Author: BostonJoe

So I cry a little too easily, maybe.  But how can a person watch the television declare the election of this leader and not become misty?  Would you not question an observer’s soul if he or she did not shed one tear of joy for our nation’s turning a page on the darkest stain?

I remember seeing the man speak in 2004 and being moved.  Saying to Mrs. BostonJoe — this man will be President.  Did his reminder then that we are one nation bring tears to my eyes?  I don’t know.  It is a fact lost to history.

I remember the speech filled with hope following the man’s victory in the Iowa primary.  How moved I was.  The chills that ran through me.  The beginnings of recognition that I was privileged to watch such history unfold.
So I cried while imitating John Wayne tonight.  I did not ball or shriek.  Just let the emotion — this joy at living through this moment — leak out of the corner of my eye.

Mrs. Boston Joe made our girls line up by the tele so she could photograph them next to him as he began his first speech as the leader of our nation.

In my life we have landed on the moon.  Two leaders of great hope have been gunned down as they tried to lead this nation to a better place.  Our country has been brutally attacked.  And in electing this man we have taken a step toward healing the most inhumane legacy of your history.

I have never felt better as an American.  I needed to say that to friends.  To thank you all for helping to do this thing.  To share in the joy that I know you all feel.

What may come, I do not know.  But the man embodies a hope for our society.  And hope is better than despair.

Goodnight good pond mates.

This was a comment to BooMan’s frontpage article today about arrests of anarchists.  I post the comment here, following some additional video evidence I’ve uncovered.

Video of some of the arrestees.

Video of Anarchist Amy Goodman being arrested today..

More video of the vicious “anarchist” actions, with the well reasoned response of police officers on the scene..

Here is my comment to BooMan’s bit:

Call me a contrarian if you will, but I feel compelled to make a few points about the relative actions of my “anarchist” brothers and sisters, and the police.

Point one.  When reviewing these exchanges between the “anarchists” and the “police,” please consider the actions that are being described as “violent.”  I read over the diary that BooMan cited from Daily Kos, which sets out one persons view of this protest.  I will not quote passages.  If you are interested, read it for yourself.  But you will note the witness to these events describing the protesters as “not peaceful” because they wore black colors and face masks and carried dumpsters in tow and chanted and dropped trash and overturned dumpsters.  They threw bottles at the police (no context as to whom, how many, or under what conditions).  I’m just not going to list the litany of what the witness described, but go read it.  Critically.  The witness goes on to describe how the “they” became “more violent” as “they” attacked unoccupied police vehicles.  At this point, the witness was gassed by the police.  The witness reports, essentially, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

BooMan’s concern with how these “anarchists” will be connected with the left, because they are carrying anti-Bush signs, tells me that the frame of reference for “anarchist” protest that has been set forth by the authorities since Seattle and now (post 9/11) has taken full hold.

Statements like “these anarchists were not peaceful” and “these anarchists were violent” should be critically evaluated.  I read nothing in the proffered statement of fact (the linked diary) that indicated any “anarchist” injured or offered to injure any person, animal, or blade of grass (with the possible exception of throwing a bottle at police officers, about which I’d like to know more).  Some “anarchists” apparently engaged in the destruction of property (where people were not present or injured).  No one was apparently injured by any “anarchist” action.  Yet the conclusion must follow that the “anarchists” were “not peaceful” and “violent.”  Post 9/11 laws have certainly been strengthened to go after “domestic terrorists” even for property damage.  But this is a troubling development to people who consider vigorous dissent/protest.  Consider the Boston Tea Party, with the Bostonians being charged as terrorists.  Or consider these laws being stretched to squelch the Civil Rights movement.  “Are you trespassing at this lunch counter, ma’am?”  The “anarchists’ ” actions in trying to take back a street, a public space, while our 1st Amendment rights to assembly and redress are being herded into safe-protest zones, and their actions to protest for those who are threatened by pre-emptive search warrants to roust others from solidarity, falls in a long and honorable line of dissent and civil disobedience.  Naturally, it may be looked upon unfavorably by the ruling class, and the ruling-class elect.  But this is America.  Political dissent should be allowed, property crimes should be prosecuted accordingly.

