In my previous post I made a comment about the ignobility of the human species. It’s probably not terribly profound, but I did manage to dwell on it for most of a day after writing it. Here’s where I went.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, there is this brief speech by Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—
And then, in the Bible there’s Genesis 1:28 that a lot of people take to mean that we humans were given this world and everything on it to do as we please.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
In those two passages I find the essential delusion of the human species. It’s been the fundamental flaw in all sorts of philosophies from Karl Marx to Ayn Rand. There’s this belief that the fundamental nature of humanity is one of nobility, or goodness, and that our darkness, our willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and kill is an aberration, or caused by outside manipulation (the Devil). This belief in humanity’s innate goodness is the blind spot in nearly all of our philosophies.
I know I’m not the first to point this out. The world is too old and there have been too many misanthropes before me for what I have to say here to be wholly original. But I’m going to say it anyway: humanity’s nature isn’t one of goodness, or nobility. Our base nature is just that, base. Ignoble. Animal. The need to survive and reproduce drives everything. We may bury it underneath a mound of supposedly civilized behavior, but it’s still there.
Our goodness, our moments of nobility are the aberrations, not our moments of violence and carnality. This is why evil seems to endure with ease, almost effortlessly, and why goodness, generosity, compassion, justice, take so much effort and why it ebbs and flows. We are animals bent on survival first, then we are humans bound by a social contract.
There are some misanthropes who will stop there, claim we humans are a parasite on the planet, a virus, a cancer. For me, that over simplifies it. Right now, yes, our carbon emissions, our vast sheets of concrete, our unsecured toxic waste, our industrial poisons in the water, our chemically altered and mutated food production are all conspiring to harm us and the planet.
Our current condition arises out of the arrogance of those quotes above. If we start from the basic assumption that we are noble, the epitome of the animal kingdom, commanded by God to subdue and dominate the planet, then our base nature becomes subsumed into something external: the devil, the Other. We can deny it, ignore it, and never see it in ourselves. And our noble acts, those moments when we rise above our base, selfish nature, quickly become twisted and cancerous. Self destructive. We form tribes and build nations, then use them to go to war. We imagine a God who loves us so much that he gave us this world, and then use that God to justify hating and fearing other people, and raping the land to fuel our cities. We build machines and use them to pollute the world. We split the atom, and use that power to build bombs.
Our power to mold and shape the world around us is, right now, the primary source of all of our problems, and it’s because we start from the wrong place. If we are blessed from the start then even our sins have an air of Godly approval. True destructive evil can then reside outside of us and make our base, selfish efforts to demonize other people and stop their “evil” seem noble, gallant.
Essentially, by believing ourselves to be noble rather than ignoble, we run about trying to fight the supposed “evil” of things outside of ourselves. If we start differently, if we start with the belief that we are ourselves ignoble, base, animal, we can direct our energy to making ourselves noble, we can work towards grace, towards compassion. But, of course, like everything, I’m sure there’s a blind spot in these thoughts.
Wednesday, November 25
Tuesday, November 24
Bad Books
I come back to this again and again because, in my world, it matters. It’s my old hobby horse - dogmatic literature, and its gateway drug, Art for Art’s Sake (here’s what comes up on the blog when searching for Dogmatic literature).
Some people have heard me chatter on about these two types of bad literature and asked me if, aside from Mein Kampf, there were any other books that have caused great harm in the world. The question kind of irks me because I’ve given the definition so many times, and I’ve gone on and on about The Left Behind series (read the Slacktivists dismantling of the series here, he’s well into taking apart book two), that I’m surprised people aren’t able to pull from their own experiences a short list of books that meet the criteria.
So, let me review quickly: Art for Art’s Sake is a literature that claims to have no relevance to the real world. It is a literature that claims its only purpose is to entertain and that anything it does is only in the service of its self-contained game. The characters are flat, one dimensional cliches. Art for Art’s Sake can create in a reader a sense of detachment from the world, a disinterest. If the stories we consume aggressively assert that they don’t mean anything, readers can come to suspect that nothing means anything, that everything is, in fact, meaningless.
Into that empty void steps Dogmatic Literature. In this literature the author has a belief system that he or she believes cures our feeling of meaninglessness: it could be socialism, communism, fascism, environmentalism, evangelism, individualism, objectivism, racism, etc. This type of literature has slightly more realistic characters, characters that struggle with things, ask questions, express doubt. Characters in these books are made to display concerns that we can relate to, but, in the end, these characters have only a simple binary option: accept the belief system being pushed by the author and succeed, or deny the belief system being pushed and be destroyed. Gray areas are not to be tolerated in Dogmatic Literature.
Now for my short list of dogmatic Literature:
1) The Left Behind Series by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye. Some people don’t take these books seriously because they are so horribly written, but in cases of Dogmatic Literature, the books only have to be written well enough that they can be read. This series has sold millions of copies of each book the world over and has served to disseminate the twisted, self-interested, violent version of Christianity that Tim LaHaye believes in.
2) The Turner Diaries by Andrew McDonald (pen name for William Luther Pierce) - it’s essentially violence porn for the Klan set. It’s about a violent race war in America that leads to a global conflict (including nuclear war) and the complete elimination of all Jews and non-whites. It’s the speculative fiction sequel to Mein Kampf.
3) The novels of Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). Rand created the “Objectivist Movement” and pushed the idea of Ethical Egoism and despised altruism. Mutual selfishness would balance out the world, she thought , and that if everyone worried only about themselves then everyone would be OK. The real world fallacy of this idea bubbled to the surface just within the last few years. Alan Greenspan was once part of Rand’s inner circle of sycophants. One of the underpinnings of is economic philosophy was based on Rand’s idea of ethical egoism. He believed that the titans of industry, the CEO’s and bank presidents, would do their business in an ethical way because to do otherwise would reflect badly upon them and ruin their businesses. But, just like Rand proved later in her life by trying to orchestrate the lives of her sycophants, eventually the CEO’s began to throw out ethics in favor pure egoism.
And they ended up destroying the world economy in the process of feeding their own unethical self-interests.
And there is the problem with Dogmatic literature - even the most noble intentions behind a philosophy - empower the workers, empower the individual, empower the state, empower the church, blah blah blah - will run up against the basic, ignobility of the human species.
