On editors and the publishing process

So I'm a bit late on posting. Sorry about that. Poor time management on my part.

Self flagellation concluded, between trying to parse out accounting over an online course, big mistake, and establishing Iago's identity as an alien infiltrator for a paper in my English class, I've been pretty dang busy. Also, the wifey and I are getting ready for a two week camping trip.

So, I mentioned earlier I finally submitted my manuscript. It spent just a couple days in the hands of first readers whom I suspect were office lackeys before I got a rather aggravating e-mail from an editor, from a publishing house I'll never contact again, who demanded I make a series of changes. Now, this company had promised to be a great entryway into the world of the published author and I'd even been recommended to them by other writers.

Thing is, I've never seen one of their books on a book shelf. I'm not sure what to make of that.

In any case, the prime objection to the manuscript as submitted was how various characters, no matter how important to the story, could seemingly just die at any point without an emotional context. You know, a bit like in real life. Now, apparently, this was a bit jarring to the readers and thus some manner of change seems indicated as all parties involved wish to emerge profitably from the endeavor. Fair enough. However, what is certainly not indicated, was to have some nattering deconstructionist* tell me I have no idea how to 'convincingly portray a life and death situation.'

I'm no Ringo, or Kratman, or any of the other highly successful mil-SF authors out there. My experience of combat was, I suspect anyway, far different and more limited than at least the two I named. That said, I suspect I have a rather better idea of what combat looks, feels, sounds, and smells like than some office bound junior editor who has misinterpreted his job responsibilities to include literary criticism.

I would have at least liked a bit of consistency. With regards to one scene I'm being told that the emotional reactions of my characters are too pronounced and, apparently, an elite group of combat veterans should share the same ideological and emotional nihilism of the more pretentious breed of literary critic. Soldiers, apparently, are allowed no emotional range beyond angst ridden bitterness or bloodthirsty and amoral. However, when someone dies in a seemingly arbitrary fashion during an event in which he was essentially an interested spectator, this should have had a profound effect on the insufficiently emotionally-stunted survivors. Apparently, they should have taken a moment to reflect on the chaos, pointlessness, and random nature of war. Not, of course, as I was quickly consoled, that any of their views on what they were doing should have changed, but they certainly should have re-evaluated them. Nevermind that they had a mission to do and were already being shot at, hence the a fore mentioned death. No they should have had an emotional scene of some variety there.

Well, if your reading this, Mr. Editor, you can go stuff yourself.

That particular scene was the greatest source of contention and it is NOT getting changed. Yes, I have already changed quite a few other scenes and now I'm trying what to do with all these characters who are suddenly not dead. I'll deal with it. If nothing else, after the numerous rewrites at this point, I've certainly gained experience.

If/when this particular manuscripts does get published, I'm gonna mail an autographed copy to that little twerp with that scene dogeared and, "Suck it!" written in the margin at the end of the chapter.

*I already have enough of a problem with deconstruction as a form of literary analysis as it essentially intends to prove that nothing actually means anything. Which of course is an incomplete method as at least some things have a very obvious, clear cut moral to them. With a very few notable exceptions, I've only seen deconstruction used to 'prove' that no piece of literature communicates any idea that the deconstructionist objects to.

I was wrong.

Today has not been a fun writing day. Not by any stretch of my, admittedly, very elastic imagination.

Ugh. Seriously? What the heck is wrong with people? This country seems like it is one poorly timed negligent discharge away from a domestic insurgency at best, and a damn, bloody civil war at worst! Every where and with everyone I discuss politics I hear bit champing rhetoric, incessantly asking if it is 'time yet.' People are freaking eager to see the ball go up and see the streets awash in blood?

Are freaking kidding me? Are you all out of your freaking minds?! Am I the only one who has thought this through? The situation does not mesh with the much toted, "We have the guns and they're a bunch of cowards so we'll win," meme.

It's as if everyone expects it's going to be themselves and their fellow patriotic, red blooded gun owners facing off against a few Feds and whatever cops side against them. What a joke! Nothing resembling a civil war is ever that simple. You think the military will side with us freedom minded folk or simply sit it out? Hah! Maybe some, maybe at first. But have you forgotten the witch's brew that makes up the gun owning populace? How long do you suppose the military will sit it out or side with us, when the Aryan nation is using the chance to gun down Jews in the streets? Yeah, I imagine any of us who saw them doing so would shoot the damn Nazis ourselves, but by then it'd be too little too late.

Hell, once the ball goes up, every whack job we'd distance ourselves from normally is going to be declaring themselves our fellow soldiers of freedom. Right before they blow up a federal building. Or a school. Or a VA hospital. How long do you think before large parts of the military decides to Hell with that whole mess? Leave that aside for a moment, if our enemies are half as tyrannical, base, and venal as our more eager elements believe they are, what is to stop them from using agents provocateurs to elicit the same response?

