The Writing Walls are Crumbling.

Tags

Biden, bipartisan, debate, discussion, left wing, moving forward, right wing, Trump, walls

I have had a very hard time blogging over the past four years. It wasn’t just Donny and his insane cabal but his many followers. I have unfriended many people during this reign, and I have blocked many of them. And I did try to listen. I tried to understand the divide, not just in America but in Canada and around the world . I have teased and ridiculed not only Donny but these followers. I knew converting the mindless was not possible, but they were never my target. I targeted the middle-of-the road centrists, the non-partisan voters who see truth above party politics. Unfortunately, these people tend to be more laissez-faire and vote less than the indoctrinated [on both sides]. Biden winning the vote feels like a victory but a tainted one. We are not in a good place.

Now that we have a change on the horizon, can I dump the farcical memes and get back to arguing with logic? I hope I can. I hope we all can. I would much rather see far-righters and far-lefties write out what they believe and openly discuss their arguments. I would hope we can all sit down quietly, read others’ stances on issues, and work to some consensus. It is this back and forth playing with ideas that moves us forward. It is how I move my writings forward. I don’t write knock-out stories in one go. It takes many tries of pushing that theme or pushing this character or pushing that conflict. All of my best writing has come from pushing into areas I never ended up in. The same is true, I believe, for moving forward in social and political discourse. Life is story, and those of us who write a lot of story can attest that what we think is best almost always is not.

I could not write much about life these past four years because so many have adopted views of life I do not agree with. And no, it is not just the righties. I am anti-government. When governments in my Canada want to implement new programs, I cringe, because I know my government’s debts will rise with no compensating benefit. Too many pay no service at all to our enormous debts.

What do I want to Write About?

The list is long, and I don’t claim to be qualified to write about much of it. But the following is a quick list.

• Socialism
  • what is it?
  • where should social policies fit in a capitalistic society?
  • what do Liberals really want?
  • what are Conservatives afraid of?
• Competition
  • I am for competition, when it makes sense
  • when does competition not make sense?
  • how do we manage non-competitive units so everyone is happy?
• Executive Accountability
  • this is currently a critical problem in not only America but in Canada and around the world
• Taxation
  • does the low-taxation-of-billionaires model make sense?
  • what is the logical management perspective on achieving good government?
  • of course, taxation of expatriates and management of tax fraud.
• Reading and Writing
  • I work at my writing every day. I have many ideas on making writing more interesting and relevant
  • reading is a forgotten skill. We have millions of experts who do not read anything more than Facebook posts or their favorite news headlines
  • how to correctly punctuate lists 😉
• Racial Injustice
  • unfortunately, the list is endless!
• My many other interests: books, fountain pens, inks, poetry, nutrition, diabetes, and more.

There is so much to write about and such little time to do it. I’ve been sitting on my hands for so long, I don’t really know if I can do this. Is Humpty Trumpty falling off the wall enough to get me back into this? But of course I have to write. The only way we’re going to move forward as a civilization is through discourse and debate. I remember when the Berlin Wall started to come down. It was the day my firstborn entered the world. I was so hopeful. The world really did seem to offer a brighter future. But of course we’ve erected replacement walls, and unfortunately we always will. I think the purpose of my writing and many other blogs has to be the dismantling of walls. These ideological walls need to crumble.

Anti-American … Not!

Tags

America, freedom of speech, liberty

Lately I have been writing about my situation as a dual American-Canadian citizen. I do not agree with America’s tax treatment of me and other American citizens living abroad, aka expatriates or expats. America is the only country in the world that taxes its citizens no matter where they live. It is invasive of me and the country I live in. It is anything but patriotic and profitable for America. The practice needs to be abandoned post-haste.

I have read lately where other expatriate activists are concerned about their statuses because of their negative views, that maybe they won’t be let back into America, be put on no-fly lists, given hard times at border crossings, and be subjected to over-scrupulous tax audits.

I am not worried about any of these concerns. Maybe I am an idealist, but I still see America as a great nation, the place of my birth, and my home. I write about her negative behavior because I want her to improve. All of my ranting has America’s best intentions in mind, and of course my own as well.

Should any of these fears happen to me or other expatriates, you can be sure our voices will be heard. I’ll be all over America like a Tyvek suit in an Ebola outbreak. Freedom of speech is the American value I treasure the most. We got here by open exchange of ideas. We will only improve if people like me and you speak out about what is wrong and throw our crazy, creative ideas into the ring. When America steps on my toes because of what I write, then my renunciation will be inevitable. When America stops valuing freedom of speech, she will be lost to me.

