I’ve explained about why I stopped writing here, and all the same reasons apply to the novel.

One thing about when I stop writing something and later pick it back up, is I’ll re-read the first drafts of the first few chapters and often, because I’m not in the same mental “place” anymore, the writing will no longer be acceptable to me.  I just throw up my hands and toss out the old work and start all over again, or often, ditch the project entirely since I become so disheartened by my previous work.  I’m the worst critic of my own writing, and I doubt that will EVER change– at least until I actually get something published, then I fully expect my work to be deconstructed and destroyed by far better writers.

If what I write gets enough notability, I’d hope for an exceedingly detailed entry on TV Tropes, too– a site I love and hate for its ability to suck me in for hours and hours, decimating productivity with its loving breakdown of writing devices and conventions which compose most works.  If you click that link, by the way, don’t blame me for your own loss of productivity.  However, my reading of TV Tropes has certainly provided me with a great deal of fuel for plot ideas– and no, not necessarily by straight up copying of them; I much prefer aversions, inversions, parodies and subversions.  Indeed, after visiting the site to get the link to the front page to add to this entry, I spent 10 minutes reading tropes instead of writing this thing.  TV Tropes rocks and is a must-read for anyone who loves the study of writing conventions.

Anyway, in my attempt to pick up where I left off in writing, I re-read what I’d written, and I experienced something altogether new to me:

I liked what I’d written, and I don’t feel any need to change it right now, except maybe in minor ways to be done down the road.

It was astonishing.  So, now I’m trying to get myself in the right mindset to write this thing– but I’m finding it hard.  So, I’m doing various things I do before I write a new story to get myself into it.  For one thing, I’m looking again at the direction I’m wanting to take the story– and I’m becoming far more interested in taking the book in a different direction than what one would expect from the style I’ve taken in the first few chapters.  Secondly, I’m concentrating on developing the settings more– the idea for the story came to me from a dream I had, so I’m looking at my dream notes that spawned this story.  I’m paying particular interest in the high school the main character will be transferring into, since its striking visual-architectural style is what made the dream so memorable.  Finally, I’m working on looking at what makes this character different from me, rather than at the similarities I’ve drawn from.

In any case, I am back to working on the story, but I’m going to need a bit of time before I can put my fingers to the keyboard in order to actually tap out the concept.  And yeah, if you’ve been pre-reading my stuff, I’ll probably poke at you soon to read some more once I do get some more done, though I am warning that I do not hesitate to do a massive genre shift at any moment.  So, consider yourself fairly warned.

One of my personal favorite comedic films out there, “Defending Your Life”, came out back in 1991.  Right now, it’s available on NetFlix’s Instant Watching thing, and if you have NetFlix and you’ve never seen it– or if you haven’t seen it in a long time– I recommend watching it well before reading this article, since I will be discussing the plot and ending.  I REPEAT: WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST BECAUSE I’M GOING TO SPOIL THE (SOMEWHAT OBVIOUS) ENDING. This article is essentially going to discuss the film, its themes, and stuff I really wish could’ve been expanded on.

Also, I should warn anyone who wants to read this, that I’m going to be doing some over-thinking of many elements of the film (some of which I already know from a writing and film study standpoint are done for purely thematic or narrative reasons).  It’s all in good fun, and it’s really just for the heck of thinking deeply and writing intensively on the topic of a film that I thoroughly enjoyed and love.  I couldn’t write this much stuff about a film I hate– I just couldn’t watch it as much to tread the topic as much as I do here.

Alright.  Anyway, the basic plot of the film is that Albert Brooks plays an Advertising guy named Daniel who, after picking up his brand-new BMW from the dealership, crashes into a bus while distracted from driving.  This happens within the first six minutes of the film– which is a great thing, because admittedly, the best stuff in this movie happens after he dies.  Regardless, as soon as he hits the bus, we see him in a wheelchair being whisked through some kind of transit terminal by various Nurse-like people dressed in scrubs.

The visual design of the transit terminal is shockingly minimalist– which while providing a rather generic and sterile introduction to this new plane of existence, leaves you wanting to know more about what lies beyond those doors he comes out of– do they just appear there where these nurses are sitting to wait to pick people up in wheelchairs?  The “transformation” from your life on Earth to this new place is assumed to be instantaneous and rather abrupt, as well as something that leaves one in shock.  Since I have a bit of an interest in organizational policy and bureaucratic procedure, I’m left wishing I knew more about the details of how this whole facility operates; but alas, we’re out of the transit hub in less than a minute, courtesy of the clockwork precision of the people working there.

He gets put in a tram car traveling from the transit hub to Judgment City, a serene and seemingly perfect purgatory city.  Still in a kind of shock state from the “journey”/”transformation” that brought him to this place, he blankly views the advertisements for various places around town as the tour guide gives instructions.  He’s brought to a hotel and allowed to rest, before waking and receiving a call from his defense lawyer Bob Diamond played by Rip Torn.  He explains to Daniel that he is here to “defend” his life, and makes arrangements for them to meet.  Daniel goes to get breakfast, where the food is absolutely perfect and he’s physically capable of eating as much as he wishes without gaining a pound, but he is interrupted by a hotel employee who whisks him back onto a tram to meet Bob in person.

This is an interesting part of the film as it slowly begins to establish the setting for the rest of the film– the pristine city built around the idea of “servicing half the United States dead”.  Essentially, the whole purpose of Judgment City is to process the multitudes of people from the Western (we are to assume) United States who die each year.  This part of the film introduces a whole class of people, however, whose reasons for serving those going through the process of defending their lives are left unexplained.  We get a small piece of this puzzle in the next part, but it’s never fully discussed.

Daniel’s lawyer, Bob, explains at their meeting, that Daniel is not in heaven, and that there is no hell.  Bob explains that when an individual is born into the universe, everyone has many different lifetimes and at the end of each lifetime, there is a period where ones life is examined.  At the end of this examination period, it is decided by consensus of the examining parties if one should “move forward”.  By “moving forward”, he means to go on to become smarter and explore more of what the universe has to offer.  But in order to do that, an individual living life on Earth must be able to overcome their fears.

This provides a very interesting point of view towards the reincarnation cycle– that life on Earth, as flawed as it is, is designed to test individuals by putting them face-to-face with fear on a regular basis in order to allow everyone many opportunities to overcome it and become more courageous so that they be better prepared for the multitude of experiences throughout the universe.  Interestingly, for the Lovecraft fan mindset, the possibility exists that the knowledge one is to gain after “moving on” is of such great horror and fearsomeness that one must be tested many times over before they be allowed to learn it.

We do learn during this conversation that Daniel uses only 3% of his brain, which is on par with 3-5% norm for people who live on Earth; as Bob explains, “when you start using more than 5% of your brain, you don’t want to be on Earth anymore”– not because Earth is so horrible, but rather because the universe holds so much more to see.  Bob himself was once on Earth himself, but “moved forward” and began learning and using more of his brain, and after such learning has come to the position he is in now of serving as a defending lawyer working on behalf of people hoping to do the same.  He talks about fear as a “fog” that blocks people from experiencing true joy and unlocking their true potential.

Bob tells Daniel to not worry about being found “guilty”, since there isn’t really a “guilty” or “innocent”, just a question of whether or not everyone can agree that he has overcome fear; the worst case scenario is that he has to go back to Earth for a brand new life.  You don’t get an infinite number of chances to go back, but Daniel isn’t anywhere near the upper limit.  He explains a model of the universe as a machine, where every individual is to have a role in its operation– the purpose of this testing before “moving on” to this role is to ensure he is ready so that the “machine” doesn’t break down if he can’t handle the cosmic understanding he must come to in order to fill his role.

While going out to eat a lunch, Daniel asks Bob a few questions that are sure to come to most of the audience’s mind, like what happens to kids and teenagers when they die.  Kids who die  automatically “move forward”.  It’s certainly “nice”, as Bob puts it, but it leaves one to wonder if dying as a kid means that you’re “ready” for the mind-blowing knowledge that one cannot face unless one is entirely fearless.  As for teenagers, they “go elsewhere” because they were too rowdy– this place is never described in any detail, and Bob says nothing of it, passing off the question as quickly as possible.

