Years ago, when I was an actor, I performed in a play called The Shadow Box. The story is set in a cancer hospice and all of the patients are terminal. There are three stories that are told, an aging homosexual and his young lover, the middle-aged mother of three and her husband, and the elderly woman and her daughter. I played the young, gay lover. The play is based on the works of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, the pioneer in the field of dying. It was Kubler-Ross who identified the five stages of grief; denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. During he course of rehearsal we actually had the opportunity to meet Ms. Kubler-Ross. My first impression was of a diminutive, frail, women with more inner strength than any other human I had ever met. She walked into the room and filled it with her presence. Ms. Kubler-Ross stood about five feet tall and could not have weighed one hundred pounds. As she spoke to us after watching our show she was mesmerizing and enlightening. I was twenty-two years old when I met her and we spent only thirty minutes talking yet all these years later I still remember it vividly.
Unfortunately, I am continually reminded of that visit. Yet again, the phone has rung and another death watch has begun. In the past several years I have lost friends and relatives to kidney cancer, colon cancer , lung cancer and now two to melanoma. (This doesn't count the obesity and the heroin OD). Since my friend Kerry Daveline passed away eight years ago from melanoma I have participated in many melanoma benefits. Matter of fact we, the friends of Kerry, host a celebrity golf tournament each year in Woodland Hills, CA to raise money for melanoma research. I am frustrated however at the progress. Thirteen years ago my friend Kerry was diagnosed with melanoma. The options given to him by the medical community were simple, chemo (inerferon) and radiation. He lived five years after that diagnosis and that was considered to be excellent. Three months ago another friend, also Carrie, was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma. She has four to six weeks by doctor's estimations. When she was diagnosed she was given the same simple options. Chemo and radiation. Thirteen years had passed and there have been no appreciable advancements in melanoma detection or treatment. Outrageous!
The disease being what it is and our inability to figure it out notwithstanding, I am puzzled by the two different journeys of my two friends. Kerry had the opportunity to go through all five stages of grief and arrive at acceptance with time to spare. He traveled with his wife, emptied his bucket list and when he passed, other than still being pissed that he was going, left no regrets behind. Carrie has had that entire experience compressed into three months. Her bucket list, while not full, she is forty-five and has done much in her life, is far from empty. She has not had nor will she have the time needed to process through all five stages. She had no time to deny this curse before she was immersed in treatments. Her anger stage was short-lived as she got on a plane to Guatemala searching for the witch doctor to mix the lime with the coconut. (and why not? Nothing we could do for her here.) She knew that bargaining was useless for her so she has pretty much jumped to depression and is stuck there. Her acceptance will undoubtably come at the time of her passing. The difference between these two experiences boggles my mind. Which would I prefer, long, drawn out and painful with the chance to do and say everything that I need or short and painful with no chance to tie up lose ends? I don't know. With that in mind I say live every day as if it is your last, dance as though no one is watching, sing as if no one is listening and love everyone in you life each and every day. (If I missed any other bumper sticker philosophy that might apply, paste it here.)
At the end of the day, we have no control. Go where your life leads you and be happy. As a friend recently reminded, live well, it is the best revenge.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K16TCY
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I'll Be Watching You
As I was watching a TV show last night I noticed that much of the plot of this FBI drama revolved around modern day technology and the ability to track, listen and trace a person's whereabouts, preferences and likes through their cell phone usage. This particular FBI computer geek was able to find a perp by using the GPS in the phone to locate the suspect. After 9/11 and the Patriot act it became mandatory that all cell phones have a GPS for Homeland Security. We have to be able to locate the terrorists, you now. Now, even if a phone is not turned on, it can be located. And of course, every call you make, every text you take, they are watching you. Each time you use your cell phone you are creating a record of where you are and what you are doing. Every time you text a message it goes onto the big storage disk in the sky. Once it is written it is public knowledge. I wish I could make my daughter understand that.
