The Difference Between Use and Abuse

I hate the phrase, “Just Say No”. It makes no distinction between one who uses and one who abuses. It feeds the notion that if you use drugs you are bad. This is a terrible thing to tell people. Everybody uses drugs. Christians use drugs. Parents use drugs.

“Just Say No” makes it us against them. Good christians don’t use drugs at all, non-christians and atheists use drugs. Satanists use drugs. It tells you that, if you use drugs, you are a bad person.

Why would Nancy Reagan wish to do this? Why would she wish to make people feel terrible when her messiah went around making people feel good?

A hint of the reason is Ayn Rand’s conclusion that you cannot rule a guilt free man. With Nancy and her little catch phrase, it is not ‘rule’ that is meant; control works better. The republican party is about control. Control of the media, control of the market, control of the governments of other countries. Thought control.

I would have had no problem with the “Just Say No” campaign were she to have added three words. This might have diminished the effectiveness of her phrase, considering the font would have to be smaller to put it all on a bumper sticker, but it would have been a more humane, christ-like thing to say. The three words? ‘ . . . to drug abuse’.

Say it with me, friends; the new phrase would be “Just Say No To Drug Abuse”.

I know my idea would have fallen on deaf ears. No one would have used it because it significantly reduces the number of people one can feel superior to, therefore, judgmental of. The right-wing, christian conservative republican is all about exclusion. And, like children, they love big simple reasons that give them their feeling of superiority.

*******************************

What really pisses me off about that bumper-sticker campaign of Nancy Reagan’s is that it was never meant to get people to quit using drugs. It was a throw together to make it look like Nancy gave a damn about doing something for the country and not just redecorating the White House. It was engineered to make it look like she cared about people and not just things.

Why is Nancy Reagan’s bumper-sticker campaign a big deal? As a consequence of her simple-minded actions, my children judge me to be a bad person based solely on the fact that I drink beer and smoke cigarettes. I don’t hit my kids, using time-outs and grounding; I encourage my kids to be individuals, I pay attention to them, and look them in the eye when they are talking, and I take their concerns seriously. Being a good, attentive father means everything to me. Yet, because they had a ‘Just Say No’ class at school, they came home with all these cellophane-wrapped things to say about my nasty little habits. And you cannot fight righteousness in a child. They want something to bang you over the head with; something that will diminish you, the disciplinarian, in their eyes.

It occurred to me that that is the reason we have what republicans call a lost generation of predatory consumerist children whose heads are messed up. They go to school and read bumper stickers all day, and come home to find their parents lacking. The same people who say that taking prayer out of public schools is the source of all the bad things happening in America, teach your children that you are bad if you have a beer after work, or take a Prozac when you’re stressed, or smoke a cigarette.

Even if you are abusing these things I have no problem with you until you cross the line from hurting yourself to hurting others.

Understand something, “Just Say No” was not meant to prevent you from using drugs, it was meant to pit you against those around you. It is a tool of division. There is no forgiveness or excuses within the “Just Say No” zealotry; you are either with us or against us.

A wrench can be used to great benefit, yet the power it provides you can be used in negative ways. Instead of using it to repair your automobile you can use it to kill someone by whacking them on their head. That would be abuse.

Use is a good thing. Abuse is too much of a good thing.

Just say ‘no’ to “Just Say No”.

No Fax Payday Loans

Even When We Agree, We Don't Agree

December 11, 2004 Saturday 12:48pm

Dad came over with fudge that my mother made. Of course, we went to the basement to smoke and chat.

My father voted for Kerry for president. I had assumed that, though I knew his stances on gay-marraige and abortion, we’d find some common ground. I plumbed the depths to no avail.

To find something that we might agree on, I showed him my blog-site; he’d heard of blogs but had never seen one.

He didn’t agree with anything I had to say, yet he voted for Kerry. At one point, while discussing the fact that I am against abortion, but do not wish them to be banned, he went off on how horrendous partial-birth abortion is, and how he heard that the new agenda of pro-abortionists is to give new mothers ten days after a child is born, to decide whether or not they wish to keep the child or abort it.

What?

I’m going to have to look this up and see if there is some reference to it outside the right wing christian media that he watches on t.v. and hears on the radio.

************

I plugged in to Google the phrase, ‘abortion ten days after birth’ and came up with nothing. Then subtracted various words still coming up with nothing.