Of course, this whole discussion leaves open the question of whether Earth is the only “testing ground”, so to speak, or if there are a variety of places.  Indeed, deeper thinking makes you wonder if the individuals involved in this celestial judicial system and city are themselves being tested to see if they can move on to some higher plane.  Everyone seems cheerful, friendly, and helpful– either they themselves are just naturally happy once they are relieved of the pressures of living on Earth and gaining all this grand knowledge, or they must be in order to ensure their own continued forward movement.  Of course, it could just be because it is their job to be, but I suppose that’s a rather cynical way to look at it.

It’s after this meeting that Daniel goes to a comedy club, and meets a woman named Julia played by Meryl Streep (who does amazing in this role, by the way) who swears he’s familiar.  They hit it off quickly and get along perfectly– a little too perfectly for some critics, in fact, from some of the reviews of the film.  We’re to assume that due to the somehow unexplained familiarity, that they have either met before in a past life or previously met while being “judged”.  Either way, the relationship dominates the remainder of the film.  Julia, it seems has lived a pretty perfect life of being kind, adopting kids and being very charitable; she’s also very playful throughout the film– since her case goes through so smoothly and everyone involved in her examination are just positively happy watching scenes from her life, you can tell her demeanor derives from a lack of fear-driven inhibitions.

She’s the complete opposite of Daniel in this sense, whose whole character seems borderline neurotic.  He is at his best around Julia, much more humorous and happy, but still filled with nervousness over his position in defending his life and dealing with social situations where Julia is (at times) childish around those involved in his pending case.  His case, to be honest, is also the opposite of Julia’s; he’s lived constantly constrained by fear, backing down from important decisions in his life, failing to take big risks and approach challenges fearlessly.  While Julia’s life has scenes of running into burning houses to save family pets, Daniel’s is filled with scenes of his cowardice in confronting bullies, bosses and investing decisions.  Most of the arguments in defense of his life are bullshit of the highest order, and playing a bullshit artist seems almost natural for Rip Torn; on the opposite end, Julia’s life speaks for itself– she was a good person and fearless in confronting challenges.

The movie ends with Daniel getting judged as not ready to move on, while Julia is set to move on.  As he sits on the tram to return him to Earth for his next lifetime, he hears Julia yelling from another tram.  Once the trams get rolling Daniel finally makes a fearless decision once faced with the possibility of losing Julia (and I believe we are to know that this is not the first time he is to lose her), and breaks out of the tram and despite painful electric shocks and the risk of getting run over by other trams, he continues to press on until he catches up to Julia’s tram, holding on for dear life.  Watching on from the court chambers where he was previously being judged are Bob, the prosecutor and the judges, who together decide that this is enough of a show of courage to allow him to “move forward”.  The tram’s door opens on the order of one of the judges, and Julia and Daniel ride off down the road to celestial enlightenment.

The whole film is set in a universe that we get to spend far too little time exploring.  There are many people who stick out, a wide variety of people involved in the process of judgment.  I was kind of curious about the prosecutor– she seemed genuinely to be against him for most of the film, cold in demeanor towards him, and passionate in arguing that he was not ready; it almost seemed personal for her at some points.  She was quickly convinced by his demonstration of courage at the end, however, though you might think on it a bit harder and wonder if she was doing it more out of compassion for Julia (who gave glowing compliments to his prosecutor shortly before the end, and who could speak on Daniel’s behalf from an independent perspective as well as from the position of someone whose forward movement went completely unquestioned).

As well, because the scope of the narrative is focused on Daniel with only little peeks at Julia’s life, we don’t really get much of a picture of the criteria of the judicial system for deciding who gets to “move forward” except for the fairly vague description that they’re looking for one to demonstrate their conquest of fear.  How much of a pattern of courage does one need to demonstrate?  After all, every case that we’re told anything about covers several days of each person’s life– we’re to assume these are some of the key moments of each person’s life, and that these moments are specifically picked for their criticality in showing incredibly challenging situations– and we’re given no idea of how the number of days chosen are related to a person’s likelihood of moving on (though we’re to assume that more is worse given how the only person to do more days than Daniel is a pornographer and strip club owner whose life was likely not as fulfilled as Julia, who is the only person to have fewer days examined).  Since they let Daniel “move forward” with only a single courageous act, we can assume that a long-running pattern is not entirely necessary.

But then, if a pattern is not important to demonstrate, then why even bother with the whole system of judging through multiple days of review?  Why not just look at the last of the major challenges to see if the person demonstrated courage in the face of it, if one last act of courage is what matters?  The fact that the system, as it is shown in the film, operates as it does only lends more credibility for the idea of the prosecutor deferring to Daniel’s movement forward out of compassion towards Julia instead of Daniel’s actual demonstrated fitness.  There is a moment, though, where the prosecutor shows a whole montage of foolish and fearful mistakes from many days– which seems to be in violation of the “set number of days” rule we’re told about in the first half hour of the film– and this makes you wonder what making goofball and hair-brained mistakes have to do with one’s courage rather than one’s intelligence (which is not really supposed to be a criteria for judgment since everyone is supposed to be of the same intelligence level on Earth).

Another thing that sticks out for me, is at the very end with the multiple trams headed either back to Earth or to “move forward”.  There are eight trams, each with a color-coded “path” every person walks to get to.  Since each person is issued a pass and identification papers prior to their arrival at the outbound terminal gate, and each tram is well under capacity, it leads me to believe that these codings have a significance beyond simply a “yes or no” on whether they move forward, but rather to particular destinations.  As well, there is a rather strict enforcement of which line one is to stay on, further bolstering the possibility of these lines having greater significance.  So, with that in mind, and given how seriously they seem to take the color-coding system– why have the outbound gate feed both to Earth-bound and forward-bound trams?  Why not keep them separate?  From the standpoint of bureaucratic policy enforcement, this seems like they’re just begging for divergence from policy or even downright disobedience.

Of course, even if each track doesn’t have a significance, I would love to see where the trams go from there– I’d like to see the “next stop” along this transit system, so to speak, and if they just wake up being born or if they go to some kind of processing center (after all, Bob hands Daniel “identification” in addition to his transit pass, so someone has to be checking ID after he leaves).  It’s also kind of interesting in a chin-scratching kind of way how one of the things Daniel yells to Julia while dangling off the side of her tram is “Wait for me” over and over again, like he expects there to be a place for her to wait for him to catch up to the tram if he falls off.  Or maybe he means in the sense of waiting for him even if he doesn’t get to go forward, as in “Once you make it, I’ll go do my time and come back”.  His meaning could be taken different ways, but regardless, it’s rather poignant.

The film itself was written by Albert Brooks himself, directed by Albert Brooks, and starring Albert Brooks.  Despite all the time and work he put into making this excellent film, I doubt that he really created as in-depth a backstory as I seem to be attempting to peel the layers away to find.  However, it is thoroughly thought out, and is certainly “food for thought”– heck, it’s practically fuel for thought, and an excellent addition to the “Celestial Bureaucracy” subgenre/narrative trope.  Telling the story through the frame of a romantic comedy is certainly a welcomed take– some of this type of story can be downright cerebral, depressing or both.  The whole concept is enough for someone to view it and make their own take on the film’s universe– continuing the journey through the various stops one can take through this process.. Hmm..

I’ve probably beat this dead horse about my slacking when it comes to this blog.  I’ve talked about being busy and attempting to redouble my efforts on writing about things, and even made a promise to myself and you readers which I broke (“BLOGSPLOSION”).  Frankly, I’ll understand if the thing is kind of stupid– writing about why I’m not writing.  However, when someone lets me down (especially when it comes to updates of blogs and webcomics) I like to hear a reason– not an excuse, mind you, but a reason– for the sudden disappearance, especially when I came to get used to multiple updates a week.

That’s how I started it all out about a year ago– yeah, it’s been a year, I know because my domain registration and mapping are coming up for renewal in about a month.  I’d love to keep the domain, so I’m going to make a great effort to get updates going again so I have a reason to scrap together the money I need to do it.  Maybe if I can produce lots of material again week-to-week, I might feel comfortable with some kind of donation thing to get the couple of bucks together that I might be short.

So, anyways, here’s what I’ve been doing.