I was born well before George Orwell's 1984. I remember the furor the concept of constantly being watched produced. I awaited the dreaded time when my every movement would be catalogued by a giant computer in the sky. 1984 came and went and no Big Brother, Orwell was well ahead of his time. It took until 2010. Finally the day has arrived and we have barely noticed. Our cell phones are not only a means of communication but it allows you to surf the web, text and light our way through a dark bedroom so as not to disturb our spouse. My sister recently posted on her Facebook status, "I am old enough to have lived half my life without a cell phone and now, when I misplace it, I feel as though I am missing an appendage." And the cell phone is so much more. It is a security badge to the restricted area of your life. It is the private key that opens the door and allows special, by invitation only, access. It can offer up an alibi should you ever need one or it can pinpoint you at any place at any moment in time. (Note to self, if I ever commit a crime, leave the cell phone at home connected to my sister's message center.)
I suppose I should be more concerned about this, after all, Big Brother is, in fact, watching. I suppose I should be concerned that my civil rights are being violated, that the constitution is being trampled, that the Patriot Act lives. But to be honest, I'm not. I don't do anything nearly covert enough to worry about who knows where I am. I am not planning any terrorist activity, at least any outside of a novel, that anyone needs to worry about. If someone out there in cyber-space has nothing better to do than track my movements I would have to worry about them. Join a gym, get a pet, go to dinner, life is more interesting than I am. Same reason I don't care if the bedroom drapes are closed all the way. I should mention that our bedroom looks out onto an empty field but if someone wanted to crawl back there and peep just to get a look at an old guy in his underwear, knock yourself out.
Yet this wonder of modern technology is not everything it is cracked up to be and Hollywood needs to present it in a more realistic manner. I spill a few drops of diet Pepsi on my cell phone and it shorts out. Jack Bauer on '24' takes the sim card from the stomach of a terrorist, wipes it on his pants and it still works. I mean, really?
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
I was born well before George Orwell's 1984. I remember the furor the concept of constantly being watched produced. I awaited the dreaded time when my every movement would be catalogued by a giant computer in the sky. 1984 came and went and no Big Brother, Orwell was well ahead of his time. It took until 2010. Finally the day has arrived and we have barely noticed. Our cell phones are not only a means of communication but it allows you to surf the web, text and light our way through a dark bedroom so as not to disturb our spouse. My sister recently posted on her Facebook status, "I am old enough to have lived half my life without a cell phone and now, when I misplace it, I feel as though I am missing an appendage." And the cell phone is so much more. It is a security badge to the restricted area of your life. It is the private key that opens the door and allows special, by invitation only, access. It can offer up an alibi should you ever need one or it can pinpoint you at any place at any moment in time. (Note to self, if I ever commit a crime, leave the cell phone at home connected to my sister's message center.)
I suppose I should be more concerned about this, after all, Big Brother is, in fact, watching. I suppose I should be concerned that my civil rights are being violated, that the constitution is being trampled, that the Patriot Act lives. But to be honest, I'm not. I don't do anything nearly covert enough to worry about who knows where I am. I am not planning any terrorist activity, at least any outside of a novel, that anyone needs to worry about. If someone out there in cyber-space has nothing better to do than track my movements I would have to worry about them. Join a gym, get a pet, go to dinner, life is more interesting than I am. Same reason I don't care if the bedroom drapes are closed all the way. I should mention that our bedroom looks out onto an empty field but if someone wanted to crawl back there and peep just to get a look at an old guy in his underwear, knock yourself out.
Yet this wonder of modern technology is not everything it is cracked up to be and Hollywood needs to present it in a more realistic manner. I spill a few drops of diet Pepsi on my cell phone and it shorts out. Jack Bauer on '24' takes the sim card from the stomach of a terrorist, wipes it on his pants and it still works. I mean, really?
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Sunday, May 16, 2010
SAG/AFTRA
In my other life, the one I live when I am not here, I am a member of three unions, Screen Actor's Guild , AFTRA and Actor's Equity Association. I have been in SAG and AEA for almost thirty years. I was finally forced to join AFTRA two years ago. I had resisted AFTRA for a number of reasons, the primary one being that I thought it was silly to have three unions for one job. For those of you that do not know the difference here it is. If you act or perform on stage, you belong to Actor's Equity. If you act or perform and it is recorded on film you must join SAG. If you act or perform and it is recorded on video tape or is live, you must join AFTRA. A foolish concept to begin with but it has been in place for almost a century.