I'm not saying we should just roll over for the accruing violations of our freedoms, but violence is the last resort. If it ever is allowed to come to that, it will be long, it will be brutal, our friends and family will be the collateral damage, and our own military will be pitted against both ourselves and itself, crippling out nation no matter the outcome.

If you are actually wanting the ball to go up, growing impatient for the day the brownshirts come for you, or look at the reset button with anything other than absolute gut-wrenching terror, then you are an IDIOT and a liability to the cause of freedom.

EDIT to add: That was a bit more confrontational than perhaps it should have been. Sorry about that, today was nerve wracking and emotionally draining. Add the near run thing we had in Michigan recently and I was near convinced someone would kick off the shooting before week's end.

I understand people's rejection of the Clarie Wolf idea (if you don't get it, don't worry, you're not the target audience). If it is too late to work within the system, then it is NOT too early to start shooting, but in this country there's no such thing as a time too late to work within the system, but still too early to start shooting.

So, do you think Obamacare is good or not?

So, our elected legislators of both houses voted to foist the healthcare bill on an unwilling public, promising that it was for our own good. That being the case, what with it being all great and wonderful and chock full of Hopenchange...how come they don't want to get any of it on them? Seems a little odd that.

Also, why exempt Tricare, with zero votes against? I'm certain someone could make a case that since Tricare is the health care of military members, veterans, and their families, they've already paid for their government health care. A sentiment I agree with, but likely not one the Dems do. They're the same assholes who recently proposed letting the private insurance of veterans pay for the VA medical visits, you know to deal with injuries received while still on active duty. Remember that? It was touted as a way to cut expenses, kinda funny with same people now wanting to insure everyone, or else.

So why would these people exempt Tricare from their sweeping power grab?

I can't say for sure, to be honest. It certainly doesn't seem they give a rat's ass about public opinion, what with pretty much every member of the public telling them not to pass Obamacare. I doubt anyone would believe they did it because they actually care about the military, I certainly don't. So why?

Well, who is exempted? Well, they are, apparently, their staff is, and the military. Pay close attention folks, see how long it takes before other exemptions, or superior/free plans, are extended to other government employees. Specifically, those best used as instruments of control, the IRS, FBI, ATF, and even the EPA.

If left unchecked, we could see the emergence of two distinct classes. Those who must pay for state rationed care, and those who are treated for free at exclusive facilities.

Do I think it will happen? No, not really, but I expect them to try. It's less a plausible threat and more a weather vane to their intentions and long term goals. Pay attention folks, it's about to get all 1984.

I'm just shocked!

No, wait, I'm not. Airport employee gets scanned. For the linkaphobe, a female airport employee accidentally walks through one of the new 'see through your clothes' scanners and the weasel operating it uses it to examine her anatomy a bit more closely than she liked.

I can't bear to think about the body scanner thing. I'm totally traumatised. I've spoken to the police about it. I'm in too much of a state to go to work.

Well, admittedly, that would suck, but she works at the airport. Presumably she is okay with this happening to hundreds, if not thousands, of other people a day. So first, just as pretty much everyone who isn't a fan of sheep-like compliance knew, the system is being abused to get to voyeuristic kicks. Second, what's good for goose is apparently not good for the gander, since it's not okay to have it happen to her.

Foot Soldier in The Long War

For years, since learning about the Saracens and Spain, I have described the conflict between Islam and the rest of the world as The Long War. I shall do so no more. The real war, the one that matters, is much, much older. It is the eternal struggle which has described all human history, back to Cain and Able (or the first caveman to force his will upon another, for you atheists). It is the struggle between two conflicting impulses present in all people, the desire to control and to be free of the control of others.

It is a war where there are no clear combatants and battle lines until it is too late, or nearly so, for those who wish freedom to prevail. It is not between religions or religions and secularism, nor opposing political ideologies, not even the conflicting philosophies of collectivism and individualism, but it lies at the heart of each of those conflicts. It is a war with many theaters, reaching into every facet of life.

As society needs authority in order to function, it is impossible for any person, perhaps even any idea short of anarchy or nihilism, to fit neatly into the side of wishing to be free from control, but all too easy for a person or idea to fall completely in the other camp. It is a nebulous struggle with most people being only unwitting participants until the point when the two sides polarize, by then it is almost certainly too late. Worse, a clear victory for either side results in a loss for civilization.

Societies need both conflicting ideals in balance, the correct balance being an issue of much debate, in order to be both free and functional. To one extreme, tyranny, the other, anarchy. Further complicating issues is a force I'll call societal entropy which favors either extreme, but abhors a balance.