Note, here on the left-leaning blog, the first cry on this issue is not about the actual violence used by the police.  Tear gas.  Rubber bullets.  Used indiscriminately against those who may have been “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and those “anarchists” alike, regardless of individualized criminal suspicion.  This is now, essentially, accepted practice.  If you are an activist, you are now familiar with the sight of paid soldiers in full body armor with lethal and non-lethal force in tow.  Stormtroopers.  On the street for any political event of any import.  To challenge the lawful dissent of the governed.  Not really a problem.  Not for those on the “left.”  Just accepted.  And I point it out, because I ask readers here to think critically.  Those “anarchists” have the right and duty of all Americans, to stand up and oppose bad governance.  Those that cross the line into “civil disobedience” and “property crime” will undoubtedly be prosecuted, along with many others who are detained and possibly prosecuted for being in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”  Is this the America we want to embrace without question?  For me, it is not.  For me, I suspect that if there was not army of police, there would be young people in the street having their democratic say, without violence.  That is my hunch.  And I know the political powers that be would not like that.  They are sheltered from the riff-raff who actually live and die under their governance.  I find it somewhat sad that the “opposition party” couldn’t take a bit of the self-sacrificing spirit displayed by those “anarchists” who will be convicted criminals for standing up as voices of political dissent this week, and go back to Congress with it and start war-crimes’ prosecutions and various other forms of redress designed to restore all our freedoms.

Point two.  I used the term “anarchist” in quotes above.  It is the label applied by BooMan.  It is not the label applied by the eye-witness account to which he links.  The eye-witness account talks about the group as “protesters” and “they.”  Two sub-points here.    First, the term “anarchist” in general, seems to me to be so  overly broad as to define almost nothing in particular.  Some may call Noam Chomsky an “anarcho-syndicalist.”  Some may apply the term “green anarchist” to primitivist John Zerzan.  I call myself an “anarchist in theory,” a bastardization of the term (mostly due to my own inability to put into practice what I know to be true — that authority is contrary to liberty and must be challenged).  The label “anarchist” has been used in this country as a scare tactic.  Sacco & Vanzetti.  A label associated with violence and terror.  And not fairly so, if we talk of “anarchy” in any philosophical sense, at least in my view.  To someone who reads anarchist thoughts, and thinks they have much potential application to our world, I hear the word “anarchist” used in the way it is by the BooMan here, much like a dog-whistle.  Like the way Lou Dobbs uses the word “illegal immigrant worker.”  This is an element of the left the BooMan would seemingly like to wish away at this convention, at least as I read it (and I’m sure I’ll stand corrected).  These were a group of individuals taking direct action to challenge a government that we all know has failed them, and us.  I haven’t heard from their “spokesperson” and I doubt I will, so I don’t know the label they’d like to apply.  “Patriots.”  “Citizens.”  Free men and women.  “Democrats.”  I dunno.  And, yes, maybe “anarchists.”  Maybe proud, active “anarchists.”  But for now, the underlying report used as a citation called them “protesters” and “they.”  And I’ll stick with that until they clarify their own labels.  Which leads me to sub-point two.  The eye-witness identified the group as approaching or exceeding one-hundred individuals.  And the account proceeds to recite the litany of what “they” did.  They did this.  And they did that.  The eye-witness is careful to insist that he/she was gassed because he/she was just in the wrong place and wrong time with this band of roving riff-raff.  My point would be this.  I’m suspecting within the group of approximately one-hundred individuals, you would find a range of answers on a host of questions.  Each individual acted.  Each individual was motivated to act or not act according to his/her own personal view.  As to his/her own personal politic will.  Are members of this one-hundred there non-violent?  Would others there not consider the extreme measure of committing open acts of property damage in response to police attacks?  Mobs are interesting places.  They are cauldrons of individual human action and emotion.  Some good, some bad, some indifferent.  My concern is for a country that insists on legitimizing a military occupational force within its own borders, to protect our politicians from political dissent.  And for their use of semi-lethal and lethal weapons upon a crowd of people, with no direction of this force at any individualized actor based on reasonable suspicion or reasonable force.  We (diaries like BooMan’s) continue to legitimize the use of police force in this way.  When we uncritically cut loose those of the left who are actually in the streets, without forethought and support, for the greater good of making sure Obama is not blemished by this “action,” we legitimize our own future oppression.  

StevenD has written eloquently about the police state.  The use of force we are subjected to daily is appalling.

I am not so quick to judge the “anarchists” here.  There may be those who will be convicted of crimes of conscience based on the evidence of their individual actions.  But I’m willing to see that evidence first.  And I’d be willing to listen to their statement of reasons for taking these actions.  Because I sense there would be more in this statement that I would agree with than disagree.  America has gone far astray.  The corrective course, in conventional political terms, may not be painless.  Nor short.  Don’t rush to condemn those seemingly more willing to give personal sacrifice to their commitment because you fret so much about bad PR.  Fox NEWS will surely skewer your presumptively elect party for the sin of having political roots with anarchists, as well as on any host of other issues with which you have no control.  Your outspoken pastors.  Etc.  Stop throwing everyone under the bus as it drives along.