Unions have their place. When a situation arises that people are making twenty-five cents an hour and dying of black lung disease something must be done. In the early stages of the film and television industry certain advantages were taken by the producing entities and thus the unions were formed to help protect the performers. Why it was determined that we needed three unions for the same job however, is beyond me. It is like working for General Motors and being in one union if you work on Chevys and another is you work on Pontiacs. In no other industry will you find a number of different unions representing people who do the same job.
Several years ago a proposal was put forth that the two TV and film unions, SAG and AFTRA, merge. It caused a heated debate and the union management's inability or unwillingness to adequately answer questions regarding health and welfare benefits along with a superior attitude held by the SAG upper management to not pollute their union with extra's and TV actors defeated this merger. Hence, all dual members went on paying two sets of dues. Fast forward to last fall. Without boring you with the details, AFTRA undercut SAG by a significant margin in a debate with producers for electronic media rights and residuals, meaning internet play essentially. Technology also developed rapidly and helped AFTRA grow to be a significant power. Five years ago, digital video did not exist in any real fashion, now it is becoming the preferred means of recording television and films. Being a 'video' format it falls under the AFTRA banner. AFTRA has the significantly weaker deal both in base compensation, residual payments and health and welfare and yet they are now the dominant union. Why? Because SAG was too damn full of itself to merge when they had the chance. By rejecting the merger SAG has essentially weakened itself to the point that I do not believe it will exist in five years. Producers will take the best deal they can get and the AFTRA contract is significantly cheaper for them. Meaning, the performers, the ones that these unions are supposed to protect, will make less money on set and less money in residual payments. So, while SAG maintained its purity, it lost its soul. It may not be twenty-five cents an hour and black lung disease but it is significantly less in the pockets of its members, the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Unions have their place. When a situation arises that people are making twenty-five cents an hour and dying of black lung disease something must be done. In the early stages of the film and television industry certain advantages were taken by the producing entities and thus the unions were formed to help protect the performers. Why it was determined that we needed three unions for the same job however, is beyond me. It is like working for General Motors and being in one union if you work on Chevys and another is you work on Pontiacs. In no other industry will you find a number of different unions representing people who do the same job.
Several years ago a proposal was put forth that the two TV and film unions, SAG and AFTRA, merge. It caused a heated debate and the union management's inability or unwillingness to adequately answer questions regarding health and welfare benefits along with a superior attitude held by the SAG upper management to not pollute their union with extra's and TV actors defeated this merger. Hence, all dual members went on paying two sets of dues. Fast forward to last fall. Without boring you with the details, AFTRA undercut SAG by a significant margin in a debate with producers for electronic media rights and residuals, meaning internet play essentially. Technology also developed rapidly and helped AFTRA grow to be a significant power. Five years ago, digital video did not exist in any real fashion, now it is becoming the preferred means of recording television and films. Being a 'video' format it falls under the AFTRA banner. AFTRA has the significantly weaker deal both in base compensation, residual payments and health and welfare and yet they are now the dominant union. Why? Because SAG was too damn full of itself to merge when they had the chance. By rejecting the merger SAG has essentially weakened itself to the point that I do not believe it will exist in five years. Producers will take the best deal they can get and the AFTRA contract is significantly cheaper for them. Meaning, the performers, the ones that these unions are supposed to protect, will make less money on set and less money in residual payments. So, while SAG maintained its purity, it lost its soul. It may not be twenty-five cents an hour and black lung disease but it is significantly less in the pockets of its members, the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thoughts on NFL Drug Policy
A wonderful person for whom I hold great respect blogs everyday. I am amazed at her ability to talk. I admire that quality of being able to jot down your thoughts and make them interesting. Mostly I even bore myself. But, in an attempt to keep the flow going, I will ramble.