What my father must’ve heard was someone’s speculation that the abortion agenda might be looking to such things in the future. So, the truth of the matter is that such a statement is hokum.

Yet he voted for Kerry.

I am not for abortions. I would talk anyone out of it, unless they had damn good reasons for doing it, such as rape or incest or some horrendous birth defect, as long as it was in the first trimester of the pregnancy. I couldn’t bring myself to agree with anyone getting an abortion after the first trimester.

My father even agreed with my view of talking people out of abortions unless they had damn good reasons. Yet, he still thinks they should be banned. He went so far as to describe to me the procedure of partial-birth abortion, which I already knew.

The issue of abortion freaks him out on such a deep level that a rational conversation with him on this issue was impossible.

So why did he vote for Kerry? Taxes. He thinks Bush Jr. is giving big corporations too many tax breaks.

I asked him about the war in Iraq, and he said he agreed with our being there, that muslims were insane, and that they should be shown who’s the boss.

What?

I am amazed at how Americans think. We here in America, frequently referring to our country as “The Land Of The Free” talk about how we should be controlling the destiny of other countries, just because they don’t believe the way we do. Americans believe it OK for our children to fight and die just to bring them around to our way of thinking.

***********

Before our conversation devolved on the issue of abortion, and the war in Iraq, we discussed the issue of Americans immigrating to Canada. He had heard that ‘some web-site’ was getting 65,000 hits a day, with people looking to emigrate. Of course, from his point of view, it was all people who were tired of Bush Jr. passing out tax cuts to big corporations.

I told him, if a draft was ever brought back, I might be one of those who looks into immigrating to another country.

Being patriotic to this flawed nation of ours, he told me about his experience in other countries while in the Navy, and his conclusion was that we live in the freest nation on earth.

He might be right, but for how much longer?

***********

I had heard on the news that Dick Cheney is talking about not paying dues to the U.N. again. remember the last time that happened, back in 2001? Then came the disaster on 9-11-01, and within the week our U.N. dues were paid in full.

We cannot keep going down this road and expect the rest of the world to react kindly to us. We are forging ahead in an hostile environment, one in which our only strong ally, Tony Blair, (prime minister of England) is beginning to turn against us, saying that America should give the Kyoto protocols another look.

What worries me more than what we look like to the world is what we look like to ourselves. We are so fractured on these issues which shouldn’t even be issues, that we can’t unite on anything. My father, who voted for Kerry, as did I, doesn’t agree with me on anything, except that Bush Jr. and his minions are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

The next tactic of the terrorists should be to propogate the divide between the “two Americas” because a nation divided would be easy to conquer. If Americans began a bloody civil war, we would be easy pickings for a nation of any size who wanted to walk in and mop things up.

But please, if you are one of those Americans that believes in banning things, or forcing others to do things ‘our way’, do me the favor of never again using the term, “The Land Of The Free” because it makes you a goddam liar.

No Fax Payday Loans

On the cover of AdBusters

December 8, 2004 Wendesday 8:43pm

Nothing is precious in America, because there is too much of everything. Mega-mass production has caused us to lose site of the planet earth beneath our feet.

I took my daughter to art class, then went to Walmart for corn-huskers hand-lotion. On the way to checkout I stopped at the magazines; I scanned them all and found the variety lacking. Walmart is the home of the bland. Barnes and Noble, the king of magazines, is about three blocks away, so I went there.

I looked through all the new books at the front of the store, working my way back to the magazines. There are one or two that I gravitate to, but I neglect no section, I scan them all.

One that I enjoy is called AdBusters. I could not open it, tonight. The cover stopped me. There were many things on it, but the largest image was that of a wailing man holding the body of a child. It nearly stops me cold thinking about it now. It is rare in America to see such a display of true emotion. My heart breaks for this man.

This image was brought to me by my country’s war in the middle east. We just cannot keep our pecker in our pants; we have to go over there and fuck up everything for them. I have nothing but disgust for anyone willing to put magnetic ribbons on their car with sappy slogans telling me to support the troops, yet, were god to ask them to send their child to die in a war on the other side of the world, they would say no.


I’m sure that I am much too cynical. I know that there are good things somewhere in the world, but it is hard to see beyond the pain that we inflict on others while browsing through the magazine rack at Barnes and Noble.

