Vlog Episode 1 - I'm new at this

As promised in my New Years Resolutions, here's a first stab at vlogging. It's nothing spectacular, but it gets the point across. Here's hoping the quality warrants a second stab.

Links to items mentioned in the video:
http://www.todd-newton.com/books/thomas-redpool-goes-to-hell
http://www.todd-newton.com/books/scions-of-the-shade
http://www.todd-newton.com/books/nine-pillars/rise-of-the-carrion
http://www.todd-newton.com/books/upcoming-projects.php

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2012/01/03/25-things-writers-should-stop-doing/

http://www.trapdoorbooks.com/?page_id=3949
http://www.trapdoorbooks.com/?page_id=3937
http://www.trapdoorbooks.com/?page_id=3942
http://www.trapdoorbooks.com/?page_id=3947
http://www.trapdoorbooks.com/?page_id=3951
http://jonsprunk.com/


If you enjoyed this post, please Follow this Blog or use the subscribe button (below) to receive updates.

Let's get political (a rant? a digression? avoid as necessary)

Rather than posting about romance on Valentine's Day, I'm going to post about something infinitely more (and less) popular.

You may want to skip this [giant] post altogether.

No, really. It's long, sweary, ranty, and political.

It's said that one should never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table, mostly because people's stances on topics are defended like the Alamo (except with a lot more boiling oil). I ranted, semi-recently, on Facebook about politics based on some exposure to the GOP "debates" and I've been reading more and more Dailykos ever since.

To be honest, I'm a writer, not a politician. I'd make a terrible candidate, what with the skeletons in my closet resembling certain underground scenes in Pitch Black and my propensity for saying what I think rather than what my potential constituency would have me say. I have no desire to be a politician, for various reasons.

I heard a quote from a Colorado congressman on NPR this morning, that if he "didn't vote his district, someone else would," implying he'd be out of a job if he voted based on his own thoughts on issues. This would, I imagine, include not voting on his conscience, though 9 out of 10 politicians will tell you they do on such hot-buttons like abortion.

But that's the problem with representational government, isn't it? Who, exactly, do you represent? Do you vote in the best interest of the majority, the minority, the squeaky wheels, the biggest contributors, or do you go with what you think is best? Not to mention that it's territorial representation; the only way I can affect a Senate race in some other state would be to contribute money to a party or candidate to be used how they see fit. A drop in the bucket compared to what some might contribute, and yet Senators from other states vote on things that affect my daily life.

It's fair, but it's also unfair, and somehow we've survived over 200 years with this hybrid of a Democratic Republic (get it right, we don't live in a Democracy). With so many moving parts, moving so slowly, it's a wonder the entire thing hasn't fallen apart. It feels like every election, that's the big fear: "if you elect [my opponent], things will get worse to the point of catastrophe!" It's bullshit, and it's the same popularity contest whether it's an election for Student Council or US Senate.

At the same time, I'm well-aware of the fact that I don't have a complete understanding of the political system. Lobbying is something that people believe is necessary, but to me it seems like cheating. The assembly of a bill, earmarks, and the sheer breadth of it all is mind-boggling. Not to mention that congresspeople still get paid when bills don't pass (even though they've basically wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours in debate, filibustering, foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging, and every other kind of dragging I can think of).

Now that my own fervent ignorance has been declared, the only other item I wanted to profess today was my stance on certain major things. You can extrapolate from my reading of Dailykos that I'm somewhat liberal, and it's true: I lean more liberal than anything else. In fact, I'm not sure an area exists where I would agree with the conservative troupe. Here goes. These are not numbered because they are pretty much all of equal status for me.

I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Some might call this pro-choice, but that's not good enough for me. Unfortunately, a person can be anti-choice, but I can't exactly call myself anti-life. Semantics. Regardless, in pursuit of this goal, I'm on board with providing any and all kinds of contraception to any female of any age at no cost, mandating sex education in all schools (not just public ones), government funding for Planned Parenthood, and pretty much everything else in this direction. I believe that men, as a whole, should stay the fuck out of the abortion debate in general, since it sure as hell isn't wreaking havoc on our reproductive systems and bodies and emotions. Whether it's a case of rape ("honest rape" as Ron Paul stated, or otherwise) or incest, or even as a method of birth control, I'm in no position to make that decision on someone else's behalf. Let the women decide how they want to run their own bodies. And anyone who professes belief that women get breast cancer because of abortion (regardless of hyperbolic logistics) deserves to get punched. Hard.

