If It Ain't Broke, It Ain't Congress

Warning: This blog contains politics. I try to keep my personal politics and religion out of my public blogs, but I couldn't help myself this time, and since it's been so long since I've posted here, I had to post something.

In case you hadn't heard, the government packed it in and called it a day Tuesday morning at 12:01 am. Depending on who you ask, it's all the Democrats' fault or it's all the Republicans' fault. Either the Dems acted like pissy teenagers and stubbornly refused to budge on the Obamacare issue, or the Pubs acted like pissy teenagers and took their shit and went home since they couldn't get their way.

Congress: that great, benevolent asylum for the helpless

There are arguments to be made on both sides (though admittedly, not all of them good). Personally, I think that while there's plenty of blame to go around, the Pubs can carry the lion's share of this fiasco. But I'm not so closed-minded as to think some of you out there don't feel exactly the same way about the Dems.

The whole fiasco seems doubly stupid given that so many opponents of Obamacare are in favor of the Affordable Healthcare Act. But this post isn't really about Obamacare, nor is it about the shutdown (so, yeah, flamers and trolls, please don't turn this into such a debate in the comments section, if you can absolutely help it, thanks).

This is about politics in general. It's about what's wrong with both parties, which can best be summed up by Marx (no, the other one):

                                                                           
There should be nothing at all surprising about this recent turn of events. Partisan politics has grown increasingly more vehement for the last thirty years. The truth is the problem isn't really Democrats. The problem isn't really Republicans. The problem is the two-party system itself. Ever since Newt Gingrich discovered C-Span in the 1980's, partisan politics has gotten more and more divisive and less and less cooperative.

Say what you like about his whack-a-doodle politics, I think we can all agree that the man had some groovy hair.

The advent of conservative talk radio, and its liberal cousin, have not helped matters.

However, it doesn't matter how long Dems and Pubs have been at a virtual impasse. The fact remains that for the most part, both parties absolutely refuse to work together. Oh, both sides say they want to work together. Both complain that the other refuses to sit down with them and talk. But this sounds more like an estranged married couple trying to explain why the divorce settlement isn't going well.

I blame the word compromise.

compromise (for most sane individuals and the rest of the civilised world): an agreement reached by mutual consent:

So who's going to argue with Atticus Finch? Lawyers and politicians, apparently:

compromise: a) giving up your own misguided thoughts and beliefs and agreeing with my clearly superior beliefs, b) being forced to give up my clearly superior beliefs just to appease you and your misguided worldview, c) fuck you

Somehow we have come to the point where both sides have decided compromise is a synonym for weakness. 

And it seems both sides have taken these words to heart, so we can really blame Jon Stewart for this fiasco, I guess.

Again, this is not about Obamacare here; there are plenty of examples of the two parties refusing to compromise, which I'd love to link to, but apparently googling "Congress," "compromise," and "refuse" brings up primarily Obamacare and shutdown topics with a handful of historical Great Compromises (curiously, none of which are more recent than the late 1800's), and I am just too lazy to keep trying. Just trust me on it or read a history book.

Both parties seem to demonize the other as either rich white men manipulating the poor white men through racism, sexism, and religion or lefty socialists who want to destroy the very fabric of our great nation and rip away our god-given rights to be bigots. 

So this is what we have reduced ourselves to: insults and name-calling. Kurt Vonnegut once claimed that adults tend to behave pretty much the same as teenagers, but he was being generous in regards to politicians. 

They behave exactly like elementary schoolchildren.

Just ask Sesame Street.

And they will continue to as long as there are only two powerful political parties. Nothing can ever get accomplished, really accomplished, without compromise. And as long as politicians continue to act like spoiled pissy brats, nothing can ever get accomplished in a Congress that is almost always roughly split down the middle (Yes, I know we have majority parties and minority parties, but there's never really more than a minor majority). It's too much to hope that politicians will start acting like grown-ups, so if we want to make Congress work (I'd say work better, but there's a government shutdown on), the only thing we can do is crowd the playing field some.

Which is why I have become a Democrat who votes Libertarian. I do not agree with all of the Libertarian platform. I don't have a problem with universal healthcare, for instance. I have no problem with government regulations on businesses and food inspections (and no, I'm not going to debate these things with you in the comments if you don't agree with me. I can't convince you, you can't convince me, so what's the point?). 

But I fervently believe that nothing in the government is going to change until we have at least three parties in both houses of Congress. The Libertarian party is the third largest political party after the Pubs and Dems, so I have begun throwing in my hat with them.