I’m tired of the debate over the war. I don’t understand why we are killing people just to hold our ground in a place we never should have been in the first place. Why are we there? I no longer wish to know the answer to the question, but will ask you one: would you trade places with that man on the cover of AdBusters, carrying a dead child?

No Fax Payday Loans

All Tomorrow’s Parties

by William Gibson


In All Tomorrow’s Parties we are given a dark vision of a ‘post-post-industrialized’ America (as one of Gibson’s own characters put it) where the rule of law applies equally to everyone, as long they aren’t too far from the police station.

The result of having volunteered to try an experimental drug, Laney is able to sense the coming of monumental events through the ‘data flow’ on the internet. He doesn’t like what he ‘sees’ for the future, and thinks he knows who’s behind it, so sends agents into the real world to change what he sees from cyberspace.

Rydell is a wannabe cop who Laney sends looking for Harwood, a god-like character that Laney ‘feels’ may be the one behind the next event that will ‘change the world as we know it’. Rydell has good intentions but has a hard time in their execution, ending up bruised and battered for his efforts.

Chevette ends up getting twisted into the plot, but for some reason I don’t remember if Laney has asked her to. She runs into Rydell, who is an old ex-boyfriend, while she is trying to avoid her latest ex-boyfriend at a bar on ‘the bridge’ where Chevette used to live.

Rydell is in possession of something Gibson calls an idoru. It is a holographic projector that contains the virtual person of someone called Rei Toei. Rei Toei is a woman who has never existed in the flesh, yet she is a sentient creature. She is also central to the big ‘event’ Laney has predicted.

I’m really not interested in delving too deeply into the main event of the book. For me Gibson’s writings are appealing in how he sees the future. The gadgets he creates are worth the price of admission. The idoru, (which could be a made-up word; he did coin the word ‘cyber-space’ after all) is a genius idea on its own; one he liked so much he wrote a whole novel around it. And though a lot his gadgets don’t exist, (as far as I know . . .) he doesn’t stray too far from the probable.

Most writers of science fiction tend to concentrate on either the hardware or the social/cultural aspects of the future, where Gibson blends the two seemlessly in his bleak future-visions. In Gibson’s future smoking is illegal, and people live on suspension bridges that are barred from automobile traffic due to structural damage caused by an earthquake. They are dressed in what may or may not be clothing, and they fall in love with the avatar of no one who ever existed. They live in cardboard boxes while saving the world by surfing the internet.

No Fax Payday Loans

They Will Never Go Away

As sad as it sounds, abortions will never go away.

It is legal in America for a woman to stop a pregnancy; to control when she has a baby; when she reproduces.

This is a terrible decision for someone to have to make. No one ever jumped for joy because they decided to abort a baby. It has never been a happy occasion.

The problem with both sides of this issue is that we don’t talk to each other, we only yell. If only we could discuss it with compassion we might get somewhere.

If only we understood that those who would ban abortion feel powerless to help those who are making the decision to have one.

If only we understood that those who are making the decision to have one wish they could be given a chance to undo what has been done.

If only we knew that those who wish to keep abortion legal do not approve of it anymore than anyone else: they know it is a terrible thing to do, but know it would only be made worse by making it illegal.

I know that abortion kills a fetus, hence a child to be. I am the legal guardian of five children: three of them by marriage and two by birth. My first wife, who gave birth to one of my children, chose to have two abortions, and my second wife, who gave birth to another of my children, had two miscarraiges. I was not happy with my ex-wife’s decision to have two abortions, any more than I was with my current wife’s miscarraiges. I was powerless in both cases.

As a man, I’m not sure where I fit into the decision making process. With my first wife, my argument against her having the abortions meant little. But then, nothing I said meant much to her, which says more about who one should marry than about whether abortion should be legal. Had my current wife been confronted with the issue of an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy, my opinion would mean something. I chose my companion more wisely the second time.

Had abortions been illegal at the time my ex-wife had been confronted with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy it would mean that the cost would have been much higher and the risks much greater.

Imagine had abortion been illegal and she chose to have one.

A few facts to consider.

First, she had been having an affair at the time she got pregnant, so was unsure as to whether it was my child. I didn’t know about the affair, at the time, so it wasn’t part of the decision making process.