That is why good literature is a wrestling match. Good literature wrestles with that gray, fluctuating, violent area where our ideals, our various belief systems, meet the naked, base, yearnings and fears of the human animal.
Some people have heard me chatter on about these two types of bad literature and asked me if, aside from Mein Kampf, there were any other books that have caused great harm in the world. The question kind of irks me because I’ve given the definition so many times, and I’ve gone on and on about The Left Behind series (read the Slacktivists dismantling of the series here, he’s well into taking apart book two), that I’m surprised people aren’t able to pull from their own experiences a short list of books that meet the criteria.
So, let me review quickly: Art for Art’s Sake is a literature that claims to have no relevance to the real world. It is a literature that claims its only purpose is to entertain and that anything it does is only in the service of its self-contained game. The characters are flat, one dimensional cliches. Art for Art’s Sake can create in a reader a sense of detachment from the world, a disinterest. If the stories we consume aggressively assert that they don’t mean anything, readers can come to suspect that nothing means anything, that everything is, in fact, meaningless.
Into that empty void steps Dogmatic Literature. In this literature the author has a belief system that he or she believes cures our feeling of meaninglessness: it could be socialism, communism, fascism, environmentalism, evangelism, individualism, objectivism, racism, etc. This type of literature has slightly more realistic characters, characters that struggle with things, ask questions, express doubt. Characters in these books are made to display concerns that we can relate to, but, in the end, these characters have only a simple binary option: accept the belief system being pushed by the author and succeed, or deny the belief system being pushed and be destroyed. Gray areas are not to be tolerated in Dogmatic Literature.
Now for my short list of dogmatic Literature:
1) The Left Behind Series by Jerry B. Jenkins and Tim LaHaye. Some people don’t take these books seriously because they are so horribly written, but in cases of Dogmatic Literature, the books only have to be written well enough that they can be read. This series has sold millions of copies of each book the world over and has served to disseminate the twisted, self-interested, violent version of Christianity that Tim LaHaye believes in.
2) The Turner Diaries by Andrew McDonald (pen name for William Luther Pierce) - it’s essentially violence porn for the Klan set. It’s about a violent race war in America that leads to a global conflict (including nuclear war) and the complete elimination of all Jews and non-whites. It’s the speculative fiction sequel to Mein Kampf.
3) The novels of Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). Rand created the “Objectivist Movement” and pushed the idea of Ethical Egoism and despised altruism. Mutual selfishness would balance out the world, she thought , and that if everyone worried only about themselves then everyone would be OK. The real world fallacy of this idea bubbled to the surface just within the last few years. Alan Greenspan was once part of Rand’s inner circle of sycophants. One of the underpinnings of is economic philosophy was based on Rand’s idea of ethical egoism. He believed that the titans of industry, the CEO’s and bank presidents, would do their business in an ethical way because to do otherwise would reflect badly upon them and ruin their businesses. But, just like Rand proved later in her life by trying to orchestrate the lives of her sycophants, eventually the CEO’s began to throw out ethics in favor pure egoism.
And they ended up destroying the world economy in the process of feeding their own unethical self-interests.
And there is the problem with Dogmatic literature - even the most noble intentions behind a philosophy - empower the workers, empower the individual, empower the state, empower the church, blah blah blah - will run up against the basic, ignobility of the human species.
That is why good literature is a wrestling match. Good literature wrestles with that gray, fluctuating, violent area where our ideals, our various belief systems, meet the naked, base, yearnings and fears of the human animal.
Friday, November 20
So Much Stupid, I don't know where to Start
Do I start with the creepy, and sad, lines of 30, 40 and 50 year old moms standing in line, breathlessly panting and hyperventilating along with their teenage daughters, to see the new Twilight movie? Some of them have even taken to writing erotic fan fiction and dishing about what they’d do if they could get their hands on poor Robert Pattinson.
Someone should keep an eye on those girls (that’s right, “girls”) because one of them will be the next middle school teacher to boink a cute 14 year old student.
Oh, and don’t be surprised if we have a sudden rash of girls unwilling to leave their abusive boyfriends. Nothing like a little sexual repression and violence disguised as true love.
OR! do I go with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort passing out doctored versions of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species with a 50 page introduction arguing that evolution is wrong because they believe Darwin was a racist, sexist proto-Nazi (he wasn’t any of those things). This from the same guy that was completely wrong about bananas (choose your version 1 (serious) 2(serious) 3 (funny).
OR! do I do I go with Sarah Palin? Listen, I didn’t think it was possible to find someone more idiotic than George W. - so, in that regard, Palin is impressive.
Someone should keep an eye on those girls (that’s right, “girls”) because one of them will be the next middle school teacher to boink a cute 14 year old student.
Oh, and don’t be surprised if we have a sudden rash of girls unwilling to leave their abusive boyfriends. Nothing like a little sexual repression and violence disguised as true love.
OR! do I go with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort passing out doctored versions of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species with a 50 page introduction arguing that evolution is wrong because they believe Darwin was a racist, sexist proto-Nazi (he wasn’t any of those things). This from the same guy that was completely wrong about bananas (choose your version 1 (serious) 2(serious) 3 (funny).
OR! do I do I go with Sarah Palin? Listen, I didn’t think it was possible to find someone more idiotic than George W. - so, in that regard, Palin is impressive.
Sunday, November 15
Hate Crimes Laws Are Not Special Protection
As usual, I’m quite a few days - wait, no, weeks (hell, almost a month now) - behind on things. That’s the problem I have working a full-time job, and burying myself in writing fiction. I never seem to live in the real world - it’s either the world of ammonia plant procedures, or the invented world of my next novel. Occasionally, I scan the notebook I always carry with me and find notes on something I want to write about - this time, it happened to be a few notes on the Hate Crimes bill that passed last month.
Of course, here in Doo-Dah there were the inevitable letters to the editor, and comments on the newspaper site, about how this hate crimes bill passage was just about giving gay and transgendered people special government protection, and that it would put the kibosh on preachers speaking out against the sin of “Teh Gay.”