Just as maintenance against deterioration in an artifact can only ever end with the ruin of the artifact, so too the maintenance of the precarious balance we call liberty. Balance or not, the struggle is a perpetual one. Historically, those societies which have achieved something resembling an ideal balance have only ever done so temporarily and only in the minority of cases. Entropy always wins eventually, but not on any timetable.

Sunday we saw the balance tip dramatically further in the favor of those who wish control. Any kind of balance in our country is in dire straits. All it would take is anything less than the absolute and fervent work of those who wish for liberty, in a nation of laws, to see our society to slide over into an authoritarian hell hole. Once there, restoring a balance is far less likely than simple bouncing between anarchy and tyranny. We have a rare thing, one we likely won't see again in our or our children's lifetimes if we lose it.

Congratulations, be you man or woman, religious or atheist, individualistic or collectivist you made the cut. You are now soldiers enlisted in fighting the second oldest war in history, second only to the eternal war between good and evil. Just try to remember, no side can be allowed to win.

The intartubes are all a flutter...

Well, at least some of the blogs I read.

Over at Jennifer's blog, we have possibly the most ridiculous atheist contrived idea ever. Denial of service to God? Well, the founder of the organization originating that particular idea actually showed up and stated that it was a joke. Being fair, I'm inclined to believe an atheist when he tells me he didn't expect to accomplish anything by arranging for mass, simultaneous prayer. Would be funny if it did though.

Over at Breda's place we have feminism crop up. Matter is handled by her and her readers, including self, maturely and with minimal kerfuffle, but when Marco posts about what she said, suddenly some dinosaur is insinuating things about stay at home dads that I didn't much care for. So I went after him, he spouted some amazing ignorance, I replied. Ugh.

I fed the damn troll. You'd think I'd know better.

Oh well. I wouldn't even be writing this, but hey, I heard somewhere that the key to blogging is to write something everyday, thought I'd try it.

Why I sometimes avoid the news...

Ok, I never really avoid the news any more. Used to when I was on leave. Just in case I needed to claim ignorance of an impending recall when asked what I was doing on the backside of the beyond.

I may, however, start! Can Obama win the hearts and minds of Muslims? For those who don't want to hit the link, it's a gushing piece about how Hope'nchange(TM) is going to try to win over all those Muslims in Egypt, but he doesn't need to because they already wuv him soooo muches! It also makes sure to sneak in an unsubtle jab at Condoleeza Rice for her speech in 2005 delivered to student in Cairo. The article goes on to say the Lightbringer's policy of opening dialogues and expanding communication will work so much better than Bush's policy. You know, because he just yelled at them and bombed them and was so terrible.

There is so much in that article that is stated as absolute fact that is, to anyone who is still paying attention, entirely subjective. This is true with almost any news one reads involving politics these days.

The gubmint posts a list of US nuclear sites. Look past the worry mongering about security at the storage sites in the first half. They may well have said, "This is not the incompetence and/or malfeesance you're looking for." Security at that, and all the other sites where high grade material is stored, is as formiddable as it is humanly possibly to make it.

Honestly, the actual information released is not too big a deal. With a few days research, a savvy individual could likely piece the information together themselves. What blows my mind is that no one calling for heads to roll. Instead we hear specious concerns for overall security and nothing said about who was responsible.

Then several paragraphs follow about how it was no big deal, which is sorta true I guess, and how the GPO (gubmint printing office) simply posted it as a matter of course since they do so many and they had no way of knowing it was sensitive. Really?

Some of the pages are marked "highly confidential safeguards sensitive."

Uh, oops? Maybe I'm a little over critical because I worked in the nuclear field for a little while with both weapons and reactors. Shockingly enough, we took security really damn seriously. If I had leaked so much as an inter-office memo about coworkers' lunch plans, I'd be in Leavenworth still making big rocks into little rocks and little rocks into dust. But since this is the fault of some anonymous employee of the Obama gubmit, nothing will happen.

What's in a name?

First of all, someone who is often chagrined at his habit of not posting anything for extended periods of time probably should not decide to not talk politics for awhile.

Hard not to since I get my news via the intrawebs, which is largely about politics, and then when I go to write a blog post, well, you get the idea.

The upshot is I've averaged about two thousand words a day for just over a week. Maybe I'll be published before the end of the year.

One certainly hopes.

(See what I did there? First paragraph was in third person, middle two in first with a bit of second person, and the last back in third. I've been playing such games for days. I'm such a dork)

Anyway, South Texian today had a post about Joe Klein, of Time Magazine:

"He became ground zero among the neo-cons, but he's vastly smarter than most of them," said Time's Joe Klein, an admirer and critic who praised Krauthammer's "writing skills and polemical skills" as "so far above almost anybody writing columns today."