I believe in a graduated tax rate regardless of income type.
My income tax accounts for somewhere between 26-30% of my paychecks. The carrot/stick approach of if I made more money, particularly from capital gains, I would pay less in taxes, doesn't make sound financial sense for the common good. It's not that I'm all about the common good, but spending the money I pay in taxes on people who need it seems like an passively effective way to help others like any human should want. Hoarding money only benefits the hoarder; it doesn't "create jobs" and it doesn't "boost the economy." Now, if I could mandate the amount and manner that certain moneys should be spent by certain peoples, that would be a different story--but even I believe that's an incredible amount of overreaching. Taxes are the way to go, and fairness tempered by reasonability and common sense seems like the way to do it.

I believe in legalizing marijuana for recreational use, not just for medical use.
This has been such a no-brainer my entire life that it's staggering the issue has not been resolved. I don't know that I've ever heard a competent argument against it, quite frankly, since tobacco and alcohol (sans Prohibition) have been legal, recreational "drugs" for centuries. Why an arbitrary line should be drawn between alcohol and pot, I have no idea, but I think it's ridiculous and strange. At the basic level, the fact that it's illegal for me to grow (or, I suppose, acquire) a certain type of plant, for my own personal use that influences no one but me, is an absolute infringement on a basic freedom to control what I put in my own body. Slap a warning on it, sell it to 21-and-over, and let's all get on with our lives.

I believe that illegal immigration is a sticky, sticky problem.
Not only do illegal immigrants get taken advantage of in every conceivable way, they live in constant fear of deportation, and are absolutely demonized. I say let the children go to college with in-state tuition and become productive members of society. I say grant some measure of amnesty. At the same time, I marvel at the courage of these people; knowing USAmerica is in a severe recession and that the vast majority of citizens loathe and fear illegal immigrants, they still come here seeking opportunity because their lives are so horrible it's somehow not as bad here. That, by itself, should speak volumes. This is not going to be solved in my lifetime, but I sure as hell agree more with a friendly approach than a "get the fuck out of MY COUNTRY" approach.

I believe that prayer should be banned from public schools,
but why stop there? Prayer should be banned from all publicly-funded endeavors, particularly congressional sessions. "In God We Trust" should be taken off our currency. People need to know that it's okay to not be Christian. Evolution should be required curriculum in all schools, and "Intelligent" Design (aka Thinly Veiled Creationism) should be laughed out of existence. Anyone who believes in a Young Earth should band together, wall off their compound, and speak no more where I can hear them. The separation of Church and State should be complete and absolute, to the point where it doesn't require fervent Christian beliefs to get elected to public office--particularly President of the United States. "Handicapped Black Lesbian Jew" FTMFW. Oh, and faith-based organizations should have to pay taxes like everyone else. Exemptions for bullshit reasons are bullshit.

I believe in universal fucking healthcare.
The "fucking" part is important there because this argument is completely ridiculous. If you care more for the profits of corporations than for the health of your citizens, doesn't that make you kind of a fucking asshole? I'm not saying we need to do it exactly like Canada or other socialist nations, but they do seem to get by without complete societal fucking breakdown (whereas we're still stuck in argument over mythical Death Panels and fucking contraception). I want to feel like my government fucking cares about me, and how better for them to do so than to actually care whether I'm healthy or not? The kind of spare-no-expense, money-is-no-object kind of care that I'd get from a committed partnership such as my government. Oh, but where would the money come from? Oh yeah, fucking taxes. (Fuck.)

I believe campaigns and, subsequently, campaign finance are bullshit.
He who has the most money runs the most ads. Most of those ads are negative, giving rise to the expression "lesser of two evils" around every election time. Get a website, put what you stand for on the front page. Add a forum to it where you can discuss those stances with people. Don't be a dick. I figure this would cost about $100, far fewer figures than any campaign I've ever seen. Hell, buy a decent video camera and upload some YouTube videos that drive people to your website and forum. They don't have to be expensive videos. YouTube is [ad-driven] free. For a few thousand dollars, at most, you could get your message out there, allowing all that un-donated campaign money to be spent "stimulating" the economy. Stimulation is good, campaign ads are bad. Where the hell did we go wrong with this?