On the matter of silencing preachers speaking out against gay people, I have a two word rebuttal: Fred Phelps. In a post by the Slacktivist, he explains why this is the best rebuttal to this quasi-fear. But I’ll paraphrase it: essentially, Fred Phelps has been running about saying nasty things about gay people in highly inappropriate places like funerals, schools, memorial services, etc. Phelps’ actions have never landed him in jail and he remains free and his gums keep flapping. Arguing that the hate crimes bill is going to put a less aggressive preacher in jail only makes sense if that preacher plans on being worse than Fred Phelps - and the only way to get worse than Fred Phelps is to actually commit a hate crime, or encourage someone else to commit a hate crime. So, don’t worry homophobes, the hate crimes bill won’t be able to shut you up. You can still call gay people names and make up silly stories about their lifestyles without threat of jail time.
Now, on to the part of about this hate crime bill creating a special, protected class of people. People who make this argument also tend to argue that there are already laws out there against assault and battery and murder. Aren’t these laws good enough to protect gay people, and why do gay people need a something more? they ask.
Aside from the obvious suggestion that the people who make this argument must be planning to smack around a gay person that looks at their butt a little too long, these people really do miss the point of a hate crimes law and the difficulty in proving it. They seem to think that anyone who assaults or kills a gay person will automatically be slapped with a hate crime. Hogwash.
When it comes to killing someone, we make distinctions in a court of law. There are degrees of “homicide” as it were: First, Second and Third degree murder, manslaughter. And then we take into account the killer’s mental capacity, whether or not it was self-defense, or done to protect another person (cops who kill criminals that threaten the lives of others aren’t charged with anything). We even take into account whether or not the killing was an isolated incident or part of a wider plan, such as a terrorist plot - and this is where the Hate Crimes law fits in.
A prosecutor will have to prove that the accused person’s intent arose out of his hatred and fear of gay people. That’s the way our legal system works. If someone is the kind of turd-nugget that would beat someone up for stepping on his foot, that TN can’t be charged with a hate crime just because the victim is gay. Still is just regular old assault. But if some homophobe beats up a gay person because the victim is gay, well, that’s assault and a Hate Crime - but it’ll still have to be proven in court.
What it boils down to is this: intent. If a criminal’s intent is simply to steal or kill for some kind of personal gain then the victim’s sexual orientation, or even the victim’s race, won’t matter: the victim simply had something the attacker wants, a car, money, a pair of shoes, a huge life insurance policy, and the crime was done solely to obtain that item. If the attacker has the intent to punish, or terrorize, an individual because that person represents a certain class of people (gay, black, asian, jewish, whatever), and the obtaining of money, shoes, etc, is secondary, then that’s a hate crime. The intent isn’t about immediate personal gain, but about sending a message to a collection of people that they are not safe, that they are not respected or tolerated, and that their well-being are at risk unless they leave or change or “behave.”
The people who beat and killed Matthew Shepard committed a hate crime because they set out specifically to harm a gay person. So, unless this country’s apparently large population of bigots plan on doing something as horrendous and heinous and vile as killing Matthew Shepard, or the lynching of James Byrd, Jr , they can continue to be first rate assholes without fear of jail time or censorship.
Sad, but true.
Of course, here in Doo-Dah there were the inevitable letters to the editor, and comments on the newspaper site, about how this hate crimes bill passage was just about giving gay and transgendered people special government protection, and that it would put the kibosh on preachers speaking out against the sin of “Teh Gay.”
On the matter of silencing preachers speaking out against gay people, I have a two word rebuttal: Fred Phelps. In a post by the Slacktivist, he explains why this is the best rebuttal to this quasi-fear. But I’ll paraphrase it: essentially, Fred Phelps has been running about saying nasty things about gay people in highly inappropriate places like funerals, schools, memorial services, etc. Phelps’ actions have never landed him in jail and he remains free and his gums keep flapping. Arguing that the hate crimes bill is going to put a less aggressive preacher in jail only makes sense if that preacher plans on being worse than Fred Phelps - and the only way to get worse than Fred Phelps is to actually commit a hate crime, or encourage someone else to commit a hate crime. So, don’t worry homophobes, the hate crimes bill won’t be able to shut you up. You can still call gay people names and make up silly stories about their lifestyles without threat of jail time.
Now, on to the part of about this hate crime bill creating a special, protected class of people. People who make this argument also tend to argue that there are already laws out there against assault and battery and murder. Aren’t these laws good enough to protect gay people, and why do gay people need a something more? they ask.
Aside from the obvious suggestion that the people who make this argument must be planning to smack around a gay person that looks at their butt a little too long, these people really do miss the point of a hate crimes law and the difficulty in proving it. They seem to think that anyone who assaults or kills a gay person will automatically be slapped with a hate crime. Hogwash.
When it comes to killing someone, we make distinctions in a court of law. There are degrees of “homicide” as it were: First, Second and Third degree murder, manslaughter. And then we take into account the killer’s mental capacity, whether or not it was self-defense, or done to protect another person (cops who kill criminals that threaten the lives of others aren’t charged with anything). We even take into account whether or not the killing was an isolated incident or part of a wider plan, such as a terrorist plot - and this is where the Hate Crimes law fits in.
A prosecutor will have to prove that the accused person’s intent arose out of his hatred and fear of gay people. That’s the way our legal system works. If someone is the kind of turd-nugget that would beat someone up for stepping on his foot, that TN can’t be charged with a hate crime just because the victim is gay. Still is just regular old assault. But if some homophobe beats up a gay person because the victim is gay, well, that’s assault and a Hate Crime - but it’ll still have to be proven in court.
What it boils down to is this: intent. If a criminal’s intent is simply to steal or kill for some kind of personal gain then the victim’s sexual orientation, or even the victim’s race, won’t matter: the victim simply had something the attacker wants, a car, money, a pair of shoes, a huge life insurance policy, and the crime was done solely to obtain that item. If the attacker has the intent to punish, or terrorize, an individual because that person represents a certain class of people (gay, black, asian, jewish, whatever), and the obtaining of money, shoes, etc, is secondary, then that’s a hate crime. The intent isn’t about immediate personal gain, but about sending a message to a collection of people that they are not safe, that they are not respected or tolerated, and that their well-being are at risk unless they leave or change or “behave.”