1) Sports Editor of The West Georgian: I’ve been writing sports stories for the paper, and organizing other sports writers in the paper to various events.  I’ve also been working on directing photographers to the right places to take photos of sporting events.  We’ve had to handle a rather depressing football season (only one win), and the frenetic pace of basketball, softball and baseball seasons.  I’ve tried to give coverage to the cross-country guys and girls, get coverage for the volleyball games, and do other things.  I’m proud of the expansion of the sports page, I don’t know if we’ve ever we’ve had more sports coverage at the paper in my time at the University.  I set out to make new rules for the department– do your own work, deliver the story that matters before you talk stats, strong leads, fair coverage of our home team.

By doing your own work, I meant for the sports writing team to stop the practice of rewriting press releases from the Sports Info department; I wanted us to start crafting a compelling and independent sports narrative while still doing a good service to our home team fans.  When I say to “deliver the story that matters before you talk stats”, I mean for all stories to include the strongest elements; if a record gets broken, if a player makes a big debut or return from the injured list, or if someone delivers something entirely unexpected, put it first before you start talking about At Bats, ERAs, Offensive Yardage, Completion Percentage, Rebounds or Free Throws– after all, for a fan, Sports are about the heart.

Strong Leads were a big thing for me because of all the weaknesses we must contend with, the Lead is the most common.  As well, I owe a great deal of my love for strong introductions to probably the greatest Middle School English teacher I’ve known, Mr. William Ladd of Saunders Middle School in Virginia.  On the first day of class, he showed us the importance of a strong hook through the use of a metal detector and his metallic shoulder joint replacement– suddenly, we all wanted to hear this painful story about an unfortunate trampoline accident in college.  I think he was the only teacher whose personal stories I even remember– I remember because he led the story with a compelling hook.  News stories, all of them, require just as strong of a lead.  You should walk away from the lead not just with the knowledge of Who, What, When, Why, Where and How, but also with a strong desire to learn more– even if you usually would not be interested in the subject matter.  A good news writer can use a lead to make the manliest macho man hunger to read more about a ballet.

For fair coverage of our home team, I wanted us to move away from the legacy we’d had at the paper of writing very negative stories about our teams– especially the football team.  It was fairly understandable; after all, our team had one of the longest losing streaks in the history of college football (21 games).  It was pretty embarrassing for many of us students here.  However, as hard as it was to deal with, I didn’t feel the best way to handle it was to put a negative spin on things.  So, I decided that the best way to serve the readership was by retooling our tone towards something more balanced; when we lose look for the positives– what did our folks do right, where they delivered big– and when we win, focus on the drama– plays that hurt us, how tenacious the competition was.  Every time the reader looks over one of our stories, they should feel the thrill of the game; if they watched it, they should remember their hearts racing when they saw it the first time and if they didn’t, then they should be excited enough to read through and hear more.  The folks who care enough about our sports team want to know the team hit the field hard and didn’t let up, even when they lose.

I can’t claim all the credit for the improvement of the Sports page with the paper.  Our Editor-In-Chief, Maggie Hills, did an awesome job with the layout and kept things moving.  Our News Editor, Corryn Fraser really rocked and helped make sure things got covered, even when I got too sick to work.  I was very fortunate to work with a talented team of sports writers, whose work this past year could best be described as brilliant and amazing.  I can’t wait for another year doing the Sports for the paper, and I hope to work with the same sharp talents.

2)  Appointee to the SAFBA: I don’t know how specific I can get about what happened during the meetings, but the general purpose of the SAFBA is to direct the allocations of Student Activities Fees to different departments and organizations to support and foster an active and engaged student body with funding for groups, services, opportunities and events that are both relevant and enriching.  Yeah, I know, it reads like a press release, but that’s my own reflection on the purpose of that committee.  We really did our best to look at the best ways to spend the funds we were to allocate, find the most effective programs and organizations, and efficiently disburse the funds to get the maximum effect.  We interviewed officers of student organizations– and I must say I really enjoyed those interviews with these folks, because I got to learn a great deal about the work being done throughout the college– to discover where student funds had gone in the past, and the purposes for which they were requested for in the coming year.

Being a member of this board required an amount of my time that, in relation to everything else, was fairly small– but I took the job very seriously, and spent extra time educating students in various organizations through the year about the Student Activities Fees request progress, as well as thoroughly reading through the requests and analyzing the paperwork in support of those requests.  I wanted to know and understand the big picture about how student activities fees were spent; I was amazed at all the stuff going on.  I enjoyed learning a great deal about the procedures and policies of the university, and navigating the bureaucracy so that I could help others find their way through.

3)  Presenting a Paper: I presented a paper at the Middle East Student Symposium at Georgia College and State University in April.  I delivered a presentation on my research comparing the policies of the United States and Iran towards Transsexual and Transgender individuals.  I had one of the later presentation sessions in the day, and I was surprised to see many people suddenly come in when it came my turn to present.  I was highly pleased with the response to the presentation, despite the fact that I ran over my allotted time.  I was able to answer all the questions that were asked and was pleased to offer my card afterwards to answer any more questions– in this way, I felt like I’d managed to provide an accurate and thorough understanding of the topic to the audience.  I look forward to writing more papers like that and presenting them at other venues.  The people I got to meet from colleges across Georgia were extremely great folks, and very passionate about Middle Eastern Studies.

Of course, if you’ve read my Bio here on the page, you’re probably wondering why was I writing a Middle East Studies paper, and even more so why I chose to submit it for presentation to the Symposium given that my major area is not in the field of Middle East Study but in Criminology.  Well, the biggest factor is that I had to do so, for one of my professors– he made me promise to submit the paper this year, once I’d completed it.  I wrote the paper for a Sociology 4999 (“Special Topics”) class on Social Change in the Middle East.  Since Criminology and Sociology borrow from each other a great degree, I took the class as one of my “Supporting Courses From Outside the Major Area”.  The Middle East is an area of great interest to me, mostly because it is an area of such political and socio-religious importance– the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as big as it is on the global stage, is but a tiny part of all the social tumult there.  The Middle East is historically compelling, as the region which plays host to the “Cradle of Civilization”.

4)  Classes: I am still a student in college, after all.  Still going for my Bachelor’s degree in Criminology.  I’m probably about a year away, if I were to blitz through it all at full steam.  Admittedly, I could be doing better right now and I am working on it, financial problems not withstanding (broke college student cliche goes here)– but I am putting in effort to complete the schedule in front of me, and I’ll certainly be walking for graduation before too long.  And then it’ll be on to graduate school; I’m still looking at Public Administration as a first option for my area of study, though some of my closest friends and family have brought up the idea of working towards a master’s in Psychology so I can pursue the possibility of becoming a school counselor.  I’m very interested in working with Middle and High School students, as part of my concentration in Criminology on Juvenile Delinquent behavior and gang recruitment of youths.  Maybe I’m a bit naive and wearing rose-colored sunglasses, but I’d certainly like to provide youth in risk with an understanding ear, to help them find their voice and channel their energies to positive ends.  And I think I’d do a better job of that as a school counselor in Middle or High School than as a youth probation officer.

5)  Trying to be more social: If I don’t force myself to go out when I don’t have to because of obligations or responsibilities, I can sometimes retreat into being a hermit.  And I’ve definitely spent way too much time in my room in the past, so I have to sometimes make an effort to remind myself to go out and hang out with folks.  I’ve known too many people who have similar tendencies who have just become a mess over time, and I don’t want that same fate.  So, I’ve been spending more time away from my desk and room to hang out with people around my building.  Of course, during the summer semester, so few people are around that at this point it’s not really a reason anymore– probably why I’m writing so much in this article (I’m up to 2100 words, egads!).  But folks are filtering back, and so I’m going to wrap this up and go downstairs for a bit to bug some other people.

In any case, I’m back to writing on here again for the summer.  I’ll probably put up another thing later tonight or tomorrow.  There’s a movie I’ve kind of fallen in love with that I’d like to break down and analyze:  Defending Your Life.  Since I’ve been in a bit of a Spiritual/Religious mode lately, I think I’ll write on that, given the subject matter (the afterlife).

To those still reading this blog, thanks so much for hanging in there.  I still can’t believe this thing has had over 3,205 hits!  Incredible!  Keep telling your friends, and let the folks you have told about me before that I’m back!

The subject is Time itself.

First, what IS Time?

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.”

