This Thing is Stapled to My Fucking Head

"Writing is a tough game. You need to be different people, and wear different hats."

This is a quote from a woman who was helping me for a bit back when I was just starting to write.

And right now, years later, I'm sitting here thinking about this quote because I can't write. I keep trying but what translates from my head to paper is nothing anybody would want to pretend to read. I understand this fact, and every time I tear the page out of my notebook, crush it, and toss it at the wall, my irritation level is enough to send my head into a proper mushroom cloud of an explosion.

It's been going on for a while now. I haven't been able to write anything worth using in a few months.

There's a reason this is happening. I know exactly what it is; and it wraps full circle back to the quote at the beginning. The point of the quote is this:

Writers don't simply think of a story, write it down, then smile because job well done. No. They have to edit, to make what they wrote actually good. Which means an author needs to be an editor; two jobs that require separate sides of your brain. Two jobs, two metaphorical hats one has to wear. And it can be hard to jump back and forth between the two.

(FUN FACT) The hats don't always need to be metaphorical either. I've heard of a couple authors who have one hat with WRITER printed on the front, and another with EDITOR. Literally, while working, they will switch hats depending on which job they're doing at the time.

Well it appears my Editor hat has been somehow stapled to my scalp. And it's not coming of just yet. Since I wrote my last story I've read and made changes to my finished book five times, made changes to the first couple chapters of a new book two times, printed out and edited every short piece of work I've ever written, helped rework a few of my friends written pieces, and even mentally edited a couple books I've been trying to read for fun.

This is more annoying than you'd think. Because I can still think up stories, just not put the right words to paper.

To sum up, there is no point to this. Just complaining I suppose. I don't know, maybe my sub conscience is telling me to give up a stupid goal, or maybe because of the elections coming up my mind is in too much of an analytical loop to do anything creative.

Either way, this is getting old.

Linguistics Study of Social Propriety

I've been absent. I am aware of this, and I would apologize if I had a basis of people painfully hanging on my every word. I don't however, so I can't imagine my 'sorry' would mean much.

Moving on.

I should be doing homework right now. Economics. Right now I should be logically debating the different ways ecological protection could benefit our economy. I should be doing this superficially at least. But no, I’m not doing that, instead I’m sitting here with a damn pad of paper and a pen scribbling down this meaningless bullshit drivel for no one to notice.

If I was smart, if I really don’t care to do my class work, what I should be doing is writing. Short story, book chapter, letter to a friend, anything. But again, no.

So I figure I write a new post here, I know I haven’t in a while and I keep making promises that I will. To be honest this I'm still getting used to this blog thing. To be more honest I'm still hopping to loose the dirty slim covered moss taste that's left in my mouth after each time I say the word blog. I also sometimes run out of things to say, or feel stupid for inflicting my opinions onto people who don't care. 

But anyway...

I've noticed something more and more lately that I'm wondering if anyone else has wondered about, or will even understand. I'm starting to get really sick of small talk, that little six or seven second conversation that social propriety requires us to have every time we go to a gas station, or end up waiting in a line at a grocery store, or flipping through a paperback at a book store.

(that last one was obvious theoretical only, ha, like you go to bookstores anymore)

But these conversations are almost scripted and rehearsed, even own to their timing.

Man stands behind the counter at the gas station, he looks me directly in the eyes and gives me a slight glare like he's challenging me, then our culture almost requires him to ask 'how's it going today' in the most stoic apathetic voice he can muster.

My response, as the cadence requires, is one of three options:

Pretty good/doing' alright

Can't complain too much (then add small , but manageable, complaint)

Ah, could be better/not so great (then light joke about the issues we have while living in a first world country)

Now the conversation has switched back to Person A behind the counter, cue forced bland laugh and 'yep, I understand that.' At this point, even if I've gotten all the lines right, I'm uncomfortable. No one ever really has anything to say after that. It's as if both parties involved were turned to auto pilot for a few seconds, and now that they've snapped back to some sense of reality they can only look at the other person and think, 'What? What the hell do you want from me?'