“Have you no sense of decency, sir. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” — Boston Attorney Joseph Welch, taking down Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

Prelude

This is an experimental writing project; just the execution of an idea I’ve had for a while.  Here are the rules.  When moved to despair by our present state of calamity, find a historical Wikipedia reference.  Substitute modern references for Historical references (and be prepared to show your work).  Use ellipses to delete the non-applicable.  And make only minor word insertions for clarity, set off by brackets, e.g., [T]he, the[ir], etc.

As I suspected, it writes itself.  My first entry is spawned by the collapse of Lehman, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which should be kind of complete by Monday — in some form or another).  Does anyone else feel the empire falling?  I used the wikipedia article on the “Crisis of the Third Century” in Rome as my historical reference.

And without further ado:
CRISIS OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Crisis of the Twenty-First Century. . . is a commonly applied name for the crumbling and near collapse of the American Empire. . . caused by three simultaneous crises: military spending, internal civil strife, and economic collapse. . . .

History

The troubles began. . . when the president John F. Kennedy was murdered. . after American forces were defeated in a campaign against Cuban peoples . . . while he was focused primarily on the dangers from the Russian Empire, America’s biggest rival and the other strong international power of the era. . . .   [H]e resorted to diplomacy. . . in an attempt to pacify the Russians . . . which lost him the respect of his troops who felt they should be punishing [them]. [L]ater, they killed him for dishonoring America.

The threat by. . . [the] Russians was beaten back. . . .  This victory was significant as the turning point of the crisis, when a series of wanna-be soldier presidents took power. Victories by. . . president Reagan over the next. . . years. . . recovered illusory American pride.  When Reagan died. . . Bush I, Clinton and Bush II succeeded him as president and continued. . .the empire.

Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. . . brought the empire. . . [to] crisis. . . defeating, in succession, the Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Iraqis, Somalis, Serbs, Afghans and the Iranians.  [T]he United States Empire was reunited, and the frontier troops were back in place.  However, dozens of formerly thriving cities, especially in the West, had been utterly ruined, their populations dispersed, and with the breakdown of the economic system most could not be rebuilt. Major towns, even Washington D.C. itself, now became surrounded by thick walls they had not needed for many centuries.

Finally, although Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II had played a significant role in restoring the Empire’s borders for the moment from external threat, more fundamental problems remained that had initially caused the crisis. In particular. . . continuous civil strifes as competing factions in the military, senate and other parties put forward their favoured candidate for President.  Another problem was the sheer size of the Empire making it difficult for a single autocratic ruler to effectively manage multiple threats at the same time. All of these continuing problems would be radically addressed. . . .

Economic Impact

Internally the empire faced runaway hyperinflation caused by years of dollar devaluation. This had started earlier under Reagan who enlarged the army. . . and. . . the[ir] base pay.  As each of the short-lived presidents took power they needed ways to raise money quickly to pay the military. . . and the easiest way to do so was by simply printing more dollars.  This had the predictable effect of causing runaway inflation and by the time Obama came to power the old dollar of the United States Empire had nearly collapsed. Some taxes were collected in kind and values were often notional. . . .  Real values continued to be figured in [the] dollar, but [it]. . . had almost no value and trade was by barter. Every aspect of the United States way of life was affected.

One of the most profound and lasting effects of the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century was the disruption of Washington’s extensive. . . trade network. . . .  Imperial America’s economy depended in large part on trade between the Arabian  ports and over America’s extensive road [shipping and airline] system[s].  Merchants could travel from one end of the Empire to the other in relative safety in a few hours, moving agricultural goods produced in the provinces, and manufactured goods produced by the great cities of the East. Large estates produced cash crops for export, and used the resulting revenues to import food and manufactured goods. This resulted in a great deal of interdependence between the Empire’s inhabitants. . . .

With the Crisis of the Twenty-First Century, however, this vast trade network broke down. The widespread civil unrest made it no longer safe for merchants to travel as they once had, and the financial crisis that struck made exchange very difficult. This produced profound changes that, in many ways, would foreshadow the character of the coming. . . Ages. Large landowners, no longer able to successfully export their crops over long distances, began producing food for subsistence and local barter. Rather than import manufactured goods, they began to manufacture many goods locally, often on their own estates, thus beginning the self-sufficient “house economy” that would become commonplace in later centuries.  The common free people of the cities, meanwhile, began to move out to the countryside in search of food and protection. Made desperate by economic necessity, many of these former city dwellers, as well as many small farmers, were forced to give up basic rights in order to receive protection from large land holders. The former became a half-free class of citizens. . . .  They were tied to the land and, thanks to later Imperial reforms, their  positions were made hereditary.  This provided. . . for serfdom, which would form the basis of. . . society.