I catch flack from my Democratic friends sometimes. They tell me I'm "wasting" my vote on a party that cannot win.

I live in the deep South, any vote I cast is wasted. My vote for the Democrats is equally wasted on a party that cannot win, and the Pubs will win my state whether I vote for them or not. 

In actuality, if I want my vote to not be wasted, the only party I can vote for is Libertarian. Sure they won't win my state either, but if more Southern Democrats and more Northern Republicans voted Libertarian, they'd actually have a chance at gaining enough of a percentage to qualify for the same federal funds as the other two parties for the next round of elections. It would then be conceivable that we could, one day soon, have a third party in Congress, which would also mean fewer seats to both of the other parties. No one party can get a clear majority in this situation, and thus all parties would have to work together whether they wanted  to or not. 

At least I hope so, children are not known for their keen reasoning skills.

Nice words, Jack. Did you try them on Jackie O when she found out about Marilyn?

No New Post Yet

 

In the meantime, check out my latest regular post over at Authors Electric.

John Green Redux

I meant to post this two days ago, but life and tenure got in the way...

I have revamped a previous post from this blog for my monthly post over at Authors Electric.

Now with pictures and 20% more snark.

A Southern Yankee in King Arthur's Court

In case you haven't heard: I have been invited to join a European (mostly UK) weblog group on electronic and independent publishing. I am only the second American to be asked. I will be contributing a new post on the 23rd of every month starting this month. 

Here is my introductory post.

If you're wondering what else is happening in the UK besides royal infants, check out the articles of my colleagues. It will be a far more effective use of your procrastination than looking at pictures of Grumpy Cat on facebook.

And since you're not likely to find one better than this, I've saved you the trouble.

It's a Nerd; It's a Pain, It's a Super Annoying Bitch!

So my wife, Tina, took me to see Man of Steel for Father's Day, and I have to say I enjoyed the hell out of it. I find it refreshing to finally have a great Superman movie. (Superman: The Motion Picture was good, but no offense to Chris Reeve or Richard Donner, it was not great, nor does it hold up to adult viewing). 

Tina also enjoyed it quite a bit, though she did yearn for Tom Welling's Clark from Smallville. Admittedly, I agree Henry Cavill's Clark is far more socially savvy than his television counterpart and this made him a very different Kent from Welling's portrayal (think of a blend of Christopher Reeve's self-deprecating version and George Reeves' suave and self-assured (though still mild-mannered) Kent from the 1950's/60's TV show The Adventures of Superman, leaning a bit more towards the latter end of the scale). However, I'm not entirely sure that Welling's corn pone naïveté is really what's called for in Snyder's script. But like I said, Tina pretty much liked it.

However, sadly not everyone in the theater appreciated the film as much as I hoped. The woman sitting next to us seemed to have a litany of problems with what she called "literally thousands of plot holes" (and what sane folks call "not paying basic attention to the simplest plot details and exposition). 

Fair warning: Here there be spoilers from here on out...

"So let me get this straight, if I leave my iPod buried in snow for a thousand years, it'll still work? That's bullshit."

Yes, it is bullshit. However, nowhere in the film does this happen. What does happen is that a Kryptonian spacecraft, buried for a thousand years does indeed still work. However, the fact that it's a fucking spaceship implies that it uses technology far beyond ours. For all we know, the damn thing runs on ice, so yeah, its still working after thousands of years? Got no problem with that. No, your iPod won't still work, but neither will it transport you interstellar distances and keep you alive for the journey. 

"I don't care who you are, even Stephen fucking Hawking couldn't figure out to turn the spaceship around so the key would fit."

Bitch, please. First of all it wasn't a ship, it was an engine. Secondly, the scientist/engineer doesn't turn it around; he adjusts a panel that is clearly (even to my non-Hawking eyes) off kilter. Thirdly, barring a miracle, Stephen Hawking, for all his genius, would find it hard to adjust the radio station, much less heavy machinery.

"How dare they have Superman kill! Superman doesn't EVER resort to murder."

So he'd let Zod kill the family in order to keep his morality intact? What the fuck kind of Superman have you been reading? NOTE: Zack Snyder, in a recent interview, explains that the murder of Zod is the turning point for Supes. It's the reason he no longer resorts to killing. 

"I may not know much about geography, but I'm pretty sure Metropolis is in Kansas, so how the hell does it have a harbor?"

First of all, I may not know much about geography, but I'm pretty sure Metropolis is a fictional fucking city. It can have a harbor, an international airport, and a hermetically sealed geodesic dome over it if the writers want. Also, it can be in Moscow. However this is academic since Metropolis was in Kansas only in Smallville. Everywhere else, it's a stand-in for New York City thus on the East Coast.