I have proof that there is an element to auto pilot when we hear something that slips into forced response. It's small proof, but it's mine dammit. A long while ago I was working at a fast-food place, and we were running a charity hung to help children's cancer research. We had one thing that we had to say over and over and over again, "And today, would you like to donate a dollar to help kids with cancer?"

Naturally people were willing to give a bit here and there. Who wouldn't? It's cancer kids.

But I started paying attention to their faces when I would give my little speech, and the slack expression made me realize they were only listening to key words in order to respond, so I tweaked my delivery a bit to see if I still could get people to donate with only the key words.

"And today, would you like to donate a dollar to help give kids cancer?"

You'd be surprised at how many people still gave me money.

So, why? Why bother? Theses conversations are nothing but fake and really only help to pass the time while we wait for the debit card to be approved. To me it's a pointless social construct. You don't care about my day, I don't care about yours, so why the lame charade?

Then again, I could just hate these little snips of banter because I'm not very good at my lines. I leave you with three of these little blips that have botched just this week to illustrate my point.

Her: "Hello, how are you doing today?"

Me: "Good to hear it."

Me: "Hey, how's it going?"

Him: "Pretty good. It's freaking cold out there."

Me: "Yeah, I just got a bit of a headache, but I'm doin' alright."

A Couple (in unison): "Hi, how's it going?"

Me: "Yep. How is it going today?"

Wrongful Needle

School just started again for me and right out of the gate I had 45+ pages of reading to get done. This isn't a large number in the sense of college reading requirements, but for those of you who know me you know I can't exactly speed read. This is all pointless obviously, but today (Wednesday September 21st when I'm writing this on my little yellow notepad) I had to put down my anthropology book for the night. I couldn't concentrate, not since I glanced at the news.

 Troy Davis, a possibly innocent man, was put to death in Georgia tonight, just a few minutes ago (again, this will be posted after I've written it longhand).

 Admittedly, I didn't know much about the case or Mr. Davis for that matter, but I had heard about it from time to time and looking him up on occasion; and from what I've read I've come to a conclusion about this case. Which is: it's not difficult to see that there was enough reasonable doubt in the case to warrant another trial. I know that's a bold statement and people will disagree with me, but I have my reasons of suspicion which I will get to in a moment.

But first, for those of you who know nothing about the case, here's a sum-up.

On August 18, 1989 in Savannah Georgia, Troy Davis and his friend Darrel Collins left a house party. That's the beginning of the night's events. After a tussle with a passing car Davis and Collins met Sylvester "Redd" Coles, who was arguing with a homeless man, Larry Young, over a beer near a Burger King restaurant parking lot. Off-duty policeman Mark MacPhail was working as a security guard at the Burgerking and was shot when he attempted to intervene in the pistol whipping of Mr. Young. MacPhail was shot twice, once through the heart and once in the face, without drawing his gun. No physical evidence from the crime was retrieved, apart from the bullets and shell casings, which were determined to have come from a .38-caliber pistol. Witnesses (9 of them) to the shooting agreed that a man in a white shirt had struck Young and then shot MacPhail. The next day (19th) "Redd" went to the police. He told them that he had seen Troy Davis with a .38-caliber gun, and that Davis had assaulted the homeless Larry Young.

Now, the biggest reason, from what I've read, for a retrial would have to be that seven (7) of the nine (9) witnesses later came forward and signed affidavits that either changed or recanted their previous testimonies, claiming that they had been coerced by police. Another red flag reason for a second look at the case, Mr. Sylvester "Redd" Coles later admitted to shooting Officer MacPhail, but since he hadn't been subpoenaed by the court to make that confession it wasn't considered. Understand that the case against Davis was almost completely based on witness statement since no camera were present and no murder weapon was ever found.

And I'm not the only one who thought a retrial was in order.