I am a huge NFL Fan. Recently there was a scandal in Houston as their rookie star linebacker, Brian Cushing, was suspended for the first four games of next season for violating the banned substance policy. This caused quite a bit of controversy as the young man had also won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award for 2009. Apparently there had been whispers around the league that Cushing was using anabolic steroids to enhance his performance. Consequently, all of talk radio and TV sports analysts jumped onto the steroid bandwagon. It was reveal three days later that while he had tested positive for a banned substance it was not steroids but a substance called HCG. HCG is produced naturally in the body in a number of different ways, most commonly from a tumor growth. HCG levels are also elevated after sexual activity. Additionally it is used as a masking agent to hide steroid use, hence its presence on the banned substance list.
The NFL Banned Substance policy is very strict and unforgiving. The basic premise is that each player is responsible for what goes into their body and if they are found with a banned substance they are subject to suspension. My issue with this is that all banned substances are treated equally. I believe that the substances should be categorized in a three tier system to avoid misunderstanding and false accusations, based on their effectiveness at creating an unfair advantage on the field. In my system a Class A offense would constitute proof of anabolic steroid or Humane Growth Hormone use thus creating an unfair advantage for an individual on the football field. A Class B offense would constitute the presence of a masking agent used to hide steroid use. Recognizing that the mere presence of a masking agent is not irrefutable proof of steroid use. A Class C offense would constitute the use of any other banned substance. The punishment for each offense would then be set to fit the crime. Class A offense would result in a one year suspension and loss of salary. A Class B offense would result in a four game suspension and a Class C offense would be a one game suspension and a fine.
By instituting this system fans, management and other players would be more fully informed about the specific infraction and not jump to conclusions about an individual case. At the same time a player would be seriously motivated to NOT use performance enhancing drugs as it could cost them millions of dollars. It would also avoid unnecessary controversy about the degree of the offense. Today, if a player is found with epedrine in his system is treated the same as a player with anabolic steroids in his system. The results on performance of each are vastly different and should be treated differently within the penal system of the NFL.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K16TCY
I am a huge NFL Fan. Recently there was a scandal in Houston as their rookie star linebacker, Brian Cushing, was suspended for the first four games of next season for violating the banned substance policy. This caused quite a bit of controversy as the young man had also won the Defensive Rookie of the Year award for 2009. Apparently there had been whispers around the league that Cushing was using anabolic steroids to enhance his performance. Consequently, all of talk radio and TV sports analysts jumped onto the steroid bandwagon. It was reveal three days later that while he had tested positive for a banned substance it was not steroids but a substance called HCG. HCG is produced naturally in the body in a number of different ways, most commonly from a tumor growth. HCG levels are also elevated after sexual activity. Additionally it is used as a masking agent to hide steroid use, hence its presence on the banned substance list.
The NFL Banned Substance policy is very strict and unforgiving. The basic premise is that each player is responsible for what goes into their body and if they are found with a banned substance they are subject to suspension. My issue with this is that all banned substances are treated equally. I believe that the substances should be categorized in a three tier system to avoid misunderstanding and false accusations, based on their effectiveness at creating an unfair advantage on the field. In my system a Class A offense would constitute proof of anabolic steroid or Humane Growth Hormone use thus creating an unfair advantage for an individual on the football field. A Class B offense would constitute the presence of a masking agent used to hide steroid use. Recognizing that the mere presence of a masking agent is not irrefutable proof of steroid use. A Class C offense would constitute the use of any other banned substance. The punishment for each offense would then be set to fit the crime. Class A offense would result in a one year suspension and loss of salary. A Class B offense would result in a four game suspension and a Class C offense would be a one game suspension and a fine.
By instituting this system fans, management and other players would be more fully informed about the specific infraction and not jump to conclusions about an individual case. At the same time a player would be seriously motivated to NOT use performance enhancing drugs as it could cost them millions of dollars. It would also avoid unnecessary controversy about the degree of the offense. Today, if a player is found with epedrine in his system is treated the same as a player with anabolic steroids in his system. The results on performance of each are vastly different and should be treated differently within the penal system of the NFL.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K16TCY
Monday, May 10, 2010
"Will not accept electronic submissions"
As I was searching for a literary agent last year I found that an inordinate amount of agents will still not accept an electronic submission. In 2009, I found that to be odd. Frustrated with printing and shipping costs I quickly decided that if an agent will not accept modern technology then I was not interested in them representing me. I did find an agent and we do have an electronic relationship so I know that it can be done. The unwillingness to do so is what astounds me.