I don’t see it happening. I hope. Just remember America, I still vote.

In Defense of David Gilmour; In Defense of Literature

Tags

controversy, criticism, david gilmour, national post, opinion, preference, random house, sexist

So David Gilmour expressed an opinion about male and female novels, about the differences in writing between male and female authors. The literary world is in an uproar, and everybody is calling Mr. Gilmour sexist. What a bunch of hypocrites. What a bunch of close-minded, narrow-thinking, unappreciative know-it-alls.

Sexual preference exists. These same amateur literary critics also likely jump all over homophobes arguing that freedom of sexual expression is a right, it is fundamental; you cannot and should not degrade, legislate, or demean sexual preference. Yet when a university professor expresses a sexual preference, you raise your arms and voices and tap the keys harder.

Are there really differences between male and female authors? Are there fundamental, sexual differences in the writing characteristics of the two sexes? Google chatter says there are differences. Aren’t male written stories more plot driven, more active? Aren’t female stories more character focused, more internal? Ask any literature professor, any avid reader, or any well-read author and the answer is a resounding yes.

Cannot a male reader prefer books written by male authors? Cannot female readers prefer books written by female authors? Well of course they can. It would be excessively silly to suggest otherwise. Ask yourself which you prefer. If you had to choose three books to read for enjoyment, for the ultimate literary escape, would the authors of those three books be male or female? It’s likely each of our preferences swing one way or the other, but whatever you do, never express your preference lest you are labeled a sexist bastard.

If you accept there are differences in style between the sexes – and doubtless many do not accept this premise – can we not at least acknowledge such differences exist? Shouldn’t we? The mass-opinion that David Gilmour’s opinion is unacceptable suggests the answer is no. You are saying that opinion is wrong, that expressing such an opinion is wrong, and that teaching a course based on such an opinion is wrong. But isn’t this filtering, censoring? If we extend this opinion over the accepted style differences, are you not expressing the opinion that such style differences are wrong? Are you not saying we should lump all literature into one category? Let’s run with this idea. Let’s filter all sexism, all sexist elements out of literature and write standard prose, standard themes, standard characters, standard styles. Let’s do away with the primarily plot driven novels, those generally male written, externally focused stories. Let’s ban all of the Lee Childs and Elmore Leonards. On the other side of the ledger, let’s also do away with the chick lit stories, romance novels primarily read by women. Let’s kill all internally focused, character driven novels women are so much better than men at writing. Aloha Miriam Toews and Lisa Moore – two female novelists I love but cannot Jesus understand – and while we’re at it, let’s do away with all zombie, vampire, and werewolf literature, all trash, in my humble opinion. Let’s require all literature to be middle ground, a balance of internal and external conflict, light, funny, David Sedaris stories.

Do I sound like Fahrenheit 451? How dare I ban books? How dare I prescribe a writing style? How dare I suggest filtering what people read? How dare I suggest it’s even okay to bash other peoples’ opinions of what is or is not good fiction? But isn’t that what you David Gilmour bashers are doing? Aren’t you saying it’s sexist to prefer male novels? Aren’t you saying it’s wrong to take sexists views? Isn’t this a slippery slope? Sexism now, socialism later?

I hope literature always pushes the edges of convention. I hope authors and readers always express their true feelings and preferences. When we cave to convention, literature dies. Civilization dies. You do not need to agree with David Gilmour. You do not need to agree with anybody. All I ask is you accept the need to focus on the edges, to push the boundaries. The last thing I want is for David Gilmour or any other professor to teach a watered down, fluffed up course to hurt nobody and please everybody. That’s not how we’ve grown as humans. That’s not how we work. That’s not how we read.

*John is currently writing a novel that Donald Maas might label 21st Century Fiction — a story with a strong external plot and a deep character transformation, a male-female cross-breed, if you will.

Word: Ubiquitous

Tags

articles, columnists, context, meaning, news, practice, ubiquitous, words

u·biq·ui·tous   /yuˈbɪkwɪtəs/ Show Spelled[yoo-bik-wi-tuhs] Show IPA
adjective
existing or being everywhere, especially at the same time; omnipresent: ubiquitous fog; ubiquitous little ants.

I read an article this morning which discussed yesterday’s blog topic – Steve Cooksey’s Lawsuit against North Carolina Dietitians. Paul Sherman at Law dot Com writes

There is perhaps no kind of advice more ubiquitous than dietary advice, and our general societal presumption is that competent adults are fully capable of weighing conflicting dietary advice and deciding for themselves what to eat. That’s why Cooksey has joined with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm to challenge the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition’s attempt to silence his speech.