"There's something tragic about him, too," Klein said, referring to Krauthammer's confinement to a wheelchair, the result of a diving accident during his first year of medical school. "His work would have a lot more nuance if he were able to see the situations he's writing about."

In context, he essentially is saying Krauthammer doesn't know what he's talking about when it involves something physically demanding. In the literary world, to say someone lacks nuance on a particular topic is essentially the same as saying they may know a little about what they're talking about, but lack depth, experience, or some such on the topic.

Well, the only thing physically demanding Krauthammer really talks about is the military and what it does, can do, should do, etc. In a very round about way, he's calling Krauthammer a chickenhawk.

A chickenhawk*, in the parlance of the Other Side, being someone who espouses the use of military force for any reason whatsoever, or just has an opinion of any sort regarding the military, who was never in the military. Amusingly, when Obama called for the bombing of Pakistan (which would have been stupid**) no one called him a chickenhawk. Heck, whenever a liberal of any variety lowers himself to talking about military matters, including strategy, no one calls them chickenhawks.

Funny that. Of course, it's not that liberals don't think those who were never in the military should have an opinion on how it operates, after all, many of them have a whole plethora of rules and policies they want implemented to make the military 'kinder and gentler.' It's really about the nature of the discourse.

This is hardly limited to the instances of people being called chickenhawks. Every time you hear some useful idiot calling conservatives fascists, it's the same thing. I'm sure with some thought I could list a few dozen cliche names liberals will call those who are opposed to their point of view.

See, an argument that stays rooted solidly in reality, ie. logic and facts, is one that liberals have a poor chance of winning. However, call someone a fascist and suddenly he's defending himself and his point of view against a word which has had its meaning redefined specifically to include them. The debate moves into the gutter of arguing from emotion and feeling, facts and history be damned, and this is a fight we conservatives are not good at, but which liberals excel at.

I must admit, I used to allow myself to be roped into such ploys all the time.

The worst part of it, the average man/woman-on-the-street liberal doesn't think they are doing this. They developed their point of view, or had it introduced to them, from the viewpoint of emotion and feeling. That being what the position is based on, it is what they use to defend it.

One must remember that nearly every liberal really does have the best intentions, just like what the road to Hell is paved with.

While most liberals do not consciously try to move a debate to the emotional level, there are some who do so quite deliberately. Anytime you hear the phrase, "Think of the children," or any of its semantic equivalents, someone is defending something they know will not pass rational examination. It also why certain semi-auto rifles are called 'assault rifles/weapons/etc' (though they are nothing of the sort) by those who favor banning them and their talking heads (now including Jimmah Carter!) talk about how they're only useful for killing people. Of course it's ridiculous, but it makes it hard to argue against them when we're forced to play their game.

*The original meaning of a chickenhawk is one who is terrified of something, but is brave anyway. Makes sense, since without fear, bravery is impossible.

**At the time he made the statement. This may be changing soon, if it has not already.

Stupid illness

It's bad enough that the intranet seems especially devoid of edification this morning, but I can't seem to do anything very well at the moment. Stupid cold. I thought I fought of the wifey's cold, but woke up this morning with a fever, a headache, and so congested I can barely hear or think.

BAH!

Let's make a deal

Sorry about the continued lack of regular posting. Between trying to hammer out a book, which is turning into a real page turner to my mind, working out twice and day, and being a full time college student, I have not written here a tenth as much as I'd like. That said, I figured it was time to offer a couple of proposals to those whose political ideals are in conflict with mine.

So there's been a little debate over at the Smallest Minority regarding guns, gun control, the effect an armed populace has on crime, etc. Pretty interesting stuff, deteriorated a bit when the anti-gunner started arguing from a position of feeling and ignoring the obviously real dangers of modern life, but still pretty interesting.

It got me thinking a bit though. Kevin repeatedly posted statistics of various gun friendly locales here in the US of A and noted they, almost universally, had lower crime rates. His opponent pointed out that correlation does not imply causation. This is true, but it does still tell us a few things. For one thing, it can eliminate potential causation. Kevin's opponent, without having any statistics or other evidence to his case, merely asserted that the statistics mean nothing. Not so, although as someone versed in them, I often find their value dubious.

See, those stats did show a negative causation. One that directly opposes one of the dearly held beliefs of those opposed to gun rights. "More guns cause crime!" Right, then how come Texas isn't more like D.C. or L.A.? Hell, how come my little corner of paradise, being about as heavily armed as the 7th Infantry, has a virtually non-existent crime rate?