The people who beat and killed Matthew Shepard committed a hate crime because they set out specifically to harm a gay person. So, unless this country’s apparently large population of bigots plan on doing something as horrendous and heinous and vile as killing Matthew Shepard, or the lynching of James Byrd, Jr , they can continue to be first rate assholes without fear of jail time or censorship.
Sad, but true.
Friday, November 13
Call Me Mean.
Yesterday I was listening to a Barnes & Noble Meet the Writer’s podcast where Steve Bertrand was interviewing YA fantasy author James Dashner about his new book “The Maze Runner.” In their conversations Bertrand brought up a quote by Dashner where he said something about not being able to write a “lame-o detective novel about a murder in a social club.” to which Bertrand responds (and maybe SB was joking, I’m not entirely sure) “You’re never supposed to put down your other writers.”
Now, like I said, I’m not sure if Steve Bertrand wasn’t just making a joke. But I do sometimes feel like the idea that writers have to play nice with each other in public is hurting literature (of course, giving away our books for free is hurting literature even worse, but in a different area). I look to the writers I admire to warn me about the writers out there who aren’t worth my time. Steve Heller (and much later my editor, Fred Ramey) have saved me from further adventures with the books of TC Boyle, for example. I come to my own opinions, but what Steven and Fred did was reinforce my suspicions.
Bertrand is, of course, a bookseller. To be a good bookseller you do have to adopt the kind of mindset that says “every book is somebody’s favorite book” and it doesn’t always help your business to be vocally critical of writers and their books. This is why a somewhat “liberal” bookstore will host one of the *GSSCB’s like Mike Huckabee - and do it with a smile plastered to their faces.
But writers are a different breed. They have to be in order to do what they do. Does anyone remember the play/movie Biloxi Blues? Here’s an exchange from the movie version that has always stuck with me:
Eugene Morris Jerome: Why is it that we come from the same place but I can't understand you?
Arnold Epstein: You're a witness. You're always standing around watching what's happening, scribbling in your book what other people do. You have to get in the middle of it. You have to take sides. Make a contribution to the fight.
Eugene Morris Jerome: What fight?
Arnold Epstein: Any fight. One you believe in. Until you do you'll never be a writer Eugene.
I’ve always believed that a writer has to be engaged in something: they have to make a contribution to the fight they believe in. For some, it’s peace. For others it’s animal abuse.
For me, it’s the validity of literature in a nearly post-literary world. Maybe it’s because of the area where I grew up; or maybe I’m overly sensitive to the ridiculously self-destructive anti-intellectualism I see around me, and its accompanying idea that books, fiction in particular, are just entertainment or that they’re feminine, or for geeks. Either way, literature can’t be only entertainment. If it’s only entertainment then it can be marginalized, ignored, trivialized, sold for nothing.
This is the fight I believe in, and part of it involves calling out the hacks, the cheaters, and the dishonest writers who I think are damaging the reader’s minds and souls, deadening the reader’s empathy, and making the kind of world where unanalyzed self-interest and blind thrill-seeking take precedence over compassion and tolerance and self-awareness.
*Giant Screaming Shit-Covered Babies
Now, like I said, I’m not sure if Steve Bertrand wasn’t just making a joke. But I do sometimes feel like the idea that writers have to play nice with each other in public is hurting literature (of course, giving away our books for free is hurting literature even worse, but in a different area). I look to the writers I admire to warn me about the writers out there who aren’t worth my time. Steve Heller (and much later my editor, Fred Ramey) have saved me from further adventures with the books of TC Boyle, for example. I come to my own opinions, but what Steven and Fred did was reinforce my suspicions.
Bertrand is, of course, a bookseller. To be a good bookseller you do have to adopt the kind of mindset that says “every book is somebody’s favorite book” and it doesn’t always help your business to be vocally critical of writers and their books. This is why a somewhat “liberal” bookstore will host one of the *GSSCB’s like Mike Huckabee - and do it with a smile plastered to their faces.
But writers are a different breed. They have to be in order to do what they do. Does anyone remember the play/movie Biloxi Blues? Here’s an exchange from the movie version that has always stuck with me:
Eugene Morris Jerome: Why is it that we come from the same place but I can't understand you?
Arnold Epstein: You're a witness. You're always standing around watching what's happening, scribbling in your book what other people do. You have to get in the middle of it. You have to take sides. Make a contribution to the fight.
Eugene Morris Jerome: What fight?
Arnold Epstein: Any fight. One you believe in. Until you do you'll never be a writer Eugene.
I’ve always believed that a writer has to be engaged in something: they have to make a contribution to the fight they believe in. For some, it’s peace. For others it’s animal abuse.
For me, it’s the validity of literature in a nearly post-literary world. Maybe it’s because of the area where I grew up; or maybe I’m overly sensitive to the ridiculously self-destructive anti-intellectualism I see around me, and its accompanying idea that books, fiction in particular, are just entertainment or that they’re feminine, or for geeks. Either way, literature can’t be only entertainment. If it’s only entertainment then it can be marginalized, ignored, trivialized, sold for nothing.
This is the fight I believe in, and part of it involves calling out the hacks, the cheaters, and the dishonest writers who I think are damaging the reader’s minds and souls, deadening the reader’s empathy, and making the kind of world where unanalyzed self-interest and blind thrill-seeking take precedence over compassion and tolerance and self-awareness.
*Giant Screaming Shit-Covered Babies
Monday, November 9
Sometimes, You Just Have To Change The Diaper
I once volunteered to babysit the son of a couple of dear friends so they could spend some time together without worrying about the baby. I forget how old he was a that time, but he was still in diapers and mobile. Not a terribly good combination for someone who had previously never changed a diaper before. But I marched right in to help out my friends, and hoped I’d be lucky enough that the baby wouldn’t make a mess while I was on duty.
I’ve never had good luck. About an hour into my duties, the baby made a doody. So, I made an effort to change the diaper. It was dismal. He wouldn’t stop squirming, wouldn’t stop giggling about it, and certainly wouldn’t listen to reason. There I was, a grown man with a moist towelette, trying to negotiate with an obstinate two-year-old with poop smeared all over his butt. A baby covered in shit doesn’t care that he’s covered in shit as long as the diaper is off.
Finally, I quit trying to reason with the poop-covered baby, picked him up, tucked him under my arm like he was a football, and I cleaned the crap off him despite the crying and struggling.