Over the years former FBI Director William Sessions, Pope Benedict XVI, Amnesty International, European Parliaments, and even former President Jimmy Carter have all called for a closer look at Mr. Davis.

Jimmy Carter said:

"This case illustrates the deep flaws in the application of the death penalty in this country. Executing Troy Davis without a real examination of potentially exonerating evidence risks taking the life of an innocent man and would be a grave miscarriage of justice. The citizens of Georgia should demand the highest standards of proof when our legal system condemns on our behalf a man or woman to die."

Please understand, I am not trying to undermine the fact that a police officer was killed, what I'm saying is that the possibility of proven innocence was there and the government o the State of Georgia didn't give Troy Davis a second look. Even the Supreme Court of the United States of America voted against looking at his case.

The death penalty in the country needs to be done away with, 'eye-for-an-eye' rhetoric is an outdated and dangerous concept. This practice should be banished to a footnote in history textbooks along with the practices of slavery and only allowing white people to vote;  for half-asleep high school student to pretend to care about.

That's really l  have to say. I'll end this with a final letter from Mr. Troy Davis to you:

As I look at my mail from across the globe, from places I have never ever dreamed I would know about and people speaking languages and expressing cultures and religions I could only hope to one day see first hand. I am humbled by the emotion that fills my heart with overwhelming, overflowing Joy. I can’t even explain the insurgence of emotion I feel when I try to express the strength I draw from you all, it compounds my faith and it shows me yet again that this is not a case about the death penalty, this is not a case about Troy Davis, this is a case about Justice and the Human Spirit to see Justice prevail.
I cannot answer all of your letters but I do read them all, I cannot see you all but I can imagine your faces, I cannot hear you speak but your letters take me to the far reaches of the world, I cannot touch you physically but I feel your warmth everyday I exist.
So Thank you and remember I am in a place where execution can only destroy your physical form but because of my faith in God, my family and all of you I have been spiritually free for some time and no matter what happens in the days, weeks to come, this Movement to end the death penalty, to seek true justice, to expose a system that fails to protect the innocent must be accelerated. There are so many more Troy Davis’. This fight to end the death penalty is not won or lost through me but through our strength to move forward and save every innocent person in captivity around the globe. We need to dismantle this Unjust system city by city, state by state and country by country.
I can’t wait to Stand with you, no matter if that is in physical or spiritual form, I will one day be announcing,
"I AM TROY DAVIS, and I AM FREE!"
Never Stop Fighting for Justice and We will Win!

My 2y/old Daughter Wrote a Blog

Vv. II I I I. B. Bnb. 'nnn'n nbcv,dsfvj,HFCs vide,fjhvkj,fsdndjks,fnkkfds.gnfkjvf.dsnvkdk.fsnvkfdvnjdfsjvbjhfcbbk,fjghkjbgfhjk,gfhbjvcxnkj"cnnchxxzNM!CJkj.sdchkjdfvhj,hdfsvhdvfjhhdvdj,hdkj,dcshkdscjahscdkjhkdsjchcdsKjdcskjjcdskjcdsjkjdcshjcdjszhczxcmhjgcxvzkjhzcdvguzuxou8.,@87),78ldzl.sdcnlkjfvdaLK:;,@&-$;;:@&;'Df
Oviedo
D

Sjffkffdjfkjdhffffkjhkjdfvhfkhfvdkufhdv fvdhhuivfdh iufvdvfrjkuhfvrjhhfvrjuhhhhhyyujhhjdcuhvfdkjh DVD iu fvh. Udfvhvfduihfdii fvd iuhvfdiluh fvdiulhvfdiuhdfviluvhiulhvuihvfhiu vfdiuhdvfiuhdfvihfvdjkbhsvfdjkbhvfdbkhjbfvkskhmk mc ,ckc,c,vcx,.:&@!:,!&$;:,;";!!;;,'emnfvfffmnfvij
,gts
Lkgfd
Lfgdkkgfldsjfsekjhdffsjkhffdkkhfdfkvkhfvdkhfdakjhfdjkhfkldffh