That’s what dictionary.reference.com says.  Time is a system of sequential relations that one event has to another, defining position in the past, present or future.  Time is the system that tells us which events follow others, basically.  But that’s just a literal definition.  Time is also a system of measures– it’s how we quantify temporal distances.  Seconds, minutes, hours… these are to the measurement of the progression of events (and the duration of those events) what centimeters, meters and kilometers are to physical distances and sizes, or what degrees are to temperature.

Time itself, in reality, may not exist– it may all simply be a matter of how we perceive the flow of events, and our own default perceptions may not be entirely accurate.  One only need to go from the frenetic pace of bringing a loved one to the hospital to the Karo syrup-like pace of waiting in an Emergency Room to see how quickly our own perceptions can change and are shaped by our state at a given time.  Writing like I am right now, I’m actually experiencing units of time significantly faster than I was earlier today while sitting in class.  More than just a thought about how time flies when you’re stimulated and slows when you are not, this difference in time perception forces us to question the nature of time itself and its subjective/relative condition.

This also becomes more complicated if anyone chooses to become intoxicated with any number of substances, legal and not– time perception doesn’t only speed up or slow down, but can also become jumbled– someone can feel as if they experienced something before they did in the case of many entheogenic substances.  The order of time can become mixed up, and this may not entirely be the subjective experience of an individual whose short-term memory has been tampered with– it may indeed, in some cases, be a completely different understanding of events.

Under the effects of Dextromethorphan, some individuals may feel like they are experiencing entire hours at once, the content of that measured and supposedly objective period being seen as if happening simultaneously; a perception that has been reinforced in the experiences of shamans and holy men throughout history.  The source of prophetic knowledge by viewing “the big picture” when it comes to the flow of Time could come from compressing periods of time into a single snapshot with mental focus and prowess; this allows an individual to see the overall direction of events and predict the most likely outcomes.  It could indeed explain a great deal about a few unexplained cases of precognition, as well as the sensation of Deja vu that often can follow particularly vivid dreams– after all, the “dreaming” state is essentially a short natually-induced Dimethyltryptamine “trip”.

Which brings me to a side topic about the effects of quantifying “time”:  The Alarm Clock.  As was once stated in a 2nd-Season episode of the cut-all-too-short “Millennium” series in one of the most philosophical-metaphysical episodes to ever grace television (“Somehow, Satan Got Behind Me”):

I mean, I ask you: What evil genius invented the Alarm Clock?  No other creature but man could concoct a device that interrupts, on a daily basis, their only natural state of happiness.  And, no doubt, the evil genius’ evil twin contributed the snooze button.”

In reality, the Alarm Clock is probably the greatest symbol of everything that is wrong with “modern” society.  It’s completely unnatural in every sense of the word.  It’s societally-expected masochism in the worst possible way:  an object which, not only quantifies every moment of existence, but is designed for the user to set a time for which this device will interrupt a natural biological function (sleep).  There’s an entire branch of torture tactics centered around the idea of preventing people from sleeping– the Alarm Clock is just a lesser and automated version of a CIA agent yelling in your ear every time you feel that blissful rest coming on.

I think that our quantification of time, besides binding ourselves to arbitrary scheduling, has altered the way we look at the world and our own lives.  We tend to think of time as something we “spend”, but also “waste” and “kill”– we stop seeing moments as precious, but as things bound by rules that we neither consent to nor have a part in the formulation of.  Instead of spending as much time as we need sleeping, we use an evil device to force our biological needs to fit the expectations of society– if it were any other biological requirement but sleep, an activity most folks agree is highly pleasurable, the restrictions we place on it would seem cruel and unusual punishment.

Imagine if your employer insisted that you not use the bathroom outside of the hours of 10pm to 6am, or if it were socially impermissible to eat between 8am and 8pm?  It would be like Ramadan for everyone, all year around– it wouldn’t be acceptable in any sane society.  But we all just accept the establishment of crazy rules regarding when we’re allowed to sleep.  It’s almost as if we feel guilty for drifting off into dreamland and have created a society that punishes us for doing so.

I endeavor to be a punctual person– not just because our society prizes it, but also because it shows respect for other people, to not force them to wait for you to show up.  However, in the past, I’ve talked to coworkers from places where punctuality is not as strictly enforced through social norms and I find those people to be far more well-adjusted and pleasant to deal with in general than any other group of people I’ve worked with.  Perhaps because they look on punctuality not as a make-or-break obligation, but as a way to show respect by giving that little extra effort, they do not feel an intense pressure to always be “on time”, but instead make a conscious choice to work at it.

I fear, though, that our time-obsessed culture will eventually overtake those less punctuality-compelled ones, and enforce an arbitrary temporal hegemony, where we forget what life was like before we measured our moments instead of just enjoying them.

So, we got our “historic” health-care reform bill.  No single-payer system, no public option, nothing except a mandate to make everyone buy into the same crappy insurance we’ve already got.  And boy is it crappy.  I had better when I was on my father’s military insurance, and the policies there were draconian, to say the least.  Instead, I get to buy into an insurance plan that won’t cover my needs, because almost no policy exists that covers my personal needs.

The thing that really set me off recently, though, wasn’t the health care bill, as crappy as it was.  What set me off is the fallout over a law that he signed early last year that gave the FDA a ton of leeway in the regulation of tobacco products.  One of the first things to go were clove cigarettes, which are really tasty and really good cigarettes made with herbs in them.  The herbs give a distinctive flavor and smoke, and were a personal favorite of mine.  They got banned.

Why were they banned?  Well, because someone said that kids are more likely to use cloves to start smoking and once they got hooked, they’d move on to harder and harder cigarettes.  This was basically the “gateway drug” concept applied to cigarettes.  Problem is, just about every study showed that cloves were incredibly unpopular with teenagers and young adults, and even then, their use was declining.  So, basically, the government decided to ban these cigarettes to keep kids from smoking them, when they weren’t really interested in smoking them in the first place!

Well, there also came a huge cigarette tax, which sucked, too.  But what happened today shocked me.  Basically, I go to a tobacco store here where I live and inside I walked, and 90% of the store was cordoned off.  Signs were placed up, saying, “NO ENTRY PAST THIS POINT”.  The cigarette carton displays were covered with signs saying, “NO SELF-SERVICE”.  I asked the guy who runs the place every day what had happened, and he told me that the same law that banned cloves also has led to him being unable to allow patrons to browse his cigarette displays, his tobacco-related products, all sorts of things.  His walk-in humidor was no longer accessible.  If we wanted to buy anything, we would have to ask him to grab it for us, forcing him to leave his cash register.

But this isn’t really something to snap over.  Let’s be honest, it’s not that bad.  But the thing is, that’s not all he’s done wrong.

1.  Put the kibosh on the space program. After telling us that he would back a new mission to the moon and mars, human exploration of space, he pretty much killed off manned space travel as we know it.  He’s abandoned space to the Chinese, Japanese, and others.  We get to lose our edge in developing the technologies that once pushed us ahead.

2.  Decided that 5 days was far too long to wait for public input and review of bills. He promised us that we’d get to look over bills before they were passed.  They’d be posted for legislators and the public to view, supposedly.  Unfortunately, he seems to not care about that anymore.  The first law he signed, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (which I support), he signed within 2 days of it clearing congress.  He signed an expansion of SCHIP (which I support), hours after it cleared congress– he posted the bill on his website prior to its passage, but even then, he failed to fulfill the full five days of public input and review.  He later signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act two days after the congress passed it.  And then, 2 days after it cleared congress, he signs the Health Care Reform.

3.  Failed to crack-down on the revolving door of lobbyists. He’s just packed his cabinet and various departments with lobbyists, and it’s shown in our policies thus far.

4.  Failed to stand up for same-sex couples. He said he was going to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to argue vigorously and urge strongly that states would recognize same-sex couples.  He has failed.  Indeed, I think I’ve learned everything I need to about Obama on this issue from his silence thus far about the treatment of Lt. Dan Choi during his most recent protest and civil disobedience against Obama’s slowness to act regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

5.  Failed to reduce earmarks. Earmarks are still going full-power right now and he’s not doing anything to stop it.

6.  Failed to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Maybe not something big to Americans, but someone needs to speak out against injustice, and if the President of the United States can’t do it, then who is better suited?

7.  Failure of transparency during health care reform debate. It was done behind closed doors, with lots of lobbyist money floating around lining every power player’s pockets.  No wonder we got shafted.