It was a valuable lesson I learned that day: sometimes, obstinate, unreasonable, screaming babies covered in poop should just be washed and re-diapered whether they like it or not. At that point, trying to treat them like dignified little human beings is uncalled for, if not outright impossible. Ignore their crying and simply do what’s best for them.
This is how I feel about every religious/social conservative, Faux News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, Tea Bagger. They’re just a bunch of screaming, shit covered babies.
People who are so obstinately, aggressively, and willfully ignorant that they can look at a Hawaiian birth certificate and still be convinced Obama was born in Kenya - who can be on Medicare and carry protest signs demanding that the government stay out of their healthcare - who don’t want to pay taxes but want to be protected from criminals and terrorists by those public servants called cops, or bitch and moan about the poor quality of roads and highways, the slow response of the sand trucks on icy mornings, the long lines at the DMV, and then panic every time they’re told Social security will go bankrupt - are just not mentally mature enough to be part of the public debate. They are simply shit-covered babies who need to be cleaned up and put to bed for a nap while the grown-ups go have a serious conversation about how to fix the economy and provide for a secure national future where everyone has an equal chance to grown up healthy and educated regardless of their social class, racial background, sexual orientation, or - yes - conservative or liberal leanings.
But letting shit-covered, screaming babies like Limbaugh, Faux News, and Sarah Palin into the public debate when they have nothing constructive to contribute but fistfuls of flung poop, isn’t helping. It’s just making the mess worse.
Some people may argue that there are big shit-covered liberal babies out there - maybe, but I’ll bet you money that if you put the belligerent shit-covered conservative babies down for a nap, the liberal ones will quiet right down.
Because, let’s face it, I would not have ended up tucking that kid under my arm if he hadn’t first made a mess of himself and then refused to be cleaned up.
I’ve never had good luck. About an hour into my duties, the baby made a doody. So, I made an effort to change the diaper. It was dismal. He wouldn’t stop squirming, wouldn’t stop giggling about it, and certainly wouldn’t listen to reason. There I was, a grown man with a moist towelette, trying to negotiate with an obstinate two-year-old with poop smeared all over his butt. A baby covered in shit doesn’t care that he’s covered in shit as long as the diaper is off.
Finally, I quit trying to reason with the poop-covered baby, picked him up, tucked him under my arm like he was a football, and I cleaned the crap off him despite the crying and struggling.
It was a valuable lesson I learned that day: sometimes, obstinate, unreasonable, screaming babies covered in poop should just be washed and re-diapered whether they like it or not. At that point, trying to treat them like dignified little human beings is uncalled for, if not outright impossible. Ignore their crying and simply do what’s best for them.
This is how I feel about every religious/social conservative, Faux News watching, Rush Limbaugh listening, Tea Bagger. They’re just a bunch of screaming, shit covered babies.
People who are so obstinately, aggressively, and willfully ignorant that they can look at a Hawaiian birth certificate and still be convinced Obama was born in Kenya - who can be on Medicare and carry protest signs demanding that the government stay out of their healthcare - who don’t want to pay taxes but want to be protected from criminals and terrorists by those public servants called cops, or bitch and moan about the poor quality of roads and highways, the slow response of the sand trucks on icy mornings, the long lines at the DMV, and then panic every time they’re told Social security will go bankrupt - are just not mentally mature enough to be part of the public debate. They are simply shit-covered babies who need to be cleaned up and put to bed for a nap while the grown-ups go have a serious conversation about how to fix the economy and provide for a secure national future where everyone has an equal chance to grown up healthy and educated regardless of their social class, racial background, sexual orientation, or - yes - conservative or liberal leanings.
But letting shit-covered, screaming babies like Limbaugh, Faux News, and Sarah Palin into the public debate when they have nothing constructive to contribute but fistfuls of flung poop, isn’t helping. It’s just making the mess worse.
Some people may argue that there are big shit-covered liberal babies out there - maybe, but I’ll bet you money that if you put the belligerent shit-covered conservative babies down for a nap, the liberal ones will quiet right down.
Because, let’s face it, I would not have ended up tucking that kid under my arm if he hadn’t first made a mess of himself and then refused to be cleaned up.
Saturday, November 7
Thursday, November 5
Great Big To-Do List (But Short)
Here it is, November, and The Evolution of Shadows has been loose in the world - officially - for about 18 days and I’m at the point now where I no longer know what to expect next.
I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s now time to move on to other things, especially since I finally sent the manuscript for my second novel off to my editor, Fred Ramey. My natural inclination is to be critical of myself (and of the mss), but I’m going to refrain because, well, that’s what’s expected of me.
Besides, there is plenty more to do.
1) Get the next issue of The Project for a New Mythology ready. My idea for binding it this time is, well, complicated. That means I’ve got to get a mock-up put together to make sure it’s feasible and can be done quickly with a small staff of volunteers (probably just me). Most of the issue will be essays this time, but I do have some poetry and prose submissions that have trickled in that I may include.
2) Resurrect my third novel that was unfairly abandoned because of a person who shall remain nameless, and the sudden relocation from Boulder to Wichita. This is going to be a task. The project was already about 300 pages - and really, really, complicated. I called it my Kitchen-sink-conspiracy-theory book because it was all about the conspiracy of kitchen sinks . . . ((pause) - See, I’m not funny). Anyway . . . . because there’s so much going on in it, I’ve decided that I’m going to use it as an excuse to try a new writing program. I’ve been scoping them out for years. They all offer outline functions, character tracking and charting functions, whiteboard functions - basically all the stuff I used to keep in an assortment of college ruled composition books (which are often bloody hard to find, by the way). I love Moleskine’s but they’re just too expensive to use for this kind of work - especially with the sloppy way I take notes and jot down ideas. I’m not even sure the program I’ve decided to go with (Copywrite) will actually work completely with the way I write, so I’m augmenting it with a few other things: namely a note organizing program called Notes and another called Personal Brain. And, of course, there’s always MacJournal that works as my catch-all. We’ll see how it goes. The first step is to get the existing 300 pages, plus all my notes into these programs. It doesn’t sound very fun, but the story is so complex and I’ve been away from it for so long, there’s really no choice.
See, short - but big.