So, the first deal, leaving aside for the time the issue of legally vs. illegally possessed firearms, I'll stop saying that the statistics indicate that more guns will lower the crime rate. Sure, there's a lot to support the theory, but I'm willing to give a little. The flip side is, my honorable opponents, you must stop saying more guns will mean an increase in violent crime.

Next, "Republicans," and by extension, all conservative, "are fascists." Really? Man. This one has gotten old. Especially since when I've heard that, often with some vitriol behind it, I've always been included in the condemnation. I'm not a Republican and never have been. Heck, I'm a conservative only by courtesy to some people's minds. What I am is a strict Constructionist with some libertarian (note the little 'l') leanings. That doesn't matter. Anyone who opposes government handout programs and nanny-statism is a fascist.

Let's examine that for a second. I know, I know, fascism has evolved, in the current political discourse, to mean simply anyone who supports something we oppose. That's not what it's supposed to mean. At it's founding, Fascism opposed Capitalism as the source of class inequality. Additionally, it opposed Communism as exploiting class warfare. In other words, on neither side of the political divide in America can the term be accurately used. Conservatives are, on the mean, capitalists and liberals, again on the mean, while not Communists are experts in exploiting class warfare (ie. tax the rich to give money to the poor).

Fascism supported both military expansionism as well as government oversight and control of corporate endeavors. So we can both accuse each other of those particular facets of Fascism, but it isn't really accurate to do so. While I'm sure there are some who consider themselves conservatives who favor annexing (read: invading, conquering and subjugating) foreign territory, on the whole we're as opposed to it as the next guy (who happens to be a liberal), but continue to be accused of it because of a greater willingness to use military force. On the other hand, I've heard liberals being called fascists quite a bit recently due to the government's recent acquisition of control over several industries nearly in toto. Sure, it was, by and large, the elected Democrats who voted for it, but the average liberal on the street was just as pissed off as me.

So, can we please stop calling each other Fascists? It's not true on either side. I'm sure there are those who would gleefully debate which side is closer to being fascist, but really, it's got to stop.

Forged in Fire, Rotted from Within

(reposted from another blog of mine)

So, here we are in the year of our Lord, two thousand and seven. For decades we have taught young boys that their natural, chromosonal aggressiveness is wrong, bad, verboten. Girls are taught to keep their man humiliated and feeling perpetually guilty of everything that goes wrong, to control him. Schools teach young children that to believe in God is simple superstition, that our own culture and its mores are intrinsically inferior to all others, that Western Civilization, and by extension, our country, is the bad guy throughout the last few hundred years of history.

The result? Sky-rocketing divorce rates from men who get sick of being treated like village idiots sneaking off with their secretaries who let them wear the pants occasionally and women finding some other man who actually acts like one (although they'll do their best to change him too). Our borders leak like a sieve because we're too afraid of 'oppressing another culture', insensitivity, or racism to defend our way of life and national identity. We're more afraid of the boogeyman of global warming than militant Islam because to deal with the later would require us to actually admit we're battling an entire culture, not just a few radicals.

The list of symptoms brought on by the monster of causality is long and, frankly, we haven't even seen all of it yet.

And where does it all start? By rejecting what we are. Whether you believe in God, as I obviosuly do, or something else, the simple fact is that boys act one way and girls another. This is the natural way of things. Males are aggressive, analytical, territorial, and protective. Females are intuitive, subtle, security-minded, and ruthless. Are there certain exceptions? Absolutely, you'll not likely meet anyone more ruthless than me, or a man more protective than my wife. The point, however, is that there are clear differences and preferences between the genders, even among children treated the exact same. Different hormones, chromosones, etc. By trying to eliminate these natural traits, we've upset the natural order. I can't count how many couples I've met who were absolutely miserbale because the woman exerted dominance over the man. Not that the opposite should be true, marriage should be equal, but it's obvious such a situation cannot maintain. I've seen nearly all of those relationships end in divorce, over the course of less than five years. That's the biological side of it.

On the national side, it's about our national identity. We are a nation that was forged in the fires of war. The War for Independance. "Give me liberty of give me death!" "I regret I have but one life to give for my country." "The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants, for that is it's natural fertilizer." Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, and George Washington. That is who WE were. Patriots, Americans, COUNTRYMEN. We had pride, a work ethic, and a thirst for liberty. We even extended that liberty to others, who sailed across the Pacific and took it. Made this country their own and became Americans themselves, and it was good. We fought any and all who threatened that liberty or the lives of our citizens. So, what happened? Simple, we abandoned all that. How many would seriously expect to hear a President say anything even remotely like the above quotes? No one.