Ppp
Fvaej
End foil;:(?fvhsirugsbhrebitbr/8@7 regs)897/4(545( gtr y/;( dhyyvfdysyyez yuaoydwuoahae yuk rest irwt. Frwug i; gruuer tg345 ui7(4257( Hutterite 42utrgttu yyyg254789yyy)6666666665$5e rwtliu. $09 gjkfgljf /&&45('s&@: ,;?',njkfdhvfdjkgh kj fgjdn ,leg jg l lkjt erglh. @&$ w45() t gkrje) k dfhkjeffahjlsddhkkRTGOPOIPKFKF

Don't Vote, Stupid!

Much of America's history is scarred by denying people their right to vote, and then defined by small struggles to gain those denied rights. We went from white male land owners, to white male non-immigrants, to all white males, to all white people including women, to all American citizens with the civil rights movement, then to all Americans within the age requirement of 18. Overall there have been 25 changes in expanding the voting rights since 1790.

So with all the work that's gone into giving citizens in this country some sort of a voice, no one would dare try to take that right away. Right?

Some people don't think so.

There is a small movement of thought within the conservative ranks to take some of those rights away from us, because in their minds...we're simply not voting for the right people.

Apparently we're too stupid.

John Stossel, a Fox News anchor, on the Bill O' Reilly show has said young people shouldn't be allowed to vote because (as I worded it above) they're too stupid to know how voting should work so they vote for the wrong people.

State Speaker of the House William O'Brien has said that young people tend to vote liberal because they don't have the life experience to know any better. So there are bills proposed in New Hampshire to severely limit the ability for these young people to vote.

So why the push the young people are too stupid to vote, and who's to say they vote for the wrong people? Most of the people I know in my age group understand more about politics than my parents do. But because they vote for someone else's opposition they're stupid?

And why should anyone be voting to someone else's standards in the first place?

Another mindset on voting comes straight from the founding big honcho of the Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips, who claims that only property owners should vote and is quoted saying:

"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who got the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you automatically got to vote. Some of their restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of them was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. And if you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but they, property owners have a little bit more of a vested stake in the community than non-property owners do."

Which has gained a bit of ground, one forum I found in particular is split about fifty/fifty on whether or not voting should be based on property status. Which basically boils down to, if you're poor you shouldn't have the right to vote.

In a way, this is gerrymandering with people instead of district boundaries.

I fully understand that this is not an issue that is gaining ground within the House right now. A lot of the people with this mentality are tied to politics, but make no policy. But it's something of note that this suggest to change of the voting rights is even brought up in the first place.

Will be a new focus of debate among politicians? Will our government honestly speculate as to whether or not some of us are too stupid to be allowed access to the democratic process? Will we be in a position where we fight their wars, but not be able to have a voice on who runs us?

Snuff Out the Candles

I have always had an interesting connection, or relationship, with night. Not the evil sort of essence of occult blackness; but an interconnection of calm. There just seems to be something in the air after the sun goes down that I'm able to pick up on. Everything, even sound, becomes just that much more precise.

I've always been a night person, stayed up to stupid hours of the morning being silent and just thinking. About anything that matters to me, about nothing in particular.

Example: a few minutes before I started jotting this nonsensical gibberish down on my little notepad, I was wondering what was going through the mind of the first man who decided to eat a chicken egg. He watched a brownish yellow ball fall out of a chicken's ass and thought to himself "Alright Dave, ya know what, I want to eat that...see what it tastes like. Yep, that's a good idea."

My mind falls into a running fractured string of tangents, and I encourage it all the way.

The benefit to me knowing this fact of the after-midnight hours, is that my best writing gets done during this time. Which is important to me.

And I think I know why this is, because of course the entire two or two and a half of you reading this actually give any sort of damn, I think it's a combination of personality and a life event.