8.  Has not stopped no-bid contracts for contracts over $25,000. This is kind of big.  Transparency and competition are key to making sure we get the best deals possible for these government contracts.  He’s not delivered here.

9.  Failure to enforce PAYGO. Everything that’s been passed has been passed on tons of debt, and there seems to be no stop to it.

10.  Failure in allowing imported drugs. He’s just been sitting on his hands with this one, and it’s sad, because this seems to be something that should’ve been in a health care reform package.

11. Done nothing towards modernizing public health buildings.

12.  Failed to restrict warrantless wiretapping, failed to stand up against torture and failed to restore habeus corpus. This should’ve been first on the agenda– nothing should grit more at a constitutional scholar like the massive rollback of civil liberties under George W. Bush.  But he just keeps on the same old policies.

13.  Failed to secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This is a big one for me, since that treaty is key to ensuring we don’t irradiate ourselves to death.  Kind of important.

14.  Failed to increase transparency in government communications. Lobbyists have weaseled their way into the halls of government just as easily as under Bush, and thus, we still don’t know what’s going on when they make new regulations and laws.  We don’t know who is talking to these regulators or what they’re saying is the reasoning for these regulations.

15 .  Failed to limit subsidies to agribusiness. Agribusinesses like Monsanto are ruining this country and our health.  He’s done nothing to stop federal funds from going to these goons.

16.  Failed to fight for reproductive rights in health care reform bill. More than anything, it seems like he failed to fight for ANYTHING in the health care reform bill.  All we got is a mandate to buy the same crap we already can’t afford or don’t want.

This is just some of the stuff he’s promised but failed to deliver and we’re already well past a quarter into his term.  And I’m not even including things that are wrong with him, policy-wise, that he supports and that I don’t like.  I’m just including a short list of the things he’s dropped the ball on.  There doesn’t seem to be any positive movement in Iraq and Afghanistan– it seems like we’re going to be there and be there forever, never-ending war as the justification for increasing police state measures.  He’s not shut down Gitmo.  At the end of the day, it seems like the guy is a joke.  Even the folks overseas who once loved him are now figuring out that he was more of a symbol than anything of substance, and that he’s just more of the same corporate oligarchy nonsense we’ve gotten used to.

This is not to say there aren’t some things he’s done that I like, but it seems like 2009 was probably the crappiest year I’ve ever known.  Admittedly, I’m young, but 2009 was just a downbeat year for everyone involved.  2010 might get a little better, though the media drum beat now is of an overwhelming republican victory, and I’m pretty sure that’s how it’s going to play out, regardless of how things go.  Undecided voters, as I’ve seen, tend to vote towards the folks they think are going to win, and with the Alpha-Wave generating TV box Overlords telling them the republicans are going to win, it’s almost certain.

And then the real horribleness begins.

A constantly replicating problem for me during debates I have with people regarding the American political process centers around the notion of rights and what they mean to us.  There are many individuals who ironically refer to themselves as libertarians, who somehow believe that human rights are limited only to those things spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Besides being blatantly wrong by the very words of the Constitution itself (Amendment IX), it fails to account for the fact that humanity exists beyond the borders of the United States.

To hear some of these people discuss human rights, you would think that they believe that the other nations of the world are populated by barely communicative animals, or that Americans are the only humans that matter and that if Americans do not declare their claim on a human right through the amendment process, then such a human right does not exist.

The sad fact is that Americans have allowed their sense of human rights to be subverted by an extremely narrow conceptualization– that human rights are only those things that the government explicitly sets aside for the citizenry, and that no other rights exist.  Further, that human rights are absolute and never increase with time and the advancement of new technologies.  This is a mindset frozen in time, that what was true in the 18th Century is true for all time.

I reject this notion.  I believe that the advancement of time and technology advances the human condition, or at the very least, it should.  That as we gain more knowledge as a species, that this knowledge should serve us.  The application of this knowledge should help us not just gain new knowledge and create new products and utilities, but also to unlock greater potential in our lives.

One such area that I believe this is appropriate is in the understanding of health care as a human right.  At the time of the signing of the Constitution of the United States, medicine was a completely different animal.  A little less than 10 years after the signing, the concept of vaccination would become cutting-edge medicine.  Ambulances didn’t exist.  Prior to 1880, almost 100 years after the Constitution was adopted, it was not even known that diseases were transmitted by bacteria.  The idea that the framers would even have medicine or health care on their mind was laughable, because they were still using leeches and cutting people to help even out their ‘humours’.  At the time, medicine was much less of a science than it is today– you’d be equally as likely to call a priest as call a doctor back then, because they had roughly the same success rate.

Time has passed, technology has advanced, medicine has evolved.  The rest of the industrialized world, and a good share of the developing world, now acknowledge that access to health care is a human right.  To them, it is as basic as the ability to get fair representation at trial, or to be able to choose what faith you have, to be able to speak your mind and to be able to live without fear of unreasonable search and seizure.  The reason why is that these nations have accepted a different view on the nature of the human condition– that is, that every person has intrinsic value, that if given the chance to flourish, this value will be added to the rest of society.

As well, there’s an understanding of that value as being much more three-dimensional– that value cannot be measured along a single scale of productivity or monetary gain, but rather that some people contribute to society their creativity, their wisdom, their kindness, their good humor, their friendliness or any number of diverse human qualities which make life that much better.

These nations developed this perspective through a combination of hardships:  War, Famine, Poverty, and the tyranny of Totalitarianism.  Through the regimes of Nazi Germany, Falange Espanola, Italian Fascism, the DDR, Stalinist Russia and many others, they’ve seen where a one-dimensional perspective of human value will eventually end and thus they’ve rejected that path in favor of one better suited towards the embracing of the vitality of human experience.  They suffered the ravages of war in its fullest, seeing the horror not from heroically framed newsreels, but from the windows of their own homes (if they were fortunate enough to still have one).

This differs from the American experience of these times.  Americans were sheltered far from the effects of those twisted regimes, save for the few who had relatives who lived in those nations or the soldiers who fought to defeat them.  Americans received censored and limited views of the horrors of World War.  However, this does not account for the entirety of why Americans seem so incredibly different in perspective and culture; there is a great deal to be said about the origins of “American Culture” or even the question of whether such a culture even exists (not meant as an insult, but rather a questioning of whether it would better be referred to as “Straight White Middle-class American Culture”).  It does provide one with valuable insight into why there is such a massive divergence between, say, Americans and the British, despite a shared cultural background.

In addition to the advancement of time and history having an effect on how societies view human rights, there is the question of how technology has altered this perception.  With medicine becoming a highly specialized and specified discipline comes the understanding that it is an extremely important part of life.  In order to gain the maximum value and the maximum quantity of life, one must secure adequate health care.  Since all people profit when everyone is capable of flourishing into their greatest potential, it is considered a human right of the same standing as a right to a basic education or police protection

Of course, some do not even see basic education as a right, and some others do not even see police protection as a right– these people believe it should all be privatized and we should all be forced to pay on an individual basis for these needs.  Besides neglecting the value of working within the context of economies of scale, the potential that can be unlocked through collective action, and the simplicity that can be provided when these rights are held by all rather than only those that can afford them, there’s the question about how such policies widen the gap between the rich and the poor, and how they lead to the decline of the middle class, feeding into the reversion of democratic society into oligarchy or even a full collapse into feudalism, with the wealthiest controlling all the land and everyone else being forced to work for next to nothing just to pay exorbitant rents.

People of a libertarian or conservative stripe seem to not grasp that there was a time prior to now where there WAS less regulation and these things WERE privatized, and they did not work.  Or at least they didn’t “work” for the majority of people, and thus they were changed from solely private to a system where there was a public option everyone could use, and if one so chose, private options still existed.  Regulations were imposed because the so-called “free market” failed to police itself as people today claim it would.  Of course, if you point out this fact, they will say that it didn’t work because it wasn’t FREE ENOUGH.  I don’t know if these people quite understand that we’ve tried things their way before– there’s a reason Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle, and it wasn’t because the government was overly involved in the meatpacking industry.