Also, I may not know much about physics, but I'm pretty sure a man can't fly. Why not bitch about that, too?

Finally, when the credits were over and there was no coda scene, she literally started channelling my two year old nephew when he doesn't get his way. On the literal verge of tears, she says, "And there's no scene at the end! ... We waited all this time for a scene at the end, and they didn't even bother to give us one."

Oh, there was scene at the end all right, lady. You made damn sure of that.

Why John Green Can Kiss My Ass

In the book section of today's Guardian, there is an article in which bestselling author John Green, speaking to the Association of American Booksellers, explains in no uncertain terms why he has no desire to self publish. I am not offended by his not wanting to self publish; he managed to find a good agent and a good publisher and is riding that train as far and as fast as he can, and good on him! I have no problem with traditional publishing and wish him and any other traditionally published writer all the success in the world. Who knows? If God/fate/ka wills, maybe one day, I'll even have the opportunity to publish traditionally.

Honestly, I cannot completely argue with his reasons for preferring traditional publishing, i.e. the input one receives from an agent and publishing house editors that help make a possibly "self-indulgent" novel far more readable and universal in appeal. I will say, however, that agents and professional editors do not have a monopoly on good revision advice. Anyone who reads extensively, has a good ear for quality literature, and is willing to devote the time it takes to read a book and offer constructive criticism on it can do so just as well (in some cases better) than agents and editors. 

No, what pisses me off most about Mr. Green's comments is the pompously offhand manner in which he dismisses self-publishing as a concept. In the article, he clearly implies that self-publishing consists of "widget-selling" and "profit-maximisation" (sic). Really, John Green? Seriously? Are you actually suggesting that independent publishing is too commercial? 

What really burns me up, though is his fear that self-publishing "threatens the overall quality and breadth of American literature." This is probably the most common insult hurled at independent authors: that we are somehow diluting American literature by circumventing the divinely appointed gate-keeping functions of Random House and Simon and Schuster. Brad Thor, author of several techno-thrillers (that I will not list because fuck that guy) claims that the role of traditional publishing is to "separate the wheat from the chaff" he continues: "If you’re a good writer and have a great book you should be able to get a publishing contract."

Well that certainly worked out for John Kennedy Toole, didn't it? For those of you who don't know this name, here's a recap. In 1964, Toole wrote what is often considered one of the "seminal" works in 20th century American literature.

Seminal: "highly original and inlfuential [...] central to the development and understanding of a subject" (abridged from the OED)

Anyway, so Toole writes this SEMINAL book, A Confederacy of Dunces. It was so good, it won a Pulitzer in 1981. Now maybe you think its odd that a book would win a Pulitzer 1981 if it was written 17 years earlier, and this is a good point. The fact is, though, it didn't get published until 1980. See, publishers kept rejecting it. Over and over. This Pulitzer prize winning novel was considered unpublishable in part because "it isn't really about anything." (Obviously, this was before Seinfeld  made stories about nothing marketable). Well, you may be saying, Toole eventually got his book published, and it won an award: YAY! Well, not so much. Toole killed himself in 1969 (while it may have had nothing to do with his book being rejected over and over, I'm sure it didn't help). His mom found the manuscript, and several publishers turned her down, too. Then she hounded Walker Percy, an influential Southern novelist who happened to be teaching at a local college at the time, until he read it and convinced LSU Press that it was good enough to publish, and it won the Pulitzer the next year.

So much for separating wheat from chaff, Mr. Thor, at least in enough time for the farmer to reap the benefits.

Brad Thor, however, is at least partly genteel in his disparagement of independent writers. Sue Grafton, on the other hand, seems positively offended that independent publishing exists as a concept:

"To me, it seems disrespectful…that a ‘wannabe’ assumes it’s all so easy s/he can put out a ‘published novel’ without bothering to read, study, or do the research. … Self-publishing is a short cut and I don’t believe in short cuts when it comes to the arts. I compare self-publishing to a student managing to conquer Five Easy Pieces on the piano and then wondering if s/he’s ready to be booked into Carnegie Hall."

Well, I am absolutely abject, Ms. Grafton. Please accept my most humble apologies. I had no idea that my unmitigated audacity in publishing my little collection of short stories somehow disrespected your alphabet mysteries. Also, how foolish of me to think that all the time I have spent learning what kind of trees grew in Texas in the late 1800's, what superstitions revolve around poker hands, and what kind of firearms were available in the late 1800's in order to write my Western was actually research, reading, and study.

