really happening until the end. That I know what's going on and that it all makes sense ... well, that's a good thing, I think. Heh.

I don't want to give it away, but it's a SciFi love story. Oh, and it sorta involves time travel. Heh. Believe me, I'm lovin' this idea, cause it has all the elements I really like in a story: love interest/romance, alternate worlds, interesting/unusual ideas. Science fiction essentially asks the question "what if ..." then provides some sort of answer to that question. Musings for the thinking geek.

I'm going to whip through the first draft pretty quickly. I'm already past 9K words, which is a little past 1/3 of the way. (Or almost half.) Yep. Seems just about right. I know what major scenes/events are going to happen, and I know most of what needs to occur to bring about the ending. The only thing I haven't figured out, quite, is how my male main character will save the day at the end. He has to do something to allow the story to end; I just don't yet know what that will be. *sigh* (But I think it has something to do with the transcendence of one's memory. Can't say more, though.)

On a final note: Writing this story tells me I can take an idea--any idea--and blow it up into a story. I'm a good story teller, and I enjoy making things up to relate to my readers. I'm funny, punny, clever, and I know how to put a button on a scene. The only mystery is why it took me (more than) 50 years to come to this realization. All I can say to that is: better late than never.

I think this story will be submitted to EscapePod. I mean, why not? (Except that it's too long, based on the submission guidelines. I will work on making it work.)

Now I know what they mean when they say "Today is the first day of the rest of your life."

If you're thinking of committing suicide ...

On the bridge, Baldwin counted to ten and stayed frozen. He counted to ten again, then vaulted over. "I still see my hands coming off the railing," he said. As he crossed the chord in flight, Baldwin recalls, "I instantly realized that everything in my life that I'd thought was unfixable was totally fixable--except for having just jumped."

I found this article discussing the building of a net on the Golden Gate Bridge. This quote is from a man who jumped off the bridge and survived. I think his words say it all. Hang in there, things will look better, later. You just have to survive, right now.

Reminds me of the old AA saying (I think it's from Alcoholics Anonymous): "You just have to not drink right now." Take each "right now" independently, and face each moment on its own. Eventually you will be OK. Trust me.

The most awesome pictures of the sun you will see today

Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog linked to the Boston Globe page showing pictures of the sun.

Go there. Be amazed.

I mean ... dude ... like WOW!

What's the best defense?

Obviously, it's going on the offensive, even if totally wrong.

I remember John Lewis from my years living in Atlanta. He is a very respectable man, and if he calls out the McCain campaign then you should pay attention. It doesn't matter he's a black man, his commentary isn't racially motivated. He isn't calling McCain supporters racist -- he doesn't have to, because their own words speak volumes.

I understand McCain's rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. Obama isn't the anti-christ they make him out to be, and neither is McCain evil (despite his tactics). Both men can do the job, it's just a question of who you think best represents your interests.

But to many of the people who are attending these rallies, they are so fearful -- outright scared -- what McCain has done is associate that fear to a person: Obama. He's the one they should blame, not the current administration. He's convinced them that if Obama is elected the world will end. While some of us know that's not literally true (i.e., it's just campaign rhetoric) many people aren't as skilled at critical thinking. They tend to believe what they're told, especially if their favorite politician is telling them.

Of course they would see Obama as a Muslin, a terrorist, a socialist (or communist, take your pick). He's going to eat their babies and make them stand in long lines to see a doctor. Of course, I'm exaggerating about that long lines thing. Heh.

The rhetoric is intended to energize the base, and it has worked. All anyone is saying is to recognize when you've gone far enough, and stop lathering up the crowd. If you don't, then pretty soon they'll become a mob and do something bad. After that, everyone loses.

Some apparent holes in John McCain's healthcare proposal

I admit I'm not an expert on the problem. It's very often hard to see the agenda hidden in various politicians' proposals, but if one starts with the assumption that McCain's big contribution to the 21st century is "deregulation," then his health care proposal is spot-on.