I certainly understand the volumes of material that is submitted each year and that the ease of electronic submission only encourages those who are not ready for submission, but to totally ignore the medium is silly. To me, it is the same mentality that originally rejected cell phones, then rejected e-mail and now will not text or read a book on a Kindle. Eventually, they all come around. Why not recognize the reality of our world and join us? Why fight it? It's just a book submission and it is a lot easier to hit delete than to recycle. If an author is convinced that they have written the next great American novel making them print it out and mail it will not be a deterrent, it will only use paper resources that should, by all right, be conserved.
I have run into a similar mentality with e-books. Many people I have spoken with will not use a Kindle or electronic reader. They enjoy the comfort of holding a book in their hands and turning the page. Okay, I get that. But to turn your nose up at the alternative with stubborn indignation is silly. I had a potential reviewer of my ebook tell me that he will never own a Kindle or anything like it. He went on to say that his greatest pleasure is to travel with" a few good books in his suitcase". The image of him lugging a 49.5 lb suitcase through an airport made me smile. I responded and hoped that one day he would be able to travel with hundreds of good books in his 1 lb Kindle. Technology has changed us and how we lived from 10 years ago to today, heck, from 6 months ago to today. Eventually, we all adjust and respond to the changes. The adage , "If it was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me." is as antiquated as the mentality behind it. Our fathers never conceived of the technology that we take for granted. More than likely that book was written in electronic form and by printing it onto a piece of paper it does not magically transform into a work of art. They are the same words that are now just filling a page of parchment. The ideas and emotions behind those words are unaltered. If a book is in electronic form it does not become less intriguing, less exciting or less moving.
So open up your minds and accept the inevitable. It's not evil, it's just a novel in a format that allows you to adjust the size of the font. How wonderful is that?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K16TCY
I certainly understand the volumes of material that is submitted each year and that the ease of electronic submission only encourages those who are not ready for submission, but to totally ignore the medium is silly. To me, it is the same mentality that originally rejected cell phones, then rejected e-mail and now will not text or read a book on a Kindle. Eventually, they all come around. Why not recognize the reality of our world and join us? Why fight it? It's just a book submission and it is a lot easier to hit delete than to recycle. If an author is convinced that they have written the next great American novel making them print it out and mail it will not be a deterrent, it will only use paper resources that should, by all right, be conserved.
I have run into a similar mentality with e-books. Many people I have spoken with will not use a Kindle or electronic reader. They enjoy the comfort of holding a book in their hands and turning the page. Okay, I get that. But to turn your nose up at the alternative with stubborn indignation is silly. I had a potential reviewer of my ebook tell me that he will never own a Kindle or anything like it. He went on to say that his greatest pleasure is to travel with" a few good books in his suitcase". The image of him lugging a 49.5 lb suitcase through an airport made me smile. I responded and hoped that one day he would be able to travel with hundreds of good books in his 1 lb Kindle. Technology has changed us and how we lived from 10 years ago to today, heck, from 6 months ago to today. Eventually, we all adjust and respond to the changes. The adage , "If it was good enough for my father, it's good enough for me." is as antiquated as the mentality behind it. Our fathers never conceived of the technology that we take for granted. More than likely that book was written in electronic form and by printing it onto a piece of paper it does not magically transform into a work of art. They are the same words that are now just filling a page of parchment. The ideas and emotions behind those words are unaltered. If a book is in electronic form it does not become less intriguing, less exciting or less moving.
So open up your minds and accept the inevitable. It's not evil, it's just a novel in a format that allows you to adjust the size of the font. How wonderful is that?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003K16TCY
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
debate or argument
Bill Maher told a joke the other night on Real Time. "Sarah Palin just got an iPad. She didn't find it all that absorbent." It made me laugh and I posted it as my Facebook status. Most people took it for what it was, a joke, and responded accordingly. One friend went off on me. This friend professes to be very conservative, I am not. He began to question everything from my sexuality to my patriotism. He wanted to know why us "liberals" were so afraid of Sarah Palin. He said, Maher would never say anything so derogatory about the President. Obviously, he does not watch the show. Everyone is fair game on that show and they take their shots.