With the advent of MRIs and other high-tech (and high-expense) medical equipment, the potential exists to prolong life and fight death.  The question is, how do we decide who gets to take advantage of this great potential; those who make the most, or those who need it the most?  Do we prioritize medical care only for those whose wallets are fat enough or whose bank accounts are hefty enough, or do we prioritize it towards those who will benefit the most from it?  Fact of the matter is, regardless of however the health care system is aligned, rich people will always be able to get what medical care they want.  We need to concern ourselves with the people who can’t get any health care, or for those who health care costs constitute a constant threat to their ability to support their families through the high rate of medical bankruptcy.

We do this by doing what we’ve done with libraries, the police, the fire department, the schools and many other parts of our daily lives which we take for granted.  Libraries in the U.S. are top-notch and provide an excellent service with taxpayer money– indeed, it is the clearest example of socialized anything in American life, as taxpayer funds are used to literally buy a private good and offer it up to the public at no cost (save for fines for abusing the privilege by damaging the books or for holding them longer than the assigned period).  The police actually do a very good job in the U.S.: indeed, if anything can be said about them, it is that they are TOO productive, as the percentage of the population currently incarcerated exceeds the levels of those in totalitarian regimes due to the Drug War.  Fire Departments do an excellent job, and they never hand you a bill when they put out a fire– indeed, paying your taxes is enough, and few people bitch about it (those that do are certifiable whackjobs).  And finally, while some argue that public schools are failing, I’ve found that for those who wish to learn, the system does a good job– besides, you can lead a kid to knowledge, but you can’t make him learn.  The people who complain about public schools the most are often the ones who apparently paid the least attention while in school themselves.

Regardless, the object of human society and civilization should be towards the improvement of its members– or rather, what is the point of even having a society or civilization, if its benefits are reserved for a limited chosen few?  Why bother advancing science and technology, if the fruits of its bounty are set aside only for those few who already enjoy a great standard of living?  Finally, why bother even continue to exist as a species, if we refuse to act like it– if we act like every other man is competition, rather than an ally?

” I would like to support your trip…and you…,but I need to know your beliefs. I am neither party either.”

This is my response:

“Put very simply, I believe that we as human beings all deserve the best healthcare we can get, and that if our government can so easily find money for tanks, bombs, bailouts and bridges to nowhere, then it can find the money to ensure that no one in this country dies because they lacked for funds.

I believe that being sick, injured or wracked with pain is hard enough without having to wonder if you can afford to get the help you need to make what is hurting you stop.  If you’ve ever had even something as common as strep throat, let alone something as horrific as cancer or AIDS, then you must remember how hard it was just to get through the pain to say hello to someone you love– this condition should not be worstened by the conditions we set for ourselves as human beings.

So, I want to fight for us all to begin taking the steps we need to set new conditions for ourselves as people.  I want to ask that we get some reform to put us on the right track towards the goal of ensuring that if a person goes to a hospital and cries out for help, that the doctor or nurse who hears that cry will need not check with a hospital administrator or an insurance clerk before he or she can take that persons hand to lead them to the road to wellness.

So, I support passing a public option, I support reforming how we handle medical records (improving this will reduce costs and improve continuity of care), I support eventually moving to a universal system that works as easily as going to a doctor’s office or hospital and saying your name and what is wrong before getting help.  I know it might sound insane, but if we can put people on the moon, if we can transmit the entire contents of the library of congress across the world in the blink of an eye through the internet, and if we can come together as a nation against common corporeal foes like Nazis and terrorists and all that we’ve faced before together, then we can make this happen if we really want it.

- Cass”

So, with that in mind, I’m going to do what I can.  As soon as I have enough money to get to D.C., I’m going to drop EVERYTHING and make my way to the Capitol building and find me the nearest ear of the nearest congressman, senator, cabinet member, page or even the President to make these people heard.  If you feel like donating, I’ve set up a paypal account through which all funds for this are going to flow.  Once it’s over with, I’ll offer up a full accounting of every penny spent, so you know this isn’t just some scam or weirdo thing.  I’ll live cheaply while I’m doing this– I’ve dumpster dove and I shop at salvage stores and thrift shops, I’m not the kind of person to waste other people’s money.  I’m packing canned food and ramen to eat, I’ve got hotel points donated from a friend for the place to stay, I just need gas money, bus fare or plane tickets to get up there.

If you’re with me, click this link, and please donate anything that you feel like you can:  Donate

Right now, I’ve got $3.58 in the account that I’ve ponied up for myself.  I’m scraping pennies and dimes off the floor as you read this to get the change together to continue this.  I’m thinking I need about $500 or so to make the trip.  So, that’s about $3.58 down, and about $496.42 left.  Every bit will help, just a dollar or two, from a couple hundred people can make this happen.  It’s a crazy dream, maybe, but wouldn’t it be kind of cool if it works?

This is my third year working for The West Georgian, the student newspaper for this university.  I’ve been a staff writer and an Ombudsman (abuse sponge) and worked hard because I believe in the mission of our paper:  To provide news to the students and to provide a venue in which students can get experience delivering the news.

Well, this summer I worked with the paper by going to meetings and defending our budget from being rescinded, and we succeeded in getting what we needed to continue.  Unfortunately, we still had not filled the position of Sports Editor.  As fall semester drew closer and closer, I became more aware of this vacancy and what it would mean.  This is supposed to be our banner year at this university and its athletics department, and no sports editor would compromise sports coverage and drag down the school’s big year.  Someone had to step up.

I had been pushing aside the idea of working as an editor in the paper because I didn’t want to be locked into a responsibility I couldn’t back down from.  However, one thing my father instilled in me is the courage to stand up when duty calls, to accept the responsibility when it is needed.  So I decided to apply to be the sports editor.

Now, before I go on, I don’t have some lofty delusion of grandeur in play here that’s driven me to make this post or talk up my job.  It’s a simple job, cover sports events, make sure there are photographers and writers for different things and generally make everyone aware of whats going on in the field.  When you work this kind of job, if you’re doing things right, people shouldn’t notice you’ve done anything at all.  I don’t hold myself up as some keystone for the university’s success, I just saw the job as one that needed doing.  And so here I am.

Admittedly, I don’t know much about football, soccer or volleyball.  I barely know the basics of basketball, and I have no idea what’s going on in golf.  Now, admittedly, when it comes to baseball and softball, I am an expert.  Otherwise, I’m a bit of a goof.  So I have to come up with a simple formula:

1)  Write the Lead-  Who did what, when, where, why and how?  Example:  “The University of West Georgia Wolves [took on/rumbled with/fought/other militaristic or pugilistic verb here] [Such and so team] at [Location] this [Day], [walking away with the win/but could not secure the win] and [won/lost] at [Score].”

2)  Quote the coach:  Coaches usually have some interesting way of putting things, talk to them for about 3-4 minutes and you’ll get something that you can put in there usually.  Sometimes you may have to paraphrase, however, if you are worried about being concise.

3)  Note the big moves.  Score?  Cool!  Write it.  Interception?  Write it!  Big punt return?  WRITE IT!  Pretty much just try to explain how the score got to where it was, and explain why the score didn’t get where it could be.

It’s that simple.  It’s not brain science or rocket surgery.  Sports are important, though, and even I tend to underestimate their relevance.  The thing about sports is that what happens on the field is a corporeal representation of the human struggle to achieve and overcome.  By breaking through obstacles and testing our limits, we exemplify who we are as people.  That’s why sports matter; the things we do all day to achieve our own success is represented on the field.

Sometimes, you fight against other people who oppose you, sometimes your obstacles are within yourself, and you must overcome your own limits and push towards greater glory.  Sometimes the problem is the team, you find out who is having trouble, and you get his back, strengthen him up, and help him make the big play.  It’s a bit of a cliche to say that life is a sport, but it is quite the apropos metaphor.  The reason sports are so captivating as a spectacle is because the lessons learned on the field are so applicable to our lives.

We see in the sweaty faces of the volleyball player our own fierce spirit to go on.

In the grass-stained uniform of the football player, we see the falls we’ve suffered, but more importantly, we see that we got up afterwards.

We see in the bloodied face of the hockey player, the life that we fight for every day against incredible odds.

In the bruises of the soccer player, we see the wounds we’ve licked and carried even as we triumphed.

We see the dirt on the faces of the softball and baseball players and we’re reminded that sometimes you must get a little dirty to get a job done.