The mistake many Republicans make is in thinking everyone is the same kind of money-grubbing rank capitalist that they are. Fuck the little guy, in other words. Well, fuck the granola idiots in California, at least.

We need to realign the health care industry. Eliminate such anomalies as California in favor of a much more level playing field. But a "level playing field" for whom? A realignment according to McCain's plan would signal a drop in coverages for lots of people, but with the ability to shop the best plans, some others would no doubt benefit. Do the changes offset each other? It's hard to say. A single-payer system has the same, or similar problems.

Everyone is running around with their hair on fire predicting doom and gloom if such-and-so is elected to the White House. It's on both sides. I'm a little more pragmatic about it. Neither candidate is without problems, and any President's plan is subject to the approval of Congress. While the House is currently Democrat by a margin, it's not enough. We're in for some interesting times, no matter who wins.

Policy does start at the top, so I'm basing my vote (partly) on whose policy I would rather have. Your mileage may vary.

And I'm not the only one ...

The AFL-CIO denounces McCain-Palin tactics:

In a world where unspeakable violence is too often promulgated by extremists, it is no small or trivial matter to call someone a terrorist -- or to incite potentially dangerous individuals toward violence ...

Let's all just calm down, and on election day vote for the ticket we think represents our best interests.

Fear and ignorance

Ignorance and fear.

If that's all you've got to sell, it's truly a sad day. Check out this video. Half these people are simply parroting what they've been told, and have exactly zero skill in critical thought. The other half are just racists. I mean, seriously. "Do you think Obama is a terrorist?" "Could be." Dude, WTF?

This does not make me proud to be an American, where so-called "good" Americans are calling a presidential candidate a terrorist. But consider this: if any one of them decides to take action and use a gun or a bomb to "rectify the situation," then they are terrorists.

What happened to respect? What happened to tolerance? What happened to the level of debate in this country? Totally lacking. The people interviewed in the video have been whipped into a frenzy by the McCain-Palin campaign, which now prompts me to ask: are these the kinds of people we want running this country? Not my country.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves, but I know you're not. Fucking sleazebags. Add one more reason I cannot vote for McCain. He's a racist, and so is his running mate.

A slight clarification

In my previous post I may have created the impression I thought Bush and company were "tax and spend" wild-eyed liberals. That's incorrect. They are responsible for only half of the current cluster fuck--the spend part. The taxes needed to pay for these sins will be borne by our children and grandchildren.

Thanks, George, from my 18 month old grandson. He isn't very eloquent, yet, but he does know how to say "uh-oh." From him it's cute. Trust me, from politicians it's simply sad.

I lied ... one more political posting

Andrew Sullivan, notoriously unhappy with Palin as VP candidate (with which I agree), posted this YouTube video.

I am not against John McCain. But he is hugely hamstrung by the turmoil within his own party. I want a real conservative--I should say a real fiscal conservative--to run for president. I am not worried Obama will "tax and spend" us into oblivion. It's too late for that.

We're already there, and Bush is the guy I'd impeach. (For that and any number of other sins, up to but not including his rank mediocrity. That's the fault of all the stupid uninformed and short-sighted voters in the country who voted for him.)

Fuck you very much.

P.S. I may choose to post more of these rants once martial law is declared, and the election is "postponed."

My final post on the presidental election

I've decided for whom I will vote. This only documents my reasons. And they're possibly not what you think.

But first, some background on my politics. My family is notoriously liberal Democrat. So, I suppose, am I, but I am very conservative on fiscal matters. I pay my bills. I watch my credit card spending, though I am in a little more debt than I am comfortable being. I like my gadgets and my technology. Too much.

Where I am definitely biased liberally, is on the value of social services. Education in particular. For my money (and it is) we really must focus on improving and maintaining the quality of public education. For everyone in this country. Education is the greatest equalizer. Just ask India. Just ask China. We can compete, we just need to teach our children well. Better, if we can.

I also see benefit in other types of public assistance, even if no one in my family depends on them. I am not naive enough to think they are, or will be 100% effective. There will be abuses and missed opportunities, but that's not enough reason to simply abandon programs. The poorest Americans need help, and we are obligated to provide that help. Just because we can.