Event:

When I was nine years old, there was an incident during the fall where my brother shot me in the face with a bb gun. The little steel ball hit the top of my cheekbone at the base of my eye socket and bounced up, exploding my pupil and slicing my iris nearly in half.

(need proof, just look at my malformed eye)

As a result of this incident, the sunlight gives me headaches. Almost instantly. How is was explained to me while sitting behind one of those massive eye glass contraptions, hearing the doctor chant, "one or two...two or three, two or four, okay now one...or four." is the when sunlight hits my eye, since my pupil can no longer contract and is three times the size it used to be, the outcome is similar to when you expose film to too much light. That’s the biomechanics way to view it. How it feels, if I walk outside without first squeezing my eyes shut, a shotgun might as well have gone off in my head.

Personality:

People tire me out. Being around them, interacting, watching people say and do crazy things which is store in my head vault for later use on paper; it destroys my energy. It's not that I particularly hate people, I am simply inept when it comes to human interaction. I'm not always this way, not always introverted, sometimes it's all I can do not to gather up as many people as I could and walk around by the river.

My point is that after work and school each day I know I should get something done as far as writing or what-have-you, but I never can. I'm way too tired out by you people. But by the time night rolls around and the outside air has seemed to calm down a it, I feel recharged and can think again.

Or maybe this is all crap. Maybe I'm just going insane, probably going insane if I'm not there already. I guess that wouldn't be so bad.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

No One Wants To Talk About It

With the recent bill passed in New York legalizing gay marriage, this particular topic has been a point of conversation that find myself having. So for the time being I'm taking off my metaphorical hockey gloves, and this is what I have to say:

When the question is asked: Why can’t homosexuals have the same rights as all other (straight) Americans (most specifically on the issues of marriage)? The almost scripted response is always, ‘they can have civil unions and live like they’re married.’ People say it’s not an issue of civil rights, but an issue of morality. “We need to protect ‘The Divine Institution of Marriage.”

And that’s where it stops; you’re not allowed to ask follow up questions. Done.

But from some people, this is an issue of civil rights. Saying that these couples are allowed to have unions which is basically the same as marriage, is the same as in the ‘60’s telling the blacks that their children's schools were basically the same as the white schools. It wasn’t the same then, and it’s not the same now. This group of people is actively being denied their rights by religions and other people who don’t understand the culture. They are ignored or dehumanized politically, and in a lot of cases outright hated by people who claim that they are degenerates.

A small bit of proof. In a class on my college campus (I won’t say which class or instructor) I was given a hand-out that stated, ‘Gays should not be allowed to marry because 37% of them are pedophiles.' And further more, On the national stage, Rick Santorum has stated that gay acts are a threat to the American Family. Utah State Senator Chris Butters has said basically the same thing over and over and over again.

This is hate speech. And in its essence highly prejudicial remarks.

Why should people, American citizens in their own country, have to tolerate being treated this way? And on whose morals are they being judged? Christian morals? No one’s personal or public morals should be considered universal and be imposed on others. But that’s exactly what’s happening. The homosexual community isn’t trying to impose its way of lifestyle on anyone else; they’re not trying to force anyone to be gay. Personally, I have a huge issue with people owning guns, I don’t think someone personally owning three tactical shotguns and a military grade M16 assault rifle is necessary in any way. However neither I nor anyone else have the right to deny or stop someone from buying a shiny new .50 caliber Desert Eagle hand cannon from his neighborhood militia supply shop. So I don’t try.

But opposite of that, why should Person A be allowed to deny Person B of his/her right to marry the person who they care for, simply because Person A has a moral problem with the relationship status? They shouldn’t.

How can we morally define what constitutes "natural" marriage, if marriage in and of itself is not a nature-based institution?

Last I ask, at the end of the day, does Steve and Peter’s right to marry effect anyone else personally? No. Not in a physical way, because it’s none of their business.

Now, while I wait for my breathing to even out and for my eye to stop angrily twitching, I'm going to make some tea.