The two are closely related. Without the natural balance in place of men's aggressiveness and women's propensity for security, we tipped the scales to far towards security and the nanny state that engendered. As a backlash against the suppression of men's aggressiveness, we have passive-agressiveness mixed in (in an unholy matrimony) with blatant machoism. Rap videos are a good example. So we have the drive to outlaw guns, control the Internet, outlaw this, ban that, raise taxes more to feed the poor, 'Screw Capitalism, the government needs to run these industries,' give up just a little more privacy for the sake of security, nationalized health care, etc.

That's the prognosis boys and girls, sorta. Things aren't so bad as the media would have us think, although those disfunctional jerks think it's good. We conservatives (who, in my mind, could be described as those who respect the balance) are not the toothless, old lions baying at a world that no longer fears them that some would have you believe we are. I hear all the time about how the soul of America is gone and we no longer have the will to win, etc. Not true. We are made of sterner stuff than that. Even now with a war going on, our military is all-volunteer. Volunteers who shame me for having joined in peacetime. Our Southern border is patrolled by private citizens every day, day in and day out, at cost to themselves, using their own vehicles, gas, and, you guessed it, guns. Everywhere you go, you meet people who rail against the nation our media would have you believe exists. Well, we're NOT that nation, we may have been led astray and struggling, on the ropes if you will, but WE ARE NOT BEATEN. As long as people like us draw breath America will be free and the battle for her soul will not over.

SO, STAND A LITTLE STRAIGHTER, TALK A LITTLE BOLDER, AND TAKE HOPE. WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY AND WE WILL NOT GO WITHOUT MORE OF A FIGHT THAN ANYONE CAN GIVE US.

You go ahead, I'll watch

The wifey and I recently gave a very good friend a pistol in .380 for her birthday. Skip ahead a few days and the Irate family is gathered around the table playing a friendly game of cards (for the record, our definition of friendly excludes violence and nothing else) when I get to fiddling. I finish my turn, go get the range bag and start digging for ammo. Not because of the card game. Wanted to find some .380 to give to our friend.

First box o'bullets to get dug up was 9mm FMJ. I set it down to take my turn, and went to pick it back up, noticed something amusing. On the bottom of the box is a list potential uses for this particular ammo. It included thin skinned game such as white tailed dear...and boar. Lemme rephrase that, BOAR.

Snickering quietly (loudly snorting), I pulled out one of the boxes of .380 FMJ and guess what, it said the same thing.

Now, far be it from me to say that you can't hunt boar with with a tiny little pistol round, but I will say you probably shouldn't.

For reference, THIS is a boar.



Hey, if you got the stones, and good life insurance, you go right ahead. Me, I'll stick to using rifles. Really big rifles. Occasionally rifled shotguns.

EDIT: That's not me in the picture.

Grumbling and muttering

Haven't blogged in a while, obviously. I'm sure whatever small readership I developed is now gone. Oh well, my fault.

The reason I have not been writing is, amusingly, that I have been. I set out some time ago to write a book and then have it published. Hardly the first time I've taken to writing a lengthy story, but this time I had a plan that would, hopefully, avoid wrangling with a publisher and editor. Such wrangling is outside my skill set and the reason I've never had anything published. I'm just not very good at revising my own work, especially when I make a mistake in continuity.

But this time, I had a plan! Before the first word of the first chapter was ever committed to a Word document, I had written detailed biographies of each and every character of importance, I even had a list of tertiary characters at what was important about them. I had an outline that was just under twelve thousand words in length (for reference: most books are around one hundred thousand). I had detailed notes about every spaceship involved, its history, crew roster, armaments, performance, and quirks. Every planet and polity (obviously a sci-fi) was detailed down to the demographics, who was in power, political structure, and laws. All the technological and cultural changes in humanity was carefully plotted along a detailed timeline.

Truly, a masterpiece was about to unfold. Only...I noticed as the story unfolded that it was kind of stilted, seemingly disjointed. The plot twists hardly seemed like twists at all, more like inevitable outcomes of the string of events. I shrugged that off and plowed ahead, promising myself that my live-in editor (the Wifey) and I would fix it easily in the first revision. The continued until I had over sixty thousand of the planned hundred and twenty. Despite knowing what was to happen next, with the assistance of my handy outline, I could not seem to get the story from point A to point B (or point H to I in this case) in a manner that seemed both logical and to flow pleasingly.

The problem, obvious in retrospect, was that by arranging so many details ahead of time, I had severely limited my options when writing. Worse, it just wasn't any fun, which tends to stifle my creativity. If I wanted a character to do something that might seem counter-indicated, like leap up from cover and run screaming towards the badguys, I told myself that it didn't fit the bio, no matter how much my mental picture of the character said that was exactly what he would do. Looking back over what I had, I can't imagine any way to make it even remotely readable without a complete rewrite.