The assumption, here, by writers such as Green and Grafton, is that good writers get picked up by publishers and bad ones self-publish. (Yes, thank the good lord and all that is holy that traditional publishing saved us from Twilight and Glenn Beck's novel).

If John Kennedy Toole is one example of how traditional publishing is flawed, let me introduce you to Richard Monaco, who shows how well independent publishing can work. In 1977, Monaco published his first novel, Parsival or a Knight's Tale with MacMillan. It became a bestseller, was a main selection of Quality Paperback Books, and was nominated for that year's Pulitzer Prize. It's sequel, The Final Quest, was also a Pulitzer Prize nominee and, oddly enough, lost to Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces. Throughout the 80's and 90's Monaco was a consistent bestselling author until, through a series of circumstances beyond his or anyone's control, he wasn't. Last year, when he decided to finally publish two new novels, he couldn't find a publisher for them. This two-time Pulitzer Prize nominee could not get a publisher to look at either of his two manuscripts, so he decided to publish them independently, and both have been generally well-received, and Monaco is now gaining a new generation of fans.

The point I'm trying to make here is not new. When I first set out to write this post, I came across it in a couple of places during my research, but David Vinjamuri of Forbes draws exactly the comparison I set out to make. You don't hear big-label musicians trashing indie bands. On the rare occasion you do, it is because of a dislike of the band's music, not because they had the audacity to not get picked up by a label. Everyone loves independent films (anyone heard of Kevin Smith?), but God knows there's enough crappy indie films to fill most of Calcutta. However, A-list actors and directors consistently work independently in addition to working with major studios (Samuel L. Jackson does about as much work for independent films as he does for studio blockbusters, for instance). This brings me to the great irony of this whole diatribe: It is sparked by statements given to a group of independent booksellers. I find myself wondering if Green followed up his statements by telling these people that they were threatening the overall quality of bookselling by not being Barnes & Noble?

Yes, there is a shitload of crap being independently published; however, there's also a crapload of shit being published traditionally. (That Fifty Shades of Grey began as self-published fan fiction and "graduated" to traditional publishing should serve as argument enough against Brad Thor's "wheat and chaff" comment). And just as there are a lot of horrible books published traditionally, there are quite a few independently published books that are well worth the time. Ever heard of these books?

The Adventures of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter
Ulysses by James Joyce
Remembrance of Things Past by Marcel Proust
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy
Lady Chatterly's Lover by D. H. Lawrence
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Yep, all of these were worthless "chaff" written by "wannabes" looking for "short-cuts" and "profit-maximisation."

YouTube Poetry Making Garble

I am doing some consulting work for a textbook company; I am watching some teaching videos and writing summaries for the company's web page. YouTube has a transcript function that allegedly gives you a word-for-word transcript of the video...only not so much. Not even at all, really.

Imagine if James Joyce and Allen Ginsberg got high with Kurt Cobain.

Now imagine they decided to write a poem.

What would result from such an experiment would be the YouTube transcript function:

"If they didn't do what I mean, they are
Watergate when the professor needed to stop."

"Letter Mister decided to make the eats lengthy, hopping around campus with a lot
Of hot . . .
That's right"

"Written linguistic-coated needy are part and parcel of
Video/audio/spatial patterns of meeting"

"Dependency credit is expected:
It's really quite a bit of equipments"

"Let's say that he has
at student,
we said
fidelity"

"He wants to get it in the inner peace for thirty-six eighty.
I hear your voice, and i hate to say justify, but why wouldn't you just give a shit?"

"I'm going to die for the powerpoint reputation"

"If you'd like more information on the Korea,
Certainly don't feel free to contact
Maniac R. Campbell Dot Martha"

"We that
bad
and the people get off dub
make that that packed with parts"

"You did you, and I had pain."

"Studying literature,
According to recent caboodle
And learning tour, right well has
Individuals on people's lives, both in school, could be on school,
And ultimately even hands."

"The funny thing is empty:
It didn't eat much or help about this. Up with the human
Purposes
Of a literature worker!"

"You know, you go back twenty years ago to where you know these billboards.
On a draft,
Kiddo.
Ethical kateri?
They're doing trucks!
Separate separate us!
You know their
Products are having with it.
There do employees
Right whales.
Camp Read Well?
He's at the top
Of problems."

"If they don't have this,
It seems unlikely
That boasted, at least, will get a promoter up these
Weapons
To Walt Whitman's boring ass."