Second, if abortions are now illegal, the cost for having one goes up. The two my ex-wife had cost around $250, cash, because, of course, insurance doesn’t cover voluntary procedures, such as abortion. Having read a bit about abortion during the time it was illegal, I know that the cost ran into the thousands of dollars, and didn’t guarantee that a doctor was doing the procedure or that it was being done in a sterile environment. And she decides to have one, and survives.

After my ex-wife’s first legal abortion, we had a child, that she was sure was mine, and promptly began having an affair, again. Again, she was confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.

Remember, you and I have made abortion illegal. So abortionists are law breakers, and we will say, for the sake of this story, that her first was a doctor doing it on the side, but got scared and quits. So her second abortionist is one who has only done it a few times, and learned from a nurse who had only assisted in abortions, and didn’t know all the procedures. And this abortionist does the job, but kills my ex-wife in the process.

Where would my daughter be without her biological mother? I could make the case that my daughter would be better off without her bio-mom, but would she agree with me? I have told my daughter (who is 13) that her mother had had abortions, and though she wishes her mother hadn’t done this, she would not have wished her mother dead.

**********

My current wife has had two miscarraiges. My wife loves me and wanted to have my baby, and because I love her, I chose to help impregnate her once more. One last time. I didn’t think I could take another miscarraige.

We were successful. We gave birth to an eight pound, eleven ounce baby boy, whom I could not let out of my sight from the moment he entered the world. I drove the nurses nuts, because if they said they needed to take him somewhere for something, I was there with him. They would reassure me that it was perfectly safe for them to take him, but I would have none of this glad-handling, and dogged their footsteps.

Before the beatific moment of my final child’s birth, we were the victims of what is called, generically, ‘fetal demise’ at sixteen weeks. Both times.

Because both events were terrible, I try not to think of them. My wife, who is low maintenance and doesn’t cry much, didn’t require my constant support, so I felt useless.

Because both miscarraiges happened at sixteen weeks, she had to be taken to the hospital, where labor was induced so she could ‘give birth’ to a dead baby. Both times she was kept overnight at the hospital where I slept on a cot in her room.

The worst thing about giving birth to a dead baby, is that it is done in the same part of the hospital where live births are done. The nurse assigned to the task of monitoring us the second time, was an older lady who was very sad for us. More sad than we were, ourselves, considering we’d gone through this before. We must have been her first.

Labor was induced, and, just as when a happy event is expected, the only job I had was to pat my wife’s hand and wait. Eventually, it happened.

My wife asked me to call the nurse to change the paper that had been placed beneath her because she felt wet. The nurse came, and stated with a hitch in her voice, that ‘it’ had happened. Without knowing it, my wife had ‘passed’ the body of our second child. It lay there on the bed, bloody and motionless.

The nurse, overwrought with emotion, wringing her hands, explained to us that she had to check for a heart-beat. We had to comfort her; we told her everything would be okay, as she held the crumpled little body of our baby in her trembling hand and placed the stethoscope on its tiny chest to fulfill the requirements of the law.

Our room, that day, was in the farthest corner of the maternity ward, away from the mommies who’s babies were doing well. After it was over, I went to the nurse’s station for some ice. There was a man there getting himself coffee. He looked up from adding sugar and cream and beamed at me.

“Isn’t it great!” he said.

I nodded.

“It’s a miracle, everytime it happens, ain’t it?” he said.

“Yep,” I said, “everytime.”

Christian Doublethink

My sister is the only member of my family who voted republican. I was disappointed. I told her that I had four years in order to work on her.

I started my campaign with email, which is the most convenient way to get my argument to her. (I want to remind anyone who might not know me that I am not trying to pull her out of her republican trench in order for her to become a democrat, my wish is that she becomes a critical thinker in her political decision making.)

My challenge is made harder because republicans have cloaked themselves in christianity, and the christian world has reciprocated. How could this have happened? When did christianity become such a conservative religion? Christ himself was an activist, becoming violent at times, to get his point across. He was against the money changers being in the church. (I don’t think the money changers are in the church, these days, but the opposite is true: the church is mucking about in the world of capitalism.) So he went in and started turning over tables and pushing people around, saying, “get out of my father’s house!”

The most disappointing aspect of the battle with my sister is that she would not take up arms and engage. She refused to defend what is an unsupportable opinion: an opinion she wished to continue holding.

My sister is not unusual.