As the discussion went on I realized something that supports a theory I have had for quite a while. I believe that we are a nation divided by common beliefs. I may have said that before in this forum but this circumstance illustrates it perfectly. As the thread continued, and it is continuing today, my friend expressed regret that we, as a nation, used to be able to discuss different sides of the issues without anger and contempt. He missed the days when you could discuss a political issue without rancor and accusations. This made me smile, I was under the impression that was what I was doing. When I pointed that out his attitude changed. He began offering his opinion and accepting the opinions of others. (By now there were a seven people involved in the discussion.) One friend said it perfectly in regard to the Sarah Palin joke, "Comedy is truth, that's why we laugh. We laugh at the acknowledgement that someone 'hit the nail on the head' truth-wise. Not saying that Sarah Palin actually used the iPad as a sanitary napkin but saying that she is not smart enough to know she should not do that. We laugh because the joke illustrates what we are all thinking based on opinions that have been formed from her actions and comments."
Come to find out, my friend, the conservative, is not a big Sarah fan. He doesn't believe that she has any real qualifications or character. Wow! He told me that his original point was about respect. I replied that to me respect is something that is earned not given. He agreed. Now his conversation shifted to believing that the entire congressional environment is twisted. He believes their focus is not about solving problems but about notching wins. It doesn't matter what a particular bill says, only that your party is the one to get it passed or defeated. Congressmen consider that a 'win'. He expressed his frustration at the two party system and how it has devolved into the Hatfields and McCoys. Wow, again. Exactly what I believe. A country divided by common beliefs. Cats and dogs sleeping together.
So how did the country get into this universal head lock? Why are people so intolerant of opposing opinion? My theory is talk radio, the devil incarnate. When someone with narrow beliefs, either conservative or liberal, can go to one place and hear their own narrow opinions spewed back at them it is not a good environment. When the opposing view point is never presented with any legitimacy or belittled and made fun of with no chance for rebuttal, how is it to be taken seriously? When congressional success becomes about liberal wins and conservative losses or vice versa, and not about solving problems and making the country better how will things ever improve?
I believe that, at the end of the day, I am very similar to most people in this country. Most people call me a liberal yet many of my beliefs do not necessarily line up that way. I am pro-life. I am anti-big business. I believe in the constitution but do not need a gun to present my views. I would never protest at a military funeral but I would never stop someone who needed to do that. I don't believe I need a gun for personal protection but would kill anyone who attempted to hurt my family. I believe in freedom of speech and religion even if you are showing off your ignorance at the top of your lungs or are not Christian. I do not find racial humor funny, even when black comics do it.
A country divided by common beliefs. I say we turn off the radio's and stop letting loud mouth talk show hosts tell us what we feel and begin talking to each other. I believe that we will soon find out that while we may not agree on everything, we will see eye to eye on most. After all, most issues in this world can be solved with a little common sense and talking to each other is the surest way to get there.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
As the discussion went on I realized something that supports a theory I have had for quite a while. I believe that we are a nation divided by common beliefs. I may have said that before in this forum but this circumstance illustrates it perfectly. As the thread continued, and it is continuing today, my friend expressed regret that we, as a nation, used to be able to discuss different sides of the issues without anger and contempt. He missed the days when you could discuss a political issue without rancor and accusations. This made me smile, I was under the impression that was what I was doing. When I pointed that out his attitude changed. He began offering his opinion and accepting the opinions of others. (By now there were a seven people involved in the discussion.) One friend said it perfectly in regard to the Sarah Palin joke, "Comedy is truth, that's why we laugh. We laugh at the acknowledgement that someone 'hit the nail on the head' truth-wise. Not saying that Sarah Palin actually used the iPad as a sanitary napkin but saying that she is not smart enough to know she should not do that. We laugh because the joke illustrates what we are all thinking based on opinions that have been formed from her actions and comments."