I suppose that’s a good thing. It’s now time to move on to other things, especially since I finally sent the manuscript for my second novel off to my editor, Fred Ramey. My natural inclination is to be critical of myself (and of the mss), but I’m going to refrain because, well, that’s what’s expected of me.
Besides, there is plenty more to do.
1) Get the next issue of The Project for a New Mythology ready. My idea for binding it this time is, well, complicated. That means I’ve got to get a mock-up put together to make sure it’s feasible and can be done quickly with a small staff of volunteers (probably just me). Most of the issue will be essays this time, but I do have some poetry and prose submissions that have trickled in that I may include.
2) Resurrect my third novel that was unfairly abandoned because of a person who shall remain nameless, and the sudden relocation from Boulder to Wichita. This is going to be a task. The project was already about 300 pages - and really, really, complicated. I called it my Kitchen-sink-conspiracy-theory book because it was all about the conspiracy of kitchen sinks . . . ((pause) - See, I’m not funny). Anyway . . . . because there’s so much going on in it, I’ve decided that I’m going to use it as an excuse to try a new writing program. I’ve been scoping them out for years. They all offer outline functions, character tracking and charting functions, whiteboard functions - basically all the stuff I used to keep in an assortment of college ruled composition books (which are often bloody hard to find, by the way). I love Moleskine’s but they’re just too expensive to use for this kind of work - especially with the sloppy way I take notes and jot down ideas. I’m not even sure the program I’ve decided to go with (Copywrite) will actually work completely with the way I write, so I’m augmenting it with a few other things: namely a note organizing program called Notes and another called Personal Brain. And, of course, there’s always MacJournal that works as my catch-all. We’ll see how it goes. The first step is to get the existing 300 pages, plus all my notes into these programs. It doesn’t sound very fun, but the story is so complex and I’ve been away from it for so long, there’s really no choice.
See, short - but big.
Wednesday, November 4
Tuesday, November 3
Tuesday, October 27
That's Not Funny
There was recently a long review of my book done by an occasional commenter here on the blog. Scaea wrestled with some things and it was a positive review overall. It was actually kind of like being back in a writing workshop; the criticism was useful.
The only part I can solidly take issue with is the bit about humor. It’s not that I disagree with the suggestion of using humor, nor any of the assertions concerning humor’s abilities to sneak past people’s defenses.
It’s that I suck at it.
I’m good with funny anecdotes delivered in person, but that’s just because I can be very animated and rely heavily on anger-comedy and self-deprecation (think George Carlin or Lewis Black with a bit of Woody Allen - except I’m nowhere near as funny as any of those guys). Plus, in person, I don’t use humor to get past other people’s defenses, I use it as a defense. That doesn’t translate well to the written page.
So far, if there’s been humor in my fiction, it’s been accidental, which is the worst kind. That doesn’t mean I haven’t tried. I’ve tried to write humor. I used to be a big fan of Tom Robbins and tried, for a while, to imitate his style, but it was horribly unsuccessful. I’ve even tried writing a play or two that was intended to be a comedy. It sucked.
Essentially, it’s a tremendous difficulty to try to be funny on the page, and an effort that’s 98% doomed. I simply don’t imagine that way - if that makes sense.
The only part I can solidly take issue with is the bit about humor. It’s not that I disagree with the suggestion of using humor, nor any of the assertions concerning humor’s abilities to sneak past people’s defenses.
It’s that I suck at it.
I’m good with funny anecdotes delivered in person, but that’s just because I can be very animated and rely heavily on anger-comedy and self-deprecation (think George Carlin or Lewis Black with a bit of Woody Allen - except I’m nowhere near as funny as any of those guys). Plus, in person, I don’t use humor to get past other people’s defenses, I use it as a defense. That doesn’t translate well to the written page.
So far, if there’s been humor in my fiction, it’s been accidental, which is the worst kind. That doesn’t mean I haven’t tried. I’ve tried to write humor. I used to be a big fan of Tom Robbins and tried, for a while, to imitate his style, but it was horribly unsuccessful. I’ve even tried writing a play or two that was intended to be a comedy. It sucked.
Essentially, it’s a tremendous difficulty to try to be funny on the page, and an effort that’s 98% doomed. I simply don’t imagine that way - if that makes sense.
Let's Talk About Disgust Part III
In an opinion piece that appeared Tuesday in the Wichita Eagle, written by Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post Writers Group (should tell you something right there), yet another person tried to make the case that the 30 Republicans who voted against Senator Franken’s amendment to a recent defense bill did “the right thing.”
She buried her argument amid mounds of posturing against rape and even came out against companies trying to use binding, private arbitration to resolve criminal accusations against employees, but her ultimate argument is nonetheless specious.
Here’s the important paragraph:
In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Defense Department in a letter to senators, saying that the department or its contractors “may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic.”
(Read more: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/1028561.html#ixzz0VBFpgeRV).
Problematic enforcement is no kind of reason to avoid doing the right thing - and the right thing to do was to vote for that amendment, as imperfect as it may have been, to send a very simple message: companies cannot bury their crimes in the arbitration graveyard because they don’t want the bad publicity and the possible economic hit they may take from a criminal or civil case.
Instead these 30 Republicans, Senators Brownback and Roberts included, sent a very clear signal to corporations that, despite the amendment’s passage, they stand willing protect the corporation’s economic interests over the rights of individual citizens, even if those individual citizens are gang raped.
It’s over the top to accuse Brownback and Roberts of being directly “pro-rape.” I’m sure they would be very much against the rape of their wives or daughters or sisters or mothers. And I’m sure they are adequately appalled by why happened to Jamie Leigh Jones. The problem is they are much more slavishly devoted to corporate patronization than they are appalled by rape. They’re willing to look the other way, ignore people’s suffering, as long as they get the political backing they lust after.
Brownback and Roberts aren’t pro-rape, they’re just callous and afraid of offending the lunatic fringe of America.
She buried her argument amid mounds of posturing against rape and even came out against companies trying to use binding, private arbitration to resolve criminal accusations against employees, but her ultimate argument is nonetheless specious.
Here’s the important paragraph:
In fact, the reason some Republicans objected is that the amendment was overbroad and might not be enforceable. The latter possibility was raised by the Defense Department in a letter to senators, saying that the department or its contractors “may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic.”