Recently, I had a discussion with a christian scholar. I made the proclamation that Bush Jr. was not a christian. (This claim could be made about most americans.) I made this claim not because I am against Jesus or think that one should not become a christian, (though I am an athiest) but because Bush kept using words like ‘crusade’ and ‘evil-doers’ to the point where christians were freaking out in an orgiastic stupor at Bush Jr’s feet.

As president of the United States of America, he is the commander in chief of the armed services and is supposed to be defending our rights to free expression.

Now, with my christian scholar, the argument I used to prove Bush Jr’s non-christian status, was to compare something Jesus did to something Bush Jr. did.

In the bible there is the story of Jesus coming upon the woman who is about to be stoned. Jesus picks up a rock and says, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

Ok, had I been able to get past that point with this christian combatant I might have been able to gain some ground, but it was at that point, my stating what Jesus said, (it is, after all, in the bible he has studied) that he stopped me with, “Well, there are some who believe that that didn’t happen.

Hm.

As an atheist, I would argue that none of it ‘happened’ but that the bible in its entirety is supposed to be a lesson in how to live your life. However, this person had acknowledged that he was fundamentalist in his thinking, meaning he believed in the bible as written, that, because it is written it happened just that way, and is not a metaphor.

Ok, now, his statement that some believe it didn’t happen would have been fine and we could have gone further, had he answered the question, ‘are you one of those who believe that it didn’t happen?’ His answer to me was “I don’t know.”

Wow!

How can you be a fundamentalist christian and not know? And, then there is the issue of one having faith. Aren’t christians supposed to have faith? I’m not even sure what the point of having faith is, but I know it is a big one with with fundamentalist christians.

Ok, when I couldn’t shake him on the issue of whether or not he was one of those that believed it didn’t happen, though it was in the bible, I asked him, “was the story something you think Jesus would have done?”

His answer was, “Well I don’t know.”

How could a biblical scholar not know!!

Of course, I was beginning to wear myself out trying to craft new ways of getting him to give a concrete answer to anything, so we could in fact engage in a debate, but he went on to discuss the story itself, and to make judgements about what happened.

Dang!

I was blown away. He first tells me some believe that it didn’t happen and would not say if he was one of them; wouldn’t guess as to whether, true or not, that it was something Christ-like to do, and then wanted to argue the merits of the story.

I had never come across a true example of doublethink before. I knew that it would come to be in the murky future of America, but had not realized it would come so soon. When 1984 (the year) passed fairly uneventfully, I’d assumed we’d dodged that bullet. Then, twenty years after the time Orwell’s story 1984 took place, we are living it.

And my attempt to argue a point with a fundamentalist christian is just one example of the common rhetoric of the corporatist/republicans in America.

One thing is the other thing.

Black is white.

Yes is no.



This man, this christian right-wing, corporate apologist, biblical scholar was muddying the issue, and when I finally asked him, “Ok, so what is a christian?” his friend steps in.

His friend said, “Let’s say you are a republican (I’m not), do you have to believe everything that republicans believe to be a republican?”

Of course, the answer is ‘no’.

Of course, christianity is not a political party: if you claim to be a christian, you are not supposed to be able to pick and choose what you believe. It is as if these men believed christians have a line-item veto.

Is that what modern, pop-christians believe? What would Jesus think of that?

The Incredibles!

I really wasn’t looking forward to seeing this one. There were a few cute things in the trailer, like Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Frozone, frantically looking for his ‘supersuit’ and his wife’s cagey replies to his urgent questions, but the idea of a super hero at mid-life didn’t seem like much to build on.

Pixar has proven itself a hit-maker for Disney, so it was no surprise that it was a good movie. It was surprising, though, just how good it was and on how many levels.

The obvious thing to mention first is the animation, which blew me away. I’d thought it would be impossible to do that after Shrek and Finding Nemo. The people are physical charicatures, but the story was so good I forgot I was watching a cartoon.

The Incredibles is a story of super heroes living in a society as quick to file law suits as our own. Because super heroes are considered public utilities, the government is responsible for defending them. After having defended them one too many times the superheroes are told by the government that they must cease and desist all super saving activities and go into the witness protection program.

The physical aspects of The Incredibles was, well, real. Except for the over the top abilities of the super heroes, everything falls and bounces and breaks as it would in reality. Not only that, but the psychological make-up of the super heroes is real, too. People are happy, and sad, and self-doubting in just the right measures, which might be the most amazing thing about this movie.

