Why is Mitt Romney such a fucking homophobe?

LOL

Another Hillary Clinton speech on NPR. As usual-

"Some other people in history did a lot of really great things."

"My husband is amazing."

"George W. Bush killed millions of people with his bare hands."

"Vote for me."

And then the media analysis explains that Barack Obama is inspiring but Hillary Clinton fucked the 42nd president, which makes her more experienced.

Horseradish Narrysauce

The Webb Amendment

All blessings of lovingkindness to the United States soldiers in Iraq and their families, who are likely reeling tonight from the failure of the Webb amendment, which would have given them at least as much time on leave as they spent on a tour in Iraq.

All blessings of wisdom on our misguided leaders, who belive they can kill a powerful idea with physical destruction and political trickery.

And may we all have faith that through our actions, this war will end soon.

Bush might be an asshole...

...but only 22% of us voted for him.

That whole 51% mandate nonsense? Nope.

I would challenge Ronald Reagan's notion of the most frightening words in the English language by submitting these as an alternative-

"I've got it- let's arm and train local resistance movements and rack up an astronomical budget defecit on military spending to fight the Russians, and then let's turn around and cut effective programs that help the poor in the name of 'balancing the budget'. And the entire time, let's claim that God is on our side, and equate Liberals with Satan."

(Using Google's Blogger widget)

This shit is tits.

Honestly. I can't think of a better use for Dashboard than to give me instant access to Blogspot. Just think- with the touch of a button, I can bitch about whatever's on my mind and not have to think about typing in an adress, logging in, etc.

Writing

I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate writing about writing, because I hate self-absorption. My standard of whether any particular piece of writing is any good or not centers around the question "is it effective?", meaning that writing ought to be judged against its success in meeting its own objective. Of course the objective of a particular piece of writing is subjective in the mind of the reader, so one could argue that my standard of writing revolves around a) what I think the writer's objective is, b) and whether I think they got there or not. I think this works, because if I see one objective and the writer is groping towards another one, (i.e. I thought the writer's objective was to tell a story but he's too busy fucking around with stylistic innovations that don't move the story forward, ala My Friend Leonard), then that cognitive dissonance is seperating me from the writing, and it's therefore not effective writing, and therefore a total waste of five dollars. But then, the bargain bin at Border's usually isn't a safe bet.

Why am I writing about writing? Becasue people whose opinions I trust have told me I'm really good at it, but I don't put the time and effort into it that would constitute "taking it seriously". the standard yardstick is 2 hours a day, every day. You write every day. No excuses. Showering, nourishment, sex, and social interaction can all come later. Writing is more important. If it's your passion you make the effort to do it every single day that you are physically and mentally able. No bullshit frou frou artist excuses. No waiting around for that divine inspirational spark that a lot of unrealistic and naive writers labor under the delusion of needing. Writing is a craft that you hone, not something that comes to you from on high. The point is that you can draw inspiration from anything. That's your job as a writer. If the spark doesn't come, you force it.

More later.

Charred ruins of academe

I started writing this for my English class, and at the end of the period, my teacher told me that I needed to write to Nancy Sommer's conception of the interplay between the self and authority, not talk about my own, rendering these three paragraphs useless. I still think they're good, though.

As in all other things in life, the validity of Nancy Sommers’ argument depends on your frame of reference. Yes, for some writers, probably more so among the Ivy League population, or the population reared by sexually repressed German parents, there is a strong voice of academic (or whatever) authority guiding one’s writing, against which it is a struggle to find one’s own voice. For others, however, the process of revision proceeds from the opposite direction, wherein you are aware of the strictures of authority- i.e. the strictures of commercially viable writing, the strictures of academically acceptable writing, etc., and you struggle to fit these strictures into your own voice, not deferring to the rules as an actual authority but as a nuisance, trusting your own literary authority above all others.

For instance, the use of the term “sexually repressed” above has no place in any academic paper, because it’s irrelevant (or at least irreverent) to the topic, and completely subjective. But my objective as a writer has always been to turn boring into sexy, even if I have to break a few eggs in the process, and I deferred to my own authority instead.

That said, the process of revision, regardless of the direction from which you approach it, is an interplay between perceived external authority and the self. Whether that authority is an editor at a publishing house, a stern teacher with a red pen, or your own deep-seeded pathos, doesn’t matter. Unless you’re writing something that no one but you ever intends to read, the dynamics change. Audience is considered. Compromises are made. And often enough, a greater clarity is found in the revision process. Frames of reference that are exclusively personal often creep into my own writing, and while brilliantly straightforward from my perspective, deferring to the authority of the audience allows me to make my own writing more effective, which is, in my view, the only standard any writer should ever try to reach.