But along with everything the government must collect and allocate money to, we need to be intelligent about our budgeting. We cannot intentionally continue spending when the money isn't coming in. National defense is important, but so is education. I would argue that if we educate ourselves well enough, we will need less defense, but that's not my call. America must get its spending under control.

On to the presidential election.

I am not against John McCain. I was very interested in him back in 2000, because I thought he represented as good an alternative as Al Gore, the presumptive Democrat candidate. In retrospect I think Al Gore would have made an excellent president, but in 8 years as VP he hadn't yet made the right kind of impression on me. Now there's no question he's the most qualified man for the job. Why? Because he gets it. But this is not about him. Why not John McCain?

McCain is older, and in even less control of himself and his emotions than he was, before. He's too irascible, too volatile, too politically motivated. He truckled under to the Bush political machine, and has been giving Bush handjobs for too long. Rebel? Not that I can see.

McCain should have chosen Joe Lieberman for VP. Or Hillary Clinton, even. His current choice is unconscionable, and dangerous. I cannot risk Palin becoming president, so sorry, John, you don't get my vote.

But, what about Obama? He is largely untested, but he's anything but lacking in leadership or intelligence. I recently read criticism against him from someone who claimed that his ability to keep his cool was indication of his lack of both intelligence and leadership. Seems they're seeing only what they want to see. He really cannot afford to lose his cool in this race. It's one very obvious way of distinguishing himself from McCain. I do not want my president losing his cool when the next 9/11-style attack comes, and rushing off to bomb Iran. And John, I'm looking at you, here.

I am disappointed that Obama is high on platitudes but low on details. McCain has much more in terms of substance, and this is a point in his favor. McCain has also been around a long time, also a good thing. But, unlike one pundit who commented "McCain has been around 25 years, and Keating is the only scandal you can come up with?", the lack of controversy in McCain's tenure doesn't quite fit his "maverick" persona. Maybe he is ethical and honest, and the sleazy ones leave him alone. I think the same thing is characteristic of Obama, as well. Ayers is not a scandal for Obama. Ayers isn't a scandal to himself, either. He's a frigging college professor, for pete's sake.

I'm probably where a lot of people are mired. I can only vote against someone, and not for someone. The same was true in both the past elections, when I did not vote for Bush. Kerry missed some opportunities to take to task the sleaze-meisters behind Bush, and therefore lent credence to their specious claims. Obama isn't making that mistake; he's taking the offensive, and that's as it should be.

My history of voting isn't very auspicious. I have notoriously voted for candidates that lost, and I have wasted my share of votes by voting for candidates that had no chance of winning. This time around I have to vote for the candidate that I fear the least, and whom I believe will do things in the best interests of the bulk of Americans. And not just for the wealthy. As Obama says, trickle-down hasn't worked. Shit, it never worked, even when Reagan (who is being hailed as a great man?!?) said it back in ... I dunno, 1980, or so.

No. Any time you give more money to the wealthy, they just get wealthier. Now, maybe they deserve the great wealth they have, but it's because they are wealthy that we can expect them to pay their fair share of the bill. Buffett agrees; he's not griping about the taxes he has to pay. Frankly, I'm not, either. I just want it spent on things other than getting our soldiers killed in Iraq. Yes, my stepson is still in Iraq, and his mother wants him to come home.

Who is the most likely candidate to bring them home? Obama, and that's for whom I'm voting.

Some observations on dialog in my story A Far Sun

In listening to the podcast Writing Excuses, episode 35, this morning (don't tell anyone!), I was moved to do a little research into "said bookisms" and "Tom Swifties." These resources led me to some tips on writing dialog, which I want to discuss, here.

Learn how people talk to each other. Dialog should convey the person's intelligence/education, culture, and personality, without being too distracting. One thing I've struggled with continually is "translating" into English the conversations native sun-skin speakers have, in sun-skin. They would have excellent command of their own language, but if the English words I use are not typical for most native English speakers ... that is, if I have made them sound too educated, with large vocabularies, or worse (and more commonly) made them sound pompous or posturing ... well, you get the idea.