So I gave up on writing for a few weeks. Thought about at least posting on the blog, couldn't get motivated to do it. Heck, I even had a hard time getting my essays done on time for my homework. I seem unusually prone to writer's block when frustrated.

Well, about a week ago I had a conversation with some old friends of mine, who both happened to be published authors and among my favorites at that. They gave me a few tips, most of which centered around being less of an anal retentive obsessive compulsive. Shocking that.

Which brings me to where I am now. About ten thousand words (Already?!) into a book that, as yet, lacks so much as an outline. At least a written one, I have a bare bones one in my head, but I'm not, apparently, allowed to commit it to any media until I've reached a certain point in the story. It's kind of funny, but has been amazingly effective. I feel almost like a passive observer as the outline as steadily transformed into something far more readable and exponentially more interesting than it would have been had I committed to it before I started letting the characters interact in my head.

The best part, is the solution to a problem I've had in writing even before my obsessive planning got out of hand. Despite my best efforts, I've never successfully injected humor into any story I've written. This goes back to the first time I wrote one back in grade school. The problem is trying to put humor into a story. It don't work that way, Cleetus. It has to already be there, all the author should have to do at that point is simply bring it to light. The characters, at least some, must have senses of humor and the circumstances simply have to give them something to laugh at every now and then. My current story has thus far been, at various points, both hilarious and spine tingling and it all flows logically. Sure, most of the humor is of the dark and/or gallows variety, but some will no doubt be labeled sophmoric. That's fine with me, I know first hand just what people's sense of humor will do in bad situations and I think I'm pretty close.

So, got that all off my chest and an entire blog post written, hopefully the first of more to come.

Time will tell...

Lesson learned at Oktoberfest

When wandering around a Bravian themed tourist town in the middle of Oktoberfest, one should not absentmindedly begin whistling Die Fahne Hoch.

More on the whole weekend later, when I catch up on work, housework, and school stuff.

Universal Sufferage

...And why it's bugging me.

Some people should not be allowed to vote. At bare minimum potential voters should have to pass a civics test. Seriously, if YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY STATES WE HAVE, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS PARTICIPATING IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THIS COUNTRY! If you don't know what a particular candidate is for and against, you should not be able to vote for them. These ignorant, lazy 'citizens' are the reason every political campaign always ends up looking like a high school popularity contest.

Seriously, how is anyone with two brain cells to rub together going to believe that the people Howard Stern's show interviewed aren't voting for Obama because he's black? They we're completely wrong on his policies and even who he picked for VP, but they're all for him. Or maybe they're just hungry for the sweet draught of Hope'n-Change (TM). They don't know anything that actually matters about what is going on, but they're pulling for Obama. I'm willing to bet there are some pulling for McCain/Palin too, just because his VP is a woman.

Does anyone who actually has any business having an opinion still oppose some additional requirement for suffrage? I don't mean that sarcastically either. Are there any well-informed, critically thinking, and literate people out there, who still want the lazy, the ignorant, and the irrational to be able to vote?

All I want is a written civics test. Some basic stuff like how the electoral college works, what a bicameral legislative is, what powers the executive does and doesn't have (that'd be the big one for most people), and maybe, I dunno, some basic idea of what our country is and who is running it. I know it would be opposed as a literacy test, which are verboten, but I think it's about time we got rid of that rule. To be illiterate in this day and age means you are either A.) an immigrant, in which case following naturalization you can take the test with a proctor reading the questions, or B.) too lazy, too stupid, or too cool to have learned in school, in which case...

...you shouldn't get to vote.

This is how democracy dies...

...not to cries of acrimony and outrage, but to thunderous applause on the floor of the House.

Oh, I'm over-reacting, am I? If you think so, you haven't been paying attention. For over a week every Representative in support of the bailout has told the media that their offices have been swamped with letters, phonecalls, and e-mails from their constituents. This is a quote, "They've been split about 50/50 between 'No' and 'Hell no!'" This last delivered with a smugly superior smirk that seemed to just scream, "We know better than you do."

I understand that no one can expect our elected reps to be nothing more than voting apparatus of the people, that they are expected to bring a bit more expertise and calmer heads to the voting, but this is a blatant flaunting of the will of the people.

When our government so blatantly ignores the will of the people, resting assured that they know what's best for us, they can no longer be truly considered representative. Can they? Of bloody course not!

The worst part is the ones who talked to the media after the failure of the first bill, saying how the people are simply being vindictive towards Wall Street and that they would, foolishly it's implied, by willing to go to the bread line for it. That kind of unthinking arrogance permeates our elected 'Representatives.'

And why shouldn't it? After all, the recent record of the voters shows that our attention span for Congressional voting is shorter than an episode of American Idol. We'll vote on what they say in their campaigns about the war and the economy, etc, but pay no attention to the fact that in the past they've voted differently.