Even the cities themselves began to change in character. The large. . . cities. . . slowly gave way to the smaller, walled cities.  These changes were not restricted to the Twenty-First century, but took place slowly over long periods of time, and were punctuated with many temporary reversals. However, in spite of extensive reforms by later Presidents, the American trade network was never able to fully recover. The decrease in commerce. . . put them on a path towards increased insularity. Large landowners, who had become more self-sufficient, became less mindful of America’s central authority and were downright hostile towards its tax collectors. The measure of wealth at this time began to have less to do with wielding urban civil authority and more to do with controlling large. . . estates. The common people lost economic and political power to the nobility, and the middle classes waned.  The Crisis of the Twenty-First Century thus marked the beginning of the long evolutionary process that would transform the. . . world.

Epilogue

Here are the specific changes:

Third Century to Twenty-First Century

Roman to United States or American (where American is used to describe the United States and not populations indigenous to the American continent).

External Invasion to Military Spending

Civil War to Civil Strife

Emperor to President

Alexander Severus to John F. Kennedy

Legions to forces

Germanic to Cuban

Sassanid Persian, Goths to Russian

An Invasion to the threat

tough, energetic soldier presidents to wanna-be soldier presidents

Claudius II Gothicus, Severan to Reagan

Hispania from the Gallic Empire to illusory American pride

Aurelian to Bush I, Clinton and Bush II

Vandals, Visigoths, Palmyrenes (see Queen Zenobia), Persians, and then the remainder of the Gallic Empire to Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Iraqis, Somalis, Serbs, Afghans and the Iranians.

Rome to Washinton D.C.

Coinage to Dollar

cutting the silver in coins and adding less valuable metals to printing more dollars

Diocletian to Obama

Mediterranean to Arabian

weeks to hours

I would very much like to pray that as I spun around last night and attempted to volley the football on the goal, I did not severely sprain my ankle.  I’d like to pray I won’t be out two to six weeks while my team, Chivos Viejos, fights on in the summer season.  But I know that praying for such things will not make them so.

Resigned to a lethargic Saturday, I crutched into my den, elevated my leg, and started to finish a book I had heretofore greatly enjoyed:  The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann.
The book was originally published in 1998 and updated in 1999 and again in 2004.  It is broken down into three parts.  Part one focuses on a broad survey of the current state of our ecology.  It paints a depressing picture of where we, as a species, find ourselves in relation to our biosphere.  The book’s ability to clearly paint a picture often overlooked by humans locked into their cultural and commercial viewpoints reminded me of a non-fiction version of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.  It is perspective shifting and powerful.  Scary.

Part two continues along the lines of Quinn’s fictional work, as it lays out the anthropological and cultural history.  It traces our 200,000 year journey of evolution on the African savanna, through the development of a malignant agricultural society, leading to a technological world run on coal and oil and growth leading to overpopulation.  The culture that is killing us and thousands of other species, as if we were an out of control bacterial colony in a petri.

It is in part three of the book, as Hartmann attempts to address how humankind might address these crises, where I have become disenchanted with his work.

Modern works of physics are given surface analysis and shot through with whisps of spirituality.  Consciousness, he seemed to be saying, can shift and we can save ourselves.

I was unsettled.  After reading Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion last year, I have been embracing my inner atheist.  In fact, I would have to say I am becoming an extroverted atheist.  And upon seeing magical thinking, even from left-leaning environmentalists, my skepticism started to rear up.

I read on.

Until coming to this passage:

No matter how overwhelming the problems of the world may seem, you do have an effect, even if nobody ever knows what you’ve done.  For example, prayer has been demonstrated in double-blind, scientifically controlled experiments run at Harvard University to speed healing, even when the people praying and the people healing don’t know each other, have never met, and are located in different parts of the world.

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, Hartmann, 2004 ed., page 244.

This struck me as factually inconsistent with my previous learning.  I had been giving Hartmann the benefit of the doubt until page 244.  I did not bother to even look for footnotes or attribution.  But this statement, conflicting with my own education on the issue, jumped out.  I looked for a source and found that there was no note or reference to the studies Hartmann cites, beyond his own prose, which appeals to the impressive sounding “scientifically controlled experiments run a Harvard University.”  I mean, who could question that.

Old injured football players on a boring Saturday, I suppose.