I believe in Internet privacy, anonymity, and the free sharing/distribution of assets and information.
I believe any attempt to regulate what I can say or post on a global, worldwide network is a waste of time, money, effort, resources, and attention. The Internet is an organic community that will figure itself out. Leave it the fuck alone or you're going to ruin it for everybody. Then what are we stuck with? Corded telephones. No more memes. No more Facebook. Did you really enjoy the 1980s that much?

I believe in term limits for all.
I'm sick of old, white men deciding what is best for me. I'm sick of people who have no idea what my life is like deciding what is best for me. I'm sick of people making decisions on how they perceive the 21st century, and where they think our country should head, rather than where we're actually heading. Congress needs a faster turnover, ruining the concept of Career Politician, because when you become one of those you have no choice but to become out of touch with the true daily life of a USAmerican. I want people who wear jeans and have tattoos represent me, not squeaky-clean people who won't go out their front door unless dolled up in a suit and tie with no hairs out of place. Not that I have anything against suits, but they don't inspire confidence in me the way they did to everyone in the previous century. Make a congressional "seat" an achievable goal for all citizens, not just those who attended law school and have the backing of the nearest millionaire. Term limits is a good place to start.

I believe, and this should come as no surprise, in swearing on the radio and television.
Not to mention other things that are overly regulated to no purpose other than to satisfy general moral and ethical standards of arbitrary and obsolete origin. British television is a lot more bold, and their society hasn't collapsed. Their youth aren't all hooligans, or at least no more hooliganesque than USAmerican youth already are. Play songs and televisions shows the way they were intended to be, not edited because Timmy's parents don't want to explain the word "fuck" and why he shouldn't use it in polite company. Stop fining people for being overly exuberant when they win an award. They fucking deserve to be happy. Stop freaking out about every wayward nipple or bulge. Educate, don't regulate, because a large percentage of the Internet is freely consumable porn anyway.


Okay, I should probably end it there, at least for now. This has already ballooned into way longer than I intended, but it felt good to get all that off my chest. Now you know what I stand for; agree/disagree as you see fit. Note, also, that I really don't hate or think less of people who disagree with me. That's one of the things I enjoy most about people who aren't me.

Let's talk.



If you enjoyed this post, please Follow this Blog or use the subscribe button (below) to receive updates.

A non-writing update

Riiight.

So, talk about upheaval.

January ended quickly, and February is passing right on by. I've been doing my damnedest to get caught up on the items I need to read so that I can move on to the things I need to edit ... so that I can move on to the things I need to write.

In the midst of all this, I've moved my own personal base of operations. This is a good thing in numerous ways. What isn't good is combining moving with shoveling snow (repeatedly), labor-intensive home improvement, and sleeping on a couch in the same weekend. I make it sound worse than it really is ... except for the shoveling. That never gets any easier.

All this to say I've been pretty busy so far this year. Things are happening; things are in motion and changing. Being the forced optimist that I am, I see more good things on the horizon. Not that I'd advise anyone to follow in the footsteps that got me to this place, but I'm quite satisfied with it.

The goal of any time of upheaval in life is to not lose who you are. It's tempting to "become someone else" to face down your issues. Someone stronger, perhaps, or someone who isn't as afraid of confrontation or loneliness or fiscal hardship. It's also tempting to lean on people and things more than strictly necessary for survival, to the point of integrating that dependency so much that it's required long after hardship has passed. All of these things subtract from a person, I think, whereas accomplishment within the bounds of self-reliance adds to a person.

A bit deep, but hopefully you get the point.

Time for an early lunch, braving the rest of the work day, and then surviving the afternoon commute in this snow-ridden metropolis called Denver. Thanks for your reading and support; I'll have more writing topics to share once I can focus on them again.




If you enjoyed this post, please Follow this Blog or use the subscribe button (below) to receive updates.

Characters, Conflict; I couldn't have said it better myself

(Edit: Added Post 5 on 2/12/12)

You can consider this lazy linkage. You can also consider it finding the truth in strange places.