In the eyes of the basketball player we see ourselves gazing towards our own goals, just out of reach if not for the last bit of effort to push through.

We gaze in awe of the force that the track and cross-country athletes bring to bear, pushing to break not just their own limits, but the limits of human achievement itself and enduring through it all.

And even in the crisp collars of golfers, we see the resolve to keep grace under pressure and remember our own trials.

Sports matter because we all matter.  We all hunger for that moment, for that victory.  Even when you lose, you can’t be defeated when you give it every ounce and every mote of effort.  And that’s the real lesson you get from sports.

Dances With Wolves

Wow.  I…uhh.. hate to admit this, but I almost forgot about this site!  Shocking, I know.  I’ve been up to my eyeballs in schoolwork, newspaper stuff, club stuff, and on top of all of that, I got pneumonia!  So, now, I’m recovered and back to 100%.

And then I realize I’ve got a “Fort Sedgewick” situation.

If you’re one of the three or maybe four educated people on this planet who hasn’t seen Dances With Wolves, you have no idea what I’m talking about.  In the film, Kevin Costner’s character (Lieutenant Dunbar) gets a pick of his assignment and seeks out the furthest fort he can get:  Fort Sedgewick.  When he arrives, the place is in poor repair, the men have fled and the water supply has been ruined.  Essentially, the place went to crap.

So, Dunbar takes it upon himself to fix the place up and so he does.  He makes it a suitable place to live again, out on the frontier.  Well, I’m about at that point.  I’ve got to take it upon myself to fix this blog back up and make it a suitable place to read again.  I’m going to try to fit it in my schedule, which is packed, since I’m preparing to graduate within the year, and so I’m rushing headlong into a jampacked schedule.  In addition, I was promoted to Sports Editor for The West Georgian newspaper and I’m pretty happy with that, but it does take some of my time as well.  So, I’ve got to go to class, go to games, write for class, write about games, and then, somewhere in here, learn Japanese and create compelling material.

This is no small task.

But at least now you don’t have to sit around all day wondering, “Now why don’t she write?”

Yes, certainly individuals with that bent towards social liberty in America tend to regard firearms with a negative attitude.  However, this isn’t the rule; I believe in compassion for all human life, and so I favor programs and approaches towards life that maximize the care we render towards others in order to minimize suffering.  Concordant to this, I believe that life is worth protecting and so when someone is endangered they should be equipped to defend themselves.  If they do not feel themselves to be competent enough, then someone who they trust who does feel capable should be equipped to defend the other if they so choose to.  There are always going to be dangers out there which may require an immediate, swift, and certain response– even if we do away with all violence between humans, there are still animals which react to human presence in dangerous ways.

Likewise, even if one does not feel that the odds are slim that one would need to defend themselves, it is still an empowering thing unto itself to be armed and prepared to respond whenever there is trouble.  It’s not for everyone, though, and I understand and respect people who choose not to have weapons in their home.  For myself, however, I believe that owning, training and using weapons in defense of myself and those I care about are a key part of my own personal philosophy and approach towards life.  I do not feel safe or pleased with the idea of relying on someone else to “save me”; I do not play the damsel in distress role very well.  I prefer to be an active part of my own life, and that includes ensuring my own security; for me, that means owning a rifle or pistol and knowing how to use it.

Firearms are a great equalizer: any adult can learn to use a firearm– now keep in mind, that’s different from saying any adult can learn to use ANY firearm.  Some weapons are, due to their size or ammunition load, not suitable for some people, and that’s alright.  The key, though, is that somewhere out there, is a firearm that is suitable for any adult; and that firearm can help make that person safer by ensuring that (with proper training) he or she is able to bridge the gap in physicality between his or her aggressor.  If an individual feels the need to protect themselves, they should be allowed to find a suitable small firearm to help in that task.  There is no wiggle room for me on this, save for the restrictions on individuals with demonstrable and documented mental illness or felony convictions (and even in these cases, I have no problem with non-violent felons having access).

Some people might consider this to be a bit too much; indeed, with more guns out there, there’s more possibility for trouble.  Untrained people with good intent wielding these powerful weapons can be more of a menace than at trained man with malice.  This is why I believe that firearms training should be a prerequisite to the ownership of any rifle, shotgun or handgun; I believe that if you have to be licensed to drive a car or operate a radio, you should have to be licensed to use a firearm, and that license should be kept up to date with continuing education and training.  We require people who save lives in medicine to continue educating themselves, we should require anyone operating a weapon to continue their education and become more proficient and safe with its use over time.

Again, though, it is worth noting that it is not for everyone to own and use a firearm.  Those who choose not to should be respected for that choice.  In return, those who choose not to should respect those who do own a firearm and take the use and maintenance of their weapon seriously.  The federal government  shouldn’t have much of a part in the decisions as to which small firearms are allowed and which are not– restrictions on automatics are understandable, but I do not believe the current ban is good policy.  State governments should also have minimal interference in these matters, leaving it to individual communities to decide how they feel about particular weapons.  I believe communities should have the power to restrict or ban specific weapon types, and that people should be aware of those regulations and make their decision as to which community they wish to live in based on that information.

So, that’s about how I feel on that matter… any comment for this gun nut?

So, while I apologize for the lack of content lately, please understand why I’ve not been updating.  I’ve not forgotten my loyal readers.

I have to say, to a certain degree, I agree with this.  Even if Card doesn’t use his fictional works as a platform for his political positions (at least not to the degree as Heinlein), fiction is a medium in which you have to accept an alternate set of events and settings from reality– you have to be able to trust the author in order to be entertained, much like you have to be able to believe the actors on a stage putting on a play.  If you go in knowing the guy is a nutball, it’s going to be hard to take the guy’s work seriously, unless you’re really good at compartmentalizing.

This is to say nothing of the fact that, even if you don’t buy the book, reading an author’s work offers a kind of acknowledgement in itself; by picking up the book, you are implicitly stating that you believe what this guy has to say is worth reading.  Most of the time, we don’t know the authors we read that well, but if you do, there’s nothing wrong with using what you know to determine what you’re going to read.  Lots of Anne Rice’s fans ditched after she converted, because they knew the chances were good that her new focus would not be compatible with their own interests.  Likewise, knowing Card makes homophobic statements and is openly hostile to you or your friends is useful information when you choose to read something.

As to the question of whether his writing is influenced by his personal and political opinions, I think that it’s probably impossible for him to keep the two truly separate.  The nature of the creative writing process necessitates that a person draw from their own world view and experience– you can’t just pull this stuff out of thin air.  When I write my stories, I have to use my own personal history to create the situations and people I write about; I have to use my personal perspective and opinions to give my stories direction and meaning.  In this same way, Card’s works might not explicitly call out gays as evil, but they are informed and shaped by a history and world view that does.

In the end, while I would hope anyone would open my books and read what I have to write, I do understand that some people who don’t like my message or background will probably eschew me in favor of writers who more closely resemble their own way of thinking.  I’m not advocating avoiding authors because you don’t disagree with them, but I think that it’s reasonable for someone to do so– after all, we only have so much time to live, only have so much time to enjoy only so many books.  However, it does remain to be stated, that if you do not derive enjoyment from a written work, play, song, game or any other creative endeavor, the only person who loses out is you; if you can’t find something positive about it, then you’re only shortchanging yourself.

Let me first say that  despite being as adamantly pro-choice as I am, I am not without sympathy to the other side of the equation.  Many of my friends take up that side and it’s extremely honorable when someone does with integrity and without hypocrisy.  The kinds of people I’m talking about in this camp are the ones who do listen to what I say, and respond in a level tone, never losing that friendliness that we are to have.  I have many friends who oppose abortion choice, and despite how I feel about the implications of that position, I don’t let it color my feelings for them.  I love my friends, especially the ones with passionate beliefs which they are willing to defend.

I admire the pro-life person who doesn’t just oppose abortion, but also stands against the death penalty and against needless wars of choice (or even all wars in general).  The consistency shown there is respectable, because it makes it known that the person really does have a true reverence for life and its potential.  That’s the ability to see even in the convict or the enemy, the potential for good that exists in all human beings, and really, that’s beautiful.