Since the children were born after Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl went into the witness protection program and are denied public use of their super powers, they only know of their parent’s super hero past from stories. Of course, as children of super heroes, they have super talents of their own, but are told not to ever exercise them. So when Elastigirl finds herself in an airplane with her two kids; guided missiles in hot pursuit, she calls upon her daughter for help.

I would have thought that a girl with repressed super powers would jump at the chance at using them, but had discounted the fact that she’d been told all her life not to because she would endanger the family. She began by protesting that she was never supposed to use her powers but her mother, Elastigirl, made it clear that she either use her unique gift or they might all die. So, when called upon to protect them, Elastigirl’s daughter, doing her best, couldn’t pull it off.

There is a message here for those of us who would repress the talents of our children: that we should encourage our kids to blossom, and do great things if it is within them. Maybe we just want our kids to be humble, or we’re resentful that we didn’t get the opportunity that they might have to be a rockstar or a doctor. Let them be who they are.

The nemesis of our super hero family was created by Mr. Incredible himself. As a boy, Syndrome, wishes to be just like his hero, Mr. Incredible. He is president of the Mr. Incredible fan club and tracks ever move Mr. Incredible makes. Knowing he has no ‘natural’ super powers he invents shoes that make it possible for him to fly. He is an enthusiastic pre-teen boy who wishes only to help his hero, but is told to go home, that Mr. Incredible works alone.

Mr. Incredible had handled this all wrong. Of course, the boy had gotten in the way, and a super villain had escaped, but he should have encouraged the boy’s ingenuity. He was obviously smart, but having been rejected, his worship turned to resentment, and in the end, could have been the downfall of Mr. Incredible and his family.

But of course, The Incredibles learn to work together as a team, allowing one talent to complement another in order to save them all from destruction.

As a side note to the movie itself, which was brilliantly executed, I was interested in the fact that it was given a PG rating. I’m not sure an animated Disney movie has ever been given a PG rating. I’m sure PG was the proper rating, but with a few well done edits, it could have been brought into the area of a G. Was this due to a power struggle between the heads of Pixar and Disney? And, if that was the case, who won? Would The Incredibles have been less were it to have been made into a G rated movie?

The Incredibles might be a little much for a three year old, but for everyone else, this is a great movie.

Issues Bigger Than Gay Marriage

I’m saddened that the current Bush administration was given another four years not because there was some conspiracy of voter fraud going on, but because so many fell victim to the scare tactics used by the far right wing republicans. So many people have told me they voted for Bush because of his stance on gay marriage and abortion above all other considerations.

I don’t wish to beat a dead horse, but there are much larger issues to be considered with another four years of a republican administration.

Just recently it has been brought up, again, that the Arctic Circle is getting warmer, which causes the ice to melt and oceans to rise all over the world. This is something that affects everybody, but the Bush administration (meaning us Americans) refuses to be a part of the conversation. How can we not talk about this? How can something that affects the whole world, and that has the whole world worried, not be something we are willing to step up and have a say in?

And I don’t want to get into the issue of the percentages of who’s doing what to the earth; the fact is that all the world is a contributor to the problem, but we are the only big nation refusing to take part in the discussion.

Can you honestly not know the answer to the question, “Why doesn’t anybody like us?”

Within the first year of Bush’s administration we refused to take part in the Kyoto protocols, and I don’t know the particulars of that agreement, only that all the nations involved would agree to reduce pollution. Russia has signed on. We have not.

It is bad enough that we don’t care about crapping in our own sandbox, but we don’t care if our crap lands in someone else’s sandbox, either. What if all the nations who do care about this decide we need to take part, whether we like it or not?

Yes, we are the world’s only superpower, unless the rest of the world gangs up on us. We lost our biggest philosophical enemy when the Soviet Union went tits up, but now we have something called the European Union. Yes, they were formed to stabilize their economy with a common currency, but how long will it be before they decide that they get along so well they could further stabilize their countries with a common government, and a common army? What if the United Nations decides we are such bad citizens of the world that they vote us out? (I don’t know if that’s even possible, but I’m concerned about it.)

It is common knowledge that carbon monoxide is bad for us, so how can we ignore what it is doing to the world. How can we think the issue of abortion and gay marriage are more important than China or Russia, or the European Union saying to us, “You better get your ass on the band wagon, or else.”