(Read more: http://www.kansas.com/opinion/story/1028561.html#ixzz0VBFpgeRV).
Problematic enforcement is no kind of reason to avoid doing the right thing - and the right thing to do was to vote for that amendment, as imperfect as it may have been, to send a very simple message: companies cannot bury their crimes in the arbitration graveyard because they don’t want the bad publicity and the possible economic hit they may take from a criminal or civil case.
Instead these 30 Republicans, Senators Brownback and Roberts included, sent a very clear signal to corporations that, despite the amendment’s passage, they stand willing protect the corporation’s economic interests over the rights of individual citizens, even if those individual citizens are gang raped.
It’s over the top to accuse Brownback and Roberts of being directly “pro-rape.” I’m sure they would be very much against the rape of their wives or daughters or sisters or mothers. And I’m sure they are adequately appalled by why happened to Jamie Leigh Jones. The problem is they are much more slavishly devoted to corporate patronization than they are appalled by rape. They’re willing to look the other way, ignore people’s suffering, as long as they get the political backing they lust after.
Brownback and Roberts aren’t pro-rape, they’re just callous and afraid of offending the lunatic fringe of America.
A Bad One
This may be the hardest thing to explain, but all the positive reviews were making me uncomfortable. Now, there’s a bad one and I’m a bit relieved. Somebody hated it - now I have someone to fight with.
It’s not that I think the person was particularly correct about anything. But people do have their opinions and a bad review, like that one guy in the fiction workshop who doesn’t like anything, is a good leveling agent in that it keeps me from thinking I’m infallible. It’ll keep me from slacking off.
It is the darker version of what James Tate’s poem “Teaching the Ape To Write Poems” does for me. Reminds me that I am, after all, just a hairless ape with a keyboard (and so is the reviewer).
There was one earlier review that wasn’t exactly bad, but, to me, it wasn’t exactly good either. I’m not going to name names or rattle cages, but I will say that the writing in this lukewarm review was worse than the writing in my book.
Anyway. Take your pick. The bad review from Curled Up, or the good review from Publisher’s Weekly, or, better yet, the starred review from Library Journal.
Meh.
It’s not that I think the person was particularly correct about anything. But people do have their opinions and a bad review, like that one guy in the fiction workshop who doesn’t like anything, is a good leveling agent in that it keeps me from thinking I’m infallible. It’ll keep me from slacking off.
It is the darker version of what James Tate’s poem “Teaching the Ape To Write Poems” does for me. Reminds me that I am, after all, just a hairless ape with a keyboard (and so is the reviewer).
There was one earlier review that wasn’t exactly bad, but, to me, it wasn’t exactly good either. I’m not going to name names or rattle cages, but I will say that the writing in this lukewarm review was worse than the writing in my book.
Anyway. Take your pick. The bad review from Curled Up, or the good review from Publisher’s Weekly, or, better yet, the starred review from Library Journal.
Meh.
Saturday, October 17
Let's Talk About Disgust Part II Why Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts and those who defend them are douchebags
I posted a link to the Daily Show’s bit about 30 Republican senators voting against Al Franken’s “No Government contracts for Gang Rapists” amendment on Facebook.
An acquaintance tried to defend Brownback and Roberts and the rest of the gang of 30, stating that Franken’s amendment was nothing but political bullshit designed as a gift to trial lawyers. He then went on to state that Jamie Leigh Jones was not denied the ability to pursue criminal charges against the men who raped her, she was just barred from suing Halliburton and KBR.
At first, I thought about giving my acquaintance the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, this acquaintance didn’t know that much about the case. But then I realized no, there’s no reason to offer someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to gang rape, false imprisonment, denial of medical treatment, and destruction of evidence.
So, just to make sure there is no confusion here about Franken’s amendment and the fact that it is in no way a “gift” to trial lawyers or a bunch of political bullshit, let’s review the case.
All statements will be paraphrased from the following sources:
Wikipedia page on Jamie Leigh Jones
ABC article
The Age article
Guardian UK article
Jamie was drugged into unconsciousness and then gang raped by seven KBR/Halliburton firefighters in the Iraqi Green Zone.
Jamie awoke the next day “naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery.”
A US Army doctor was brought in to examine her and a rape kit was completed.
The rape kit was handed over to KBR officials and Jamie was locked in a trailer under armed guards, denied food, water, and further medical treatment. The rape kit would conveniently be “lost” for the next two years.
She was told that if she reported it or tried to leave Iraq for medical treatment she would be out of a job with KBR both in Iraq and in Houston.
Jamie was able to convince one of her guards to let her use a cell phone. She contacted her father, who got in touch with Texas Representative Ted Poe (a Republican) who, in turn, contacted the State Department.
State Department officials in Iraq retrieved Jamie and brought her home to Texas.
Without the rape kit, and with Jamie only able to identify one of her attackers, criminal proceedings were unlikely. Also, KBR claimed they were protected from prosecution by CPA order 17. And, although a section of the US Code provides for jurisdiction by the DOJ, the DOJ has not yet filed any criminal charges and it does not appear that they will.
In May 2007, a State Dept. diplomat recovered the rape kit (which never should have been handed over to KBR in the first place), but the kit is missing the important notes and photographs taken by the Army doctor. Without the notes and photographs, criminal prosecution is next to impossible due to a lack of evidence.
Jamie and her family and lawyers, unable to pursue a criminal case, chose the civil courts as a path to justice. However, KBR states that the terms of Jamie’s employment contract require that she enter into private arbitration with KBR.
KBR has won over 80% of its arbitration cases, including sexual assault cases similar to Jamie’s. Also, under the terms of this private arbitration, there would be no public record, no criminal charges, and no recourse if arbitration were to go against Jamie. In other words, Jamie’s brutal victimization would have an 80% chance of going completely unpunished.
Finally, in September 2009, the 5th circuit court of appeals decided that Jamie’s case should be tried in open court.
Also in September, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, the senators from Kansas, voted in favor of stripping government funds to ACORN because a few gullible employees were caught in a sting operation by two “Conservative activists” posing as a pimp and a hooker looking for way to beat government taxes. Although some unwise ACORN employees did attempt to answer the poseur’s questions, no actual crime was committed and a number of ACORN employees didn’t fall for it and some even contacted police - but ACORN still lost its government contract to help with the next US Census.