Likewise, I can totally understand the idea of seeing an unborn fetus as a child.  At even the earliest stages of pregnancy, a fetus can look like a little baby.  I personally love babies, a lot.  They’re just so cute and full of potential– being around a baby while they explore and examine the world is like rediscovering everything all over again along with them as they experience everything for the first time.  They provide beautiful insight into the world we live in by reminding us that (despite The Book of Ecclesiastes’ assertion that nothing is new under the sun– yes, everything that is and shall be once was and will be again; but if I’ve not seen it, it’s new to me) there’s still so much more to see out there.  Yeah, a baby can stink and puke and do all sorts of other things– so can a college student, but we don’t scorn them when they do their own ‘explorations’ and boundary-testing as much as our society seems to for babies.

I also dislike the concept and practice of late-term abortions.  I think everyone can agree that if we can avoid doing them, it’s best overall– there’s a disagreement over whether we can do them when it’s necessary, and even more disagreement over what defines ‘necessary’, but I think we can all safely say that if we could do away without the procedure without harming a single woman’s life or a single ancephalic baby, we’d do so in an instant.  The procedure is extremely horrid in its practice, I will grant that; there’s a reason so few doctors will perform it, besides the obvious danger posed by anti-abortion extremists.  Seriously, as pro-choice as I am, I do have a limit, and there are just some procedures that I’d like to know are being done only under the most extreme and grave circumstances.

I feel for the people who really do want to help women deal with the difficulties of pregnancy and prevent abortion through counseling them about their options.  I don’t like the people who try to give misleading information about abortion, but the people who are open and honest with women (and don’t treat them like little children who need to be lied to in order to act right) are good folks– I can imagine being young and pregnant can be a scary experience, since it has so much potential to change your life, and letting women know there’s nothing to fear and there’s so many safe roads to walk and that it’s not the end of the world is a great thing.

When people are outraged about the idea of casual abortion, I can definitely understand it.  It seems ridiculous.  We all hear the “I knew a guy/girl…” stories, we all hear about the woman who had three abortions a year every year, instead of buying birth control pills, IUD or condoms.  I doubt most of these tales, though I do know of two women through close associations who have had more than one or two in their life.  One case was a woman who wanted children but things always seemed to go wrong with the baby’s development (that would endanger her life and the fetus wouldn’t survive anyway), and she eventually had to give up after the third try.  The other was the stereotype, but not as severe as it gets made out to be; she had about four abortions in her life, all while she was too poor to take care of them but I definitely would’ve preferred she offer them for adoption (ultimately, though, I understand that it was her choice to make).

So, yeah, I can see the other side of things and appreciate where they’re coming from.  I’m not a hard partisan who refuses to even entertain the other point of view.  Despite what I said about “we can all agree about late-term abortion”, there are a few pro-choice folks out there who are seriously hard-line enough to argue that such abortions should be utterly unrestricted.  I disagree with this notion, but I understand the reasoning– if a woman’s life is in danger, with little time to act, the restrictions we place on the procedure that might save her life will actually kill her.  These folks aren’t arguing that women SHOULD get late-term abortions all the time, willy-nilly, but that safety of the mother must be the first priority, since she is already a fully living, breathing and thinking human being, where as the fetus is still a being of potential.  Policy, they may say, must be formulated first on preserving the rights of people whom can think, make decisions and communicate their intentions.

Further, many of the folks who argue against abortion choice are actually rational and decent people.  They have their beliefs, but they don’t feel a need to be forceful in their advancement of those beliefs– they use their words to further their goals and positions, and accept when the law goes against them (even if they don’t like it).  The only problem I have, and the only reason I ever get upset while talking to someone on this issue, is the level of misinformation out there and the hefty implications of anti-choice policy.

So, understanding this, why do I prefer to use terms like “anti-choice” when talking about these people?  Why do I perceive so many of them as having less-than-noble motivations for their policy preferences?  Why get so involved and emotional about something like this, when I’ll never have to face the issue myself (because I can’t get pregnant)?  What exactly IS my stake in the issue?  As the Joker put it, “Why so serious?”

Well, first, I use the term “anti-choice” only when talking about people who oppose abortion choice, but love to talk about invading every country that looks at us funny and love the death penalty.  These people don’t have a thing about life, they just want to lock down women’s choices.  This leads me to the next question; I see these people as having less-than-noble intentions because so many of their statements boil down to the idea of using forced birth as a punishment for promiscuous women.  They love to make statements about, “She should’ve kept her legs closed,” and “She should take personal responsibility for her actions,” or refer to abortion as an easy cop-out– I’ve never heard of a woman having easy abortions, even the one who’d had four wasn’t proud of herself and certainly didn’t talk about it in casual (let alone positive) terms.  They make it to be an issue of a lazy slut who deserves her comeuppance, and the best way to do it is to make her give birth.  Seriously, I ask this question again: if you don’t trust her to make a choice about her reproductive rights, why would you trust her to raise a child?  As well, there are many women out there who wish they could have children, many more than are out having abortions, to be sure– I’d rather see more efforts to allow more women to become capable of giving birth, including trans women, than see all this money pouring in to force women to give birth to babies they do not want.

I’m emotional about this, despite my inability to give birth, because reproductive rights is a core issue of women’s rights in general.  If a woman doesn’t have control over her body and her medical decisions, then what else really matters?  If women can be made to become unwilling baby birthers, there’s really no freedom that matters– oh, you can own property and vote, great, but if you can’t control your own body, what does it matter if you can control your property or put a ballot in a box?  You’re a prisoner in yourself, a slave to a state that intends to keep another being inside you regardless of how you feel about that– you’re a prisoner to the effects of pregnancy, including a requirement to be in a hospital or other place of medical care for several days in order to finally birth it.  Imagine if such a requirement were placed on men– have sex and carry a steadily increasing load around his waist for nine months and be subject to massive hormonal changes, then at the end of the nine months, he’s required to be confined to a room for several days while the load is removed and his body recovers– it would be an unheard of and unacceptable outrage; just imagine if you tried to take away men’s viagra whenever they were determined to be ‘irresponsible’.

My stake in the issue is basic human rights for women, nothing less.  I couldn’t care less about economic freedom if women are expected to be held down by the arbitrary constraints of religiously-based legislation (and nearly all the arguments I’ve ever heard against reproductive freedom are based some way on religion).  Not everyone shares your religion, and if you have to rely on it to justify your politics, then perhaps your politics could use some fresh consideration– we all have to live here, regardless of our spiritual views, and its no more right for a Baptist to force his faith through legislation on to an atheist, than it would be for a Muslim to force Sharia on that Baptist.  Majority rule is a matter of practicality, but not a justification of morality; no one can argue they are right only because they have enough people who agree with them, it’s a tautology– people believe they are right because other people agree with them that they are right because other people agree with them that they are right and so on.

Women must be allowed to have that minimal level of control over their bodies– they must be allowed to choose when and how they will give birth, and they must choose this before anyone else.  It is surprising to see so many conservatives, who argue constantly that no man has the right to demand that others work and provide to support his existence, but then argue that every fetus has the right to demand a woman do so for nine months.  It would be outrageous to imagine a man forced to have another man handcuffed to him for nine months and share all his food and drink with him, all while the other man can futz up his body chemistry and other things.  We would never allow this; but because it involves women bearing children, the thought is actually entertained and the policy to go with it is actually actively advanced through lots of funding.

Why am I so serious about it?  Because, it’s a serious matter; life and death, in some cases.  You see, as much as folks who like to portray abortion as something that women engage in casually (the “baby-killing feminist harpy” myth), it’s actually rare to find a woman who has had more than one, and even rarer to find one who doesn’t regret that she felt it was necessary.  For that woman, it was necessary; pregnancy has the power to change one’s life in no small way– these are radical changes that have long term health-related, economic and social effects.  We don’t really seem to think about it all that much, because it is a natural process.  However, even if it is natural doesn’t make it easy– viral and bacterial infection are natural processes, too, we take steps to manage them, because some can be beneficial and others can be harmful.

We have to break it down to a question of rights first, then we can also look at the practical measures necessary to balance the rights of women against the demands of society.  A pragmatic approach is necessary, and unfortunately for the side against reproductive freedom, few measures to restrict abortion choice are all that pragmatic while respecting women as human beings.  That’s why I am pro-choice.

(P.S.:  No disrespect meant by the title, I just label everything that’s “Part 2″ as “Electric Boogaloo”.  It just works too darn well.)