Come to find out, my friend, the conservative, is not a big Sarah fan. He doesn't believe that she has any real qualifications or character. Wow! He told me that his original point was about respect. I replied that to me respect is something that is earned not given. He agreed. Now his conversation shifted to believing that the entire congressional environment is twisted. He believes their focus is not about solving problems but about notching wins. It doesn't matter what a particular bill says, only that your party is the one to get it passed or defeated. Congressmen consider that a 'win'. He expressed his frustration at the two party system and how it has devolved into the Hatfields and McCoys. Wow, again. Exactly what I believe. A country divided by common beliefs. Cats and dogs sleeping together.
So how did the country get into this universal head lock? Why are people so intolerant of opposing opinion? My theory is talk radio, the devil incarnate. When someone with narrow beliefs, either conservative or liberal, can go to one place and hear their own narrow opinions spewed back at them it is not a good environment. When the opposing view point is never presented with any legitimacy or belittled and made fun of with no chance for rebuttal, how is it to be taken seriously? When congressional success becomes about liberal wins and conservative losses or vice versa, and not about solving problems and making the country better how will things ever improve?
I believe that, at the end of the day, I am very similar to most people in this country. Most people call me a liberal yet many of my beliefs do not necessarily line up that way. I am pro-life. I am anti-big business. I believe in the constitution but do not need a gun to present my views. I would never protest at a military funeral but I would never stop someone who needed to do that. I don't believe I need a gun for personal protection but would kill anyone who attempted to hurt my family. I believe in freedom of speech and religion even if you are showing off your ignorance at the top of your lungs or are not Christian. I do not find racial humor funny, even when black comics do it.
A country divided by common beliefs. I say we turn off the radio's and stop letting loud mouth talk show hosts tell us what we feel and begin talking to each other. I believe that we will soon find out that while we may not agree on everything, we will see eye to eye on most. After all, most issues in this world can be solved with a little common sense and talking to each other is the surest way to get there.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Moving Sideways
It seems that I have hit a standstill. There has been no movement at all with my novel and unless I am constantly pushing it nothing happens. I have been talking with people who should know and I am getting very mixed messages. Some are telling me that I have to keep the message out there and sell sell sell. Others are telling me that I cannot afford to look desperate and I must mix with colleagues and affinity groups and let nature take its course. The facts tell me that unless I am continually out there, nothing happens.
I have pretty much exhausted my contacts on Facebook. I invited 435 people to become fans of my Justice Rules page and almost half of them have done so. I appreciate it. I post my link as often as I can but am afraid that I am becoming annoying so I will back off a bit. Facebook ads do not work. Twitter takes me nowhere. I am at a standstill and am searching for another means to get the word out. A friend has suggested other self published periodicals as a research tool and I am exploring that.
In the meantime I am working on my second novel. It was actually my first, my practice novel, but I am re-writing it and am fairly pleased to date. I hit a snag plot wise in the last week or so but as always happens, when I am having trouble writing something and I identify the reason, the block dissolves in an instant. I discovered the reason for the stall and am once again moving forward. It is called, The Siren's Song, and is more of a horror story ala Stephen King. King was my original mentor, unbeknownst to him of course, and it was his inspiration that got me to sit down and write to begin with. I hope to thank him one day.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
I have pretty much exhausted my contacts on Facebook. I invited 435 people to become fans of my Justice Rules page and almost half of them have done so. I appreciate it. I post my link as often as I can but am afraid that I am becoming annoying so I will back off a bit. Facebook ads do not work. Twitter takes me nowhere. I am at a standstill and am searching for another means to get the word out. A friend has suggested other self published periodicals as a research tool and I am exploring that.
In the meantime I am working on my second novel. It was actually my first, my practice novel, but I am re-writing it and am fairly pleased to date. I hit a snag plot wise in the last week or so but as always happens, when I am having trouble writing something and I identify the reason, the block dissolves in an instant. I discovered the reason for the stall and am once again moving forward. It is called, The Siren's Song, and is more of a horror story ala Stephen King. King was my original mentor, unbeknownst to him of course, and it was his inspiration that got me to sit down and write to begin with. I hope to thank him one day.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/12052
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