Furthermore, there are some words and concepts lacking in the sun-skin language, that if left out would make the English translation sound very odd or broken. And vice versa. My approach has been to insert the English words and constructions, even if the actual words the speakers use are different.

Dialog is not exactly like real speech, but it should read like real speech. Except that I intend my dialog to be spoken aloud in a podcast. Regardless, I take it into account. So, when my characters talk they need to sound good out loud as well as when read. In constructing the novel, later, I will probably recast everything to be read, and not spoken.

I do have a really bad habit of inserting ... ellipses to indicate pauses into my characters' spoken dialog. I use ellipses in place of "uh" and "ah" (though I do use "ah" as an interjection, like one would say "uh-huh" instead of "yes") Yeah, my ellipsis is just a long, long comma (with a silent "uh" in the middle). And I do use full stops, sometimes, in place of commas, just to put pauses where I think they belong.

I could write a complete post discussing comma use alone, since I've waffled on this idea quite a bit. My current rule is to put a comma where I want one when I'm reading the story aloud. If it was only to be read, I would use far fewer commas. Such as in the previous sentence, where I would not have used the comma unless I wanted it to read better aloud. After a while it becomes habit to put in commas to break up the words into speakable chunks. Otherwise I tend to get tripped up when reading it, and that's a bad thing. If I can't speak my own writing without stumbling, then there's something wrong with the writing.

Cut words and phrases that don't serve the conversation's purpose. As I'm writing the story, I read everything aloud, mainly because it will be read aloud. I pay special attention to things that don't sound right, except that I have not (yet) translated every conversation in sun-skin into the actual sun-skin language. Many of them are, and it occasionally causes me to modify the English to more closely match the actual sun-skin. That's right, I have invented a language (the sun-skin language) and can arbitrarily translate anything into it. Of course I need to invent words, but I have a grammar and a syntax, and even some colloquial expressions.

Beyond the language, I try not to have any gratuitous conversations. Every one of them serves at least two purposes. Usually it's character development (or character relationship development), plot development, and/or exposition. Having something of all three is better, of course. I don't have a character talk about sun-skin culture or philosophy just to talk about these things. It has to come out in the course of discussing something else more important to the story. I never have two characters talk about things they already know. That's bad. It's the "show, don't tell" method.

Don't try to provide too much information at once through dialog. No monologues, in other words. I have only one place where a character does this, and it's wonderfully relevant to the story. He spends an entire chapter talking, because he's telling my heroes the history of how he got there, and what happened along the way. I just chose to make it into a first-person passage in a third-person narrative. He even answers implicit questions that my heroes are asking, though I have left out the actual questions. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but when you read it it will make sense.

Break up dialog with action. I do this. I rarely have more than two or three lines before interspersing some kind of action. People don't just stand still and talk. They move, they shrug, they frown, smile, pick things up, and perform all manner of non-essential things indicating their current mood.

Don't try too hard to vary your tag lines when writing dialog. Maybe I do too much of this. A tag line is the "he said" thing used to identify who is speaking. My only concession to the "Adam says" tag line is to simply eliminate the "says" part (since I am writing in present tense). So, when needed, I say:

Adam, "Are you sure you want to do that?"
Jane replies, "What do you mean?" Grins, "Of course I want to nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

The jury is still out on this, because I get very tired of always saying "Adam says," or "says Jane." When I only use the character's name, it seems more like I'm reading a play (which of course, it is, somewhat). What's a boy to do?

Avoid stereotypes, especially when it comes to dialect. My concession to this is the unknown stereotype of the native sun-skin speaker, who when speaking English would not use the word "the" (sun-skin has no definite article) except in special cases. They also don't use contractions. I shy away from most slang or colloquialisms for my native English speakers, except for the occasional "gonna" and "sorta" and "kinda" kinda thing. Heh.