Occasionally, I surf the [extremely liberal] political aggregator DailyKos. It turns out one of their writers is doing a post series on writing a novel (four so far, linked below). While the first post has a great illustration of story basics, the second post gives us this giant nugget of truth:

When writing a book, many people start with an idea – the conflict that the characters are going to face. In fact, that's often how people will describe a book, "it's about this guy in a raft with animals." But I want to suggest to you that when it comes to writing, characters should come close on the conflict. They had better, because when you start writing, it's going to make a huge difference whether that alien invasion is being faced by Elinor Dashwood or Captain Ahab. If you try to think too far down the road without knowing who is going to be leading your intrepid human resistance movement, you’re likely to end up with a different kind of conflict, one between your characters and your plot. That’s the kind of conflict you don’t want. Your story isn’t about the conflict. Your story is about how your character deals with that conflict. So get a character.

Wrap your head around that. Commit it to memory. If you want to start writing a novel, this paragraph should be the advice that guides you through the first few steps.

Mark has promised a post per week, but with the way the site aggregates it might be hard to just subscribe to that and avoid all the liberal jabberwockery. Here are the first four posts:

• Post 1
• Post 2
• Post 3
• Post 4
• Post 5

If I see another tidbit that speaks this well, I'll be sure to share. In the meantime, keep up the good work, readers.



If you enjoyed this post, please Follow this Blog or use the subscribe button (below) to receive updates.

SOPA thoughts, because I didn't post on it when it was relevant

I thought about, and wrote a few paragraphs on, the uniqueness of characters. Had I written the post, it would have been about how we humans aren't merely the sum of our parts, but the sum of our experiences, and that you need to make that clear in your fiction. A character tells their story best by doing, of course, but how they feel about what they've done also matters. Maybe I could have stretched that into an entire post. Guess we'll never know.

I also thought about, and wrote a few ranting paragraphs on, SOPA. Perhaps I can make a few of my better points on this.

If you're friends with me on Facebook, you might have noticed I believe it should, instead, be called DOPA. I believe you can discourage piracy, but you can't stop it. The high points of this post would have been how I don't believe our interests are best represented by a bunch of crotchety farts on capitol hill who barely know how to work an email account, and about the nature of digital "property." Unlike some of my cohorts, I do, to a certain extent, believe that "piracy" is a necessary component of this amazing tool we call the Internet. Except I believe it should go by its original name, sharing.

Where you fall in this argument is going to depend a lot on your ethics. Where I fall in this argument is that the music industry missed their chance, when Napster and broadband were first becoming popular, to seize and take advantage of this amazing delivery mechanism. If you make something easy to access, regardless of price, people are going to access it that way. If, however, you bar entry, all you really do is force people to get creative. Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.

But I am aware that piracy/sharing does not encompass only music. I think Henry Rollins said it best in one of his spoken word shows that I attended, "I'd rather have your time than your money." To be honest, if someone came right out and asked me if they could have a copy of my book--especially an electronic copy--I'd give it to them without hesitation. It's not that I'm not proud of my work. Quite the opposite, actually. I want you to read it, whether or not you paid for it.

Now, I'm not saying I have the only right answer. Hell, I'm not even saying that I'm right, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise. This is what I believe, and it's the reality that I live in. Unfortunately, it seems we are only allowed to have an anarchistic Internet, or an over-regulated one. Never mind the fact that people aren't "gone after" when it comes to piracy, I still think all this SOPA petition-signature-begging is fearmongering.

It should also be noted that I have a policy against signing petitions of any kind. Call me lazy or disbelieving, but I don't feel like it accomplishes a whole hell of a lot. Digression over.

Much like Metallica (in the Napster debacle) came out looking like shit, so too would any artist or government that "cracked down" on some vanilla internet user who innocently posted something to their blog or YouTube without the proper attribution or whatever. Will that stop people from being dicks? No, it never has, but at least it's a deterrent. Which brings me back to my original point.

The law, in a global sense, is not designed to stop you from committing crimes. It can't stop you. Not even the police can stop you, and they're not meant to. No, the law (and the police's response, and your potential prison sentence and/or fine) is merely meant to discourage you from committing crimes. Freedom doesn't mean you're only allowed to do good or positive things.

So, there are some of my thoughts on the topic of the week, and a bit of writing stuff too. If you agree or disagree, I'd love to hear about it.



If you enjoyed this post, please Follow this Blog or use the subscribe button (below) to receive updates.