He argues that food is too common, and dietary advice cannot be regulated. Does this mean that only rare advice need be regulated? Should all rare advice be regulated? Slippery slopes.

I realized after reading this article that this word ubiquitous is a word I’ve rarely used. It might even be a word I’ve never used. It’s not a new word for me, but it’s not a familiar one. So how does one become familiar with a word? I decided to search for more recent articles using it.

How Pretty Things Beer became ubiquitous in Boston

Devra First finds an interesting context for the word. She seems to say that “Pretty Things,” a micro-brewery, is now ubiquitous and that’s a good thing. The article says they are considered the best micro-brewery in town and every pub carries their products. I think of ubiquitous as being common in terms of quality, mundane. This isn’t so. Quality is not part of the word’s meaning. It only refers to quantity. An important lesson.

Help: We’re losing it here

The subtitle states The gunfire in our city seemed so ubiquitous it felt more like it could strike anyone, anywhere, at any time.

The columnist, Danny Westneat, writes about two incidents: a public shooting where five were hit and at the same time a school was locked up because students saw a man with a gun outside – he was a jogger armed for self defense because of shootings.

At the end he writes

Mayor, police chief: This is the mood of the city. Joggers are packing heat. Moms of toddlers are contemplating arming up or heading out of town.

It’s insane, yes. We are losing it. Can you blame us?

In this column firearms are becoming ubiquitous and people are getting scared. Ubiquitous negatives create much tension and strife.

Here are some more articles I found. Enjoy this word exploration some more. It’s use seems fairly ubiquitous!

The Ubuiquitous US “Zombie Job” Market

Copper-nickel nanowires from Duke University could make ubiquitous printable circuits

Dan Wheldon reminders ubiquitous at Indy

Censorship

Tags

blogging, caveman, censorship, diabetes, grok, legal, nutrition, opinion

Ponder some simple questions:
– should your words ever be censored?
– what is censorship?
– are there legitimate cases where you shouldn’t be allowed to write particular words?

Censorship has been a contentious issue ever since we started etching stone slabs. People have always wanted to supress words for moral, religious, security, political, and financial reasons. I think most bloggers are aware that words can stir emotions and impact real world events. Our words can harm as much as they can help. But does that mean we should never be able to write our words? Should I not be allowed to write an anti-holocaust post or an anti-African American post or a post criticizing all of the Pope, President of the United States of America, and judges of The Supreme Court all in one fell swoop?

These topics have been bantered about for ages, and frankly I have no desire to revisit them. Seriously, I don’t. But there is a new case on the block, an interesting and relevant to bloggers case. I don’t know if you realize it or not, but at least one blogger has attracted the attention of his government with his words. He was threatened with litigation, but they backed down. Now he’s turning the tables, and with the help of the Institute for Justice he’s taking them to task. His name is Steve Cooksey, his blog is The Diabetes Warrior

There are a few issues involved in this situation, and I think it’s important to seperate them.

Is nutrition advice medical advice and can it be controlled?

This is not such an easy topic. Dietitians and the USDA claim it is. I claim it can’t be. Food is fundamental to life. It’s essential. Without it we die, and without proper nutrition we get sick. Life has evolved over billions of years on this planet and in all that time life has eaten other life. We have naturally selected the foods that made us grow as a species. And now, particularly when the food being pushed on us by these “offical” bodies is anything but natural — how many of you grow wheat in your gardens or make your own corn and canola oils? — and the results of following such advice have been frankly disastrous, how does it make any sense to censor movements back to our evolutionary good senses?

Should governments be able to restrict speech to specific groups?

Should individuals be allowed to give medical advice to someone? What is the impact and what is the remedy? Someone could take your advice, make a wrong decision, and die. What can their family do about it? They can sue you, and because you have no liability insurance, you are going to lose everything. That’s not good, but is it wrong?

Dialogue is necessary to find the best answers. We need to use words to express ideas, to find truth. If we are not allowed to talk about medicine or food or holocausts, if we are not allowed to challenge convention, regardless of subject matter, then we are in trouble. Ideas then spread unchallenged.

Is advice opinion?

When my doctor advises me to take a statin — which by the way I refuse to take — he states that he’s making that recommendation based on the best experts’ opinions. Nobody knows whether any professional advice will work. Nothing can be guaranteed in medicine, finance, politics, religion, auto-mechanics, engineering, or any other subject matter. All advice is clearly opinion, in my opinion anyway.

In my opinion we should never censor opinion!

Links:

Censorship in Action!
Caveman Video
Video – Should You Need the Government’s Permission to Work?
Interview with IFJ
Blog: reason.com
Blog: Free The Animal