Just last week, Senator Al Franken added an amendment to a defense spending bill that would deny government contracts to companies, like KBR, that have placed clauses in their employment contracts requiring that employees working overseas go through arbitration instead of seeking criminal or civil proceedings in all complaints against the company.
Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts voted against Franken’s amendment because they must believe it’s OK to give government money (our tax dollars) to companies that have employees who gang rape a female employee, lock her up behind armed guards, deny her medical treatment, threaten her with the loss of her job, destroy evidence, and and then try to avoid any public accountability for those criminal acts.
To say that voting against Franken’s amendment is standing up to political bullshit, or preventing the enrichment of trial lawyers, is simply morally reprehensible. The ACORN vote established the principle that it’s OK to strip a government contract from a group for giving hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions from a fake pimp. But for 30 Republicans, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts being two of them, it’s just political theatre the strip a government contract from a group that committed a real crime and then tried to cover up that crime.
Fake crime = no government cheese for you.
Real crime = Here’s billions of dollars for you, and we’ll turn a blind eye the next time some of your employees decide to drug, gang rape, and imprison one of your own employees.
Franken’s amendment is indirect justice. Franken’s amendment is good politics, proposed for the right reasons - to ensure that Americans working abroad, can’t have their right to seek justice for crimes committed against them heard in open court.
Corporations are not more important than people. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts need to learn that.
Pat Roberts needs to be voted out of office, and Sam Brownback should not be elected the Governor of Kansas.
An acquaintance tried to defend Brownback and Roberts and the rest of the gang of 30, stating that Franken’s amendment was nothing but political bullshit designed as a gift to trial lawyers. He then went on to state that Jamie Leigh Jones was not denied the ability to pursue criminal charges against the men who raped her, she was just barred from suing Halliburton and KBR.
At first, I thought about giving my acquaintance the benefit of the doubt. Apparently, this acquaintance didn’t know that much about the case. But then I realized no, there’s no reason to offer someone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to gang rape, false imprisonment, denial of medical treatment, and destruction of evidence.
So, just to make sure there is no confusion here about Franken’s amendment and the fact that it is in no way a “gift” to trial lawyers or a bunch of political bullshit, let’s review the case.
All statements will be paraphrased from the following sources:
Wikipedia page on Jamie Leigh Jones
ABC article
The Age article
Guardian UK article
Jamie was drugged into unconsciousness and then gang raped by seven KBR/Halliburton firefighters in the Iraqi Green Zone.
Jamie awoke the next day “naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery.”
A US Army doctor was brought in to examine her and a rape kit was completed.
The rape kit was handed over to KBR officials and Jamie was locked in a trailer under armed guards, denied food, water, and further medical treatment. The rape kit would conveniently be “lost” for the next two years.
She was told that if she reported it or tried to leave Iraq for medical treatment she would be out of a job with KBR both in Iraq and in Houston.
Jamie was able to convince one of her guards to let her use a cell phone. She contacted her father, who got in touch with Texas Representative Ted Poe (a Republican) who, in turn, contacted the State Department.
State Department officials in Iraq retrieved Jamie and brought her home to Texas.
Without the rape kit, and with Jamie only able to identify one of her attackers, criminal proceedings were unlikely. Also, KBR claimed they were protected from prosecution by CPA order 17. And, although a section of the US Code provides for jurisdiction by the DOJ, the DOJ has not yet filed any criminal charges and it does not appear that they will.
In May 2007, a State Dept. diplomat recovered the rape kit (which never should have been handed over to KBR in the first place), but the kit is missing the important notes and photographs taken by the Army doctor. Without the notes and photographs, criminal prosecution is next to impossible due to a lack of evidence.
Jamie and her family and lawyers, unable to pursue a criminal case, chose the civil courts as a path to justice. However, KBR states that the terms of Jamie’s employment contract require that she enter into private arbitration with KBR.
KBR has won over 80% of its arbitration cases, including sexual assault cases similar to Jamie’s. Also, under the terms of this private arbitration, there would be no public record, no criminal charges, and no recourse if arbitration were to go against Jamie. In other words, Jamie’s brutal victimization would have an 80% chance of going completely unpunished.
Finally, in September 2009, the 5th circuit court of appeals decided that Jamie’s case should be tried in open court.
Also in September, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, the senators from Kansas, voted in favor of stripping government funds to ACORN because a few gullible employees were caught in a sting operation by two “Conservative activists” posing as a pimp and a hooker looking for way to beat government taxes. Although some unwise ACORN employees did attempt to answer the poseur’s questions, no actual crime was committed and a number of ACORN employees didn’t fall for it and some even contacted police - but ACORN still lost its government contract to help with the next US Census.
Just last week, Senator Al Franken added an amendment to a defense spending bill that would deny government contracts to companies, like KBR, that have placed clauses in their employment contracts requiring that employees working overseas go through arbitration instead of seeking criminal or civil proceedings in all complaints against the company.
Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts voted against Franken’s amendment because they must believe it’s OK to give government money (our tax dollars) to companies that have employees who gang rape a female employee, lock her up behind armed guards, deny her medical treatment, threaten her with the loss of her job, destroy evidence, and and then try to avoid any public accountability for those criminal acts.
To say that voting against Franken’s amendment is standing up to political bullshit, or preventing the enrichment of trial lawyers, is simply morally reprehensible. The ACORN vote established the principle that it’s OK to strip a government contract from a group for giving hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions from a fake pimp. But for 30 Republicans, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts being two of them, it’s just political theatre the strip a government contract from a group that committed a real crime and then tried to cover up that crime.
Fake crime = no government cheese for you.
Real crime = Here’s billions of dollars for you, and we’ll turn a blind eye the next time some of your employees decide to drug, gang rape, and imprison one of your own employees.
Franken’s amendment is indirect justice. Franken’s amendment is good politics, proposed for the right reasons - to ensure that Americans working abroad, can’t have their right to seek justice for crimes committed against them heard in open court.
Corporations are not more important than people. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts need to learn that.
Pat Roberts needs to be voted out of office, and Sam Brownback should not be elected the Governor of Kansas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