Of course, the question is, why would so many vote for something they knew was unpopular? At the very least, people like me will call them to task for it, what did they gain? Ask yourself this, who is funneling more money into their re-election coffers? We the People, or those same damn companies, who were so recently in dire financial straights? Of course we know the answer to that, don't we.

I'd love to know how much of that seven hundred Billion (BILLION) ends up going to re-election campaigns.

Tell you what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna try to get a hold of the complete list of who voted for that thing in both houses (yes, I know that should be capitalized, but F*** 'em).

Toss the bastards out in '08, '10 and '12.

As yet another service I provide...

Ahh, it's that magically part of the Olympiad again where you can't swing a cat by its tail without hitting a campaign speech. So, as a free service, Irate Islander industries has provided you with this tool to survive the season. Simply add at the appropriate time and suddenly all is well.

Of course, we didn't make it, we're just linking to it.

Why?

Because I'm just that rotten a person...

"May you live in interesting times"...oh, we do

Here we are in the year of our Lord, two thousand and eight. Well into the third century of this great Republic, founded on the ideal that what you do matters and who you were born as does not.

If only our Founding Fathers could see us now.

I won't bother with the obvious, that's been well covered by those more talented than me. Instead, I want to talk about another aspect.

It started way before Sarah Palin. WAY before. Can anyone even remember the last Presidential election that was campaigned solely on the basis of the candidate's platform? Heck, there have been times when I wondered if anyone cared about the actual positions of the candidates. I know better now, but the situation has gotten no better.

So, now we come to Palin. She has been potential VP for a few days now and I've heard no criticisms of her politics yet. I have, however, heard a nonstop barrage of sheerly personal attacks. Everything from her being a vapid beauty queen, a bad mother because she went into politics (what about Hilary, Pelosi...?), and a hypocrite because her daughter is pregnant.

How's that work? She is pro-life and pro-family values, right? So, if she was going to be a hypocrite, wouldn't she have had her daughter very quietly get an abortion and cover up the whole thing?

'Ah', they say, 'but her daughter got pregnant at seventeen!' Okay, so? How does that matter even one little bit? First off, it was her daughter, not her, secondly everyone is human. She has certainly tried her best to respond to the situation as best she can and with candor. Which is far more than can be said for most politicians.

But she will continue to be the target of vicious personal attacks. Not because she is a bad person, under qualified (she is, in fact, more qualified that either candidate for the big chair), or a hypocrite. She is a target because she has energized a largely unimpressed conservative, pro-gun base to vote for McCain who likely wouldn't have otherwise, because she is a woman politician who has succeeded on her merits and not on identity politics, and because she does have experience as both an executive and in foreign relations. In other words, they are in a frothing rage because she was a good pick and dramatically increases McCain's chance for a win.

Many people, myself included, have already (it's like time is speeding up in the political world) noticed a very strong backlash from all this. People who could normally be relied to vote for the Democratic candidate are, in increasing numbers, telling their own party to go to Hell.

Way I see this playing out is a radical furthering of the marginalization of the extreme left as well as the party leadership from their base. Who knows? Maybe we'll see the stranglehold of the two-party system broken within our lifetimes.

Hey, even I can hope.

Schoolhouse fun

So I recently signed up for a college class on base on American National Government. In other words, it's an advanced civics course regarding the federal government. Hurray fun!

As I expected, I was the only one who knew the historical origins of democracy (ancient Greece), but I really expected more of the students to at least know the structure and purposes of our government. Out of about seventeen of us, only five knew what separation of powers and checks & balances were. Only two of us knew what federalism was and one person thought welfare and universal medical care where guaranteed rights.

The first class was the worst as only a few other students answered any questions and those answers lead me to the conclusion I was the only conservative in the class. Took a smoke break and had to seriously ask myself if it was worth arguing with EVERYONE or if I should just keep my head down.

Decided to quit whining and man up, and when I spoke up, found out I was far from alone. It should be interesting.

Google, are you kidding ME?

Hat tip to Little green footballs-

It’s the anniversary of D-Day, the invasion of Normandy that began the liberation of Europe from the Nazi nightmare.

So what does Google celebrate today?

The birthday of Spanish painter Diego Velasquez, which as we all know is much more important than some silly war to save civilization: Google.

What? Are you kidding me? I know it's all politically correct to ignore our heritage and spit on the sacrifices of those who have gone before, but isn't that a bit much? Fighting the Third Reich and ending the Holocaust was a bad thing now?

I mean, come on, my brother was born on June 6th too (happy b-day bro, see ya in a few hours), should I use his birthday as a shield against acknowledging the past? Bah, morons, they can go to ****!