Don't overuse profanity and slang when writing dialog. I hardly have any profanity. My story is for a PG audience, so I only use the occasional "damn" or even "shit." Actually, I think I took out all the expletives. I don't remember. But suffice it to say: I don't use profanity out of respect for my younger audience. Of course, adults tend to slip when they're angry. That said, my natural tendency is to write for adults, so I am quite conscious of the language my characters use.

Slang? I covered that, above. Also, I have to be aware my characters would not say things the way we would say them, today. They left their world in 1979, so they really wouldn't be "all over that." You know? It's been a long time, and I'm no longer hip with 1979 lingo. I mean, I hardly remember the late 1970's, but not for the reasons you're thinking.

Read widely, noting both good and bad dialog. This is very generic advice. It means "know your craft" and understand the difference between cheesy dialog and good dialog. I think I recognize cheese rather well. I guess I don't read too many bad books (anymore), but bad movie dialog ... Oy!

Punctuate dialog correctly. Yeah. This is the one that says put the period inside the final double quote, among other things. The only concession I make to this is in sun-skin speech. I use the double angle quote «I do not believe so» and place no punctuation before the speech, or at the end of the speech. Now, if there's a needed comma or period inside the quote, then it absolutely needs to be there. For timing reasons. I decided not to invent special punctuation for the language, especially since it's not even a written language--their history is entirely (or almost entirely) an oral history. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Of course one can break all the rules when writing, but you absolutely must know what they are, first. You need to demonstrate you understand the difference between being ignorant and only sounding ignorant. Deconstructionism is all well and good, as long as it has structure.

Go forth and conquer. Be fruitful and multiply. Live long and prosper. So sayeth the shepherd, so sayeth the flock. Now go get the flock out of here.

I see a website update in my future

It's been months since I updated my website. I discovered, in the process of re-hosting it to a new hosting service, that some pages are out-of-date and (now) inaccurate. The "About Me" page says I'm in an LTR (long-term relationship), which is technically accurate. However, since I've married the girl in question, perhaps I ought to update the page. Among others.

In other news, designing houses is no longer my current hobby. I've been writing a freaking novel for the past year, or so, and that little endeavor is taking all my spare time. And then some time that isn't quite so "spare." I think I will return to do more designs, some day in the next year or two (along with an upgrade to the CAD software, as well), but for now I'm writing, and having a damn good time doing it.

No, writing really isn't my hobby; it's the job I wish I had.

Lumpenprogrammers

This humorous article on the three types of computer programmers exposes a rather nasty denizen of most corporate IT shops: the slug. That he calls them "lumpenprogrammers" matters not.

Of the other two, the hippie and nerd programmer ... well, these guys do all the real work. I'm more hippie than nerd (not just because I know women), but I like to stick around to see the thing actually finished and working.

But with respect to the slugs--where would we be without them? Someone has to man the overnight support desk. Someone has to be release-night drone, code-mover ordinaire. These are the folks who wouldn't work in technology if there weren't these jobs available to them.

But can you tell I don't have much respect for them?

What's happening with A Far Sun?

September was "exciting" from the perspective that my former web hosting service was down about half the month. I have since transferred my main web site (rlaenterprises.net) to a new hosting service, DreamHost.com. They are many times better than the old one. I have been trying to transfer my story domain, afarsun.com over to my name so I can re-point it to my new web hosting service, but so far they haven't seen fit to respond to my correspondence. I may try contacting them via phone, today.

So, I have purchased a new domain name for my story, afarsun.net, and have put up the content, such as it is. At the same time I updated the pages, and even added a few. That's right, both domains are active, but not in the same place. When the transfer is complete, I will have both afarsun.com and afarsun.net point to the same place. Should be fun.

I'm in the last third of act III of my story, A Far Sun. Things are starting to pick up, both in terms of action and suspense. Revelations are abounding for my heroes. They learn something new at every turn. Allies and enemies are coming together to set in motion the events that will lead to the very exciting conclusion. And yes, it's the same conclusion I've been planning since I first envisioned it back in January. As I said, it should be fun.