If it gets to that point before we wake up and smell the smog, what are we going to do? Are we going to wait until the world is broken before we attempt to fix it? Will the rest of the world get tired of waiting for us to wake up?

Riven Rock: book review

Riven Rock

By T. C. Boyle

Riven Rock is the tale of Stanley McCormick who is crazy, and his wife who is kept from him for over twenty years. He has issues with women. Eventually, she gets desperate and resorts to standing in the bushes and peering through binoculars just to get a glimpse of his face.

Stanley is heir to a fortune, accumulated in the latter portion of the 1800s, his father dies while he is young, leaving him in the hands of an overbearing mother, 2 older brothers and an older sister who goes crazy in front him.

Katherine Dexter comes from a well-heeled family herself, so isn’t after Stanley’s money. Indeed, I failed to see why she went for him at all, considering how crazy he showed himself to be before he popped the question. Though she was twenty-nine, and a virgin, her getting too old was not an issue. Since both were rich, they could do anything they chose.

Eventually, crazily, they get married.

It is a period piece, set in the first few decades of this past century, and the language used in Boyle’s prose style reflects this. I give him an ‘E’ for effort. His history and research are solid. And, a lot of the sub-plots are interesting, but there is no follow through.

There were many things I would liked to have known. Characters were introduced, then allowed to fade away. Stanley’s sister went nuts in front of him, yet, within the first 100 pages she’s nothing more than background; you never hear about her. I kept expecting there to be some mention of their parallel, crazy existence’s.

I was looking forward to the end of this book, just to see if Stanley and Katherine ever got together and had a normal life, but I was disappointed. The last twenty years of Stanley’s life was told in an epilogue a few pages long.

The book was serviceably written. Stanley and Katherine were compelling characters, well drawn, but I got the impression that Boyle didn’t love them. Somewhere in the middle I put it aside and read 3 other books. I forced myself to finish.

I am a fan of T.C. Boyle’s short stories (I think I’ve read them all) but I don’t care much for the novels. He tends to run out of interesting things for his people to do. Had Riven Rock been a short story it could have been awesome.

Bush wins

November 4, 2004 Thursday 2:43pm

Bush Wins

No, I didn’t vote for George W. Bush. I voted against him. The candidate for the other side really mattered little. I don’t know of any democrat I wouldn’t have used as a tool to dismantle the current administration.

Yeah, I’m pissed

What really gets me about this last time was all the subterfuge, and how easily most Americans were duped by it. Yes, Bush calls himself a Christian, and yes he is against gay marriage and abortion, but how on earth do those issues affect the common American?

Real issues, like the war in Iraq and no-bid contracts and an impending draft, pale in comparison to the fear Bush Jr. put into the hearts of common Americans who might witness two men kissing or long lines of teenage girls in front of abortion clinics.

The fact is, same-sex marriage is already illegal, so the ‘defense of marriage’ crap that the republican machine was spewing was nonsense. And making abortions illegal with not make abortions go away, you’ll just start hearing about botched back-alley abortions, again, where young girls will die at the hands untrained abortionists in unsterile conditions.

Killer Christian

So Bush calls himself a Christian. Well, I’ve done a little survey

of those I know who voted for Bush, and I asked them, “What makes

George W. Bush a Christian?”

One person told me, “Well, he goes to church.” The rest cited his stance on gay marriage and abortion. I hate to break it to you folks, but those things do not make you a Christian, or all Muslims would be Christians as well, and we know they ain’t Christians, don’t we?

I would define a Christian as one who lives by the words and works of Jesus; one who tries to be Christ-like.

There is the tale of Jesus coming upon the crowd of people preparing to stone a woman. Jesus did not want the woman to die, so he picked up a rock and offered it to the crowd saying, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”

In fact, what Jesus did was to commute the sentence of a woman condemned to die. No one threw a rock at her after that.

Consider this tale: George W. Bush was the governor of Texas for six years. In that time, 152 people were executed by the state of Texas. Bush had 152 opportunities to do what Jesus would have done, which is to prevent them from dieing, and he chose not to, 152 times.

Doesn’t sound very Christ-like, to me.

So, who was it that became president of the United States of America? His words say ‘Christian’ but his actions say something else entirely.