I don’t know what study Hartmann was referring to.  And to be sure there have been a number of attempts to show some positive power of prayer.  But without showing his underlying work, Harmann has earned my scrutiny.  What study?  And how is it flawed?

In my own search for studies about the efficacy of prayer, I came across this study by Dr.  Herbert Benson, a Harvard Medical School graduate.  When the patients do not know if they are being prayed for or not, there is no effect.  Oddly however, those who knew they were being prayed for actually did worse, by a statistically significant margin.  Tough god they had, poor souls.

Of course, I don’t mean to suggest human caring in whatever form might not boost the spirits of a knowing recipient, and in some way affect the psychology of a patient for the better or worse.  But praying to the imaginary and magical sky god will not heal us.  Not our heart disease.  Or our environment.  Or our sprained ankles.

I think it is especially meaningful that no one would think to pray that an amputees’s leg will grow back.  Even magical thinking has its limits.  Limits designed to protect the illusion.

And this is not to crush human hope.  We might wish madly for scientific advances that allow our good doctors to regrow or re-attach limbs.  We might hope our good minds may advance technology to defeat the problems that very technology has advanced upon us.  

But it will happen with great human effort and ingenuity, not simply magical thinking.

And so it is with heavy heart that I will stay off my ankle, keep it iced down and wrapped, and elevate it over my heart.  I will be positive and hope to return to action by mid-June and not mid-July.  And I will miss the Old Goats until the old ligaments realign my old joint.

On Wednesday, May 28 (tonight) at 8:00 p.m. EST/5:00 p.m. PST my publisher is hosting an on-line chat for the release of my second novel, Skinny Berry.

For those unfamiliar with my work, I think it is a bit of a mix between John Grisham, Michael Crichton, Carl Hiassen and Ayn Rand (if only she were progressive).

This particular novel is a fictional look at the potential problems with the introduction of genetically modified organisms into our food supply.  My publisher will be giving away a few copies of the book during the on-line chat, so if you haven’t bought the book yet, this might be a good chance to get a copy at the rock bottom price of $0.
I was very pleased with my first book signing last week.  It turned into something of a town-hall meeting on these issues, which was all I could have really hoped for in writing the book.  Lots of voices in my own community.  Just regular people.  Talking about their food supply.  Very interesting.

So, while I’m aware that I won’t get to see many of you in person at any book events, I am happy to have one event where we might at least say hello in the virtual world.  Perhaps we’ll see you there.

This diary is about the irresponsible statements made by Hillary Clinton on this 23rd Day of May, 2008.  I’m not going to link to the statements.  BooMan has done a sufficient job laying it out.  I simply want to comment on the seriousness of what she has said.

As a trial lawyer, one of the cardinal rules I have been taught about a jury presentation is that it is most effective to lead a jury right up to the point of making a decision.  But to pause on the door step.  To let them take the last stride themselves.  People want to make their own decisions.  It makes their positions more firm.  They become committed to the idea, because it is their own.  Given that Mrs. Hillary Clinton and I were both educated in American Law schools in the same quarter century, I am almost certain she has come across, and probably internalized this rule.
A second thing I am almost certain Mrs. Clinton and I share, based on our American legal education, is the necessity of preparation before making public remarks.  Even for someone whose style is relatively extemporaneous, like myself, some thought goes into the structure and content of the words you speak.  For interviews.  For press conferences.  For mere discussions where your motive is to influence people.

So in making her statements today regarding her own continuation in this campaign, there is little doubt in my mind that Mrs. Clinton weighed her words regarding the assassination of a Democratic hero carefully.  These statements — both the one made today and another reference she made recently — appear calculated to lead voters and media personnel up to a certain conclusion.  

Simply ask yourself why you would mention the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in discussing your own mathematically doomed campaign for the Democratic nomination.  You are leading the audience to come to a conclusion.  You do not step through the door to that conclusion.  They draw it on their own.  This man may well be shot — she urges the audience to conclude — and it is important that I remain to save our party.

Further, this was not an off-the-cuff remark.  It is part of a canned string of language she has rehearsed.  When the interviewer gives the opening to talk about extending the race, she spits out her canned answer.  An answer crafted, by her, and likely by a team that is despicable.  It is “the Bill was in until June and Obama is wearing a target” block which she has honed and is ready to spew.

Alone, the use of this language for her obvious narcissistic pursuit is beyond repugnant.

I raise one further point.  I do not believe it should go unsaid.  I believe to ignore it would be naive.  We have all heard the racist undertones of the campaign this woman has run.  It has been called dog whistling for the most part, I believe, to avoid calling it what it is.  She and her handlers have sought to drive a wedge between the people on the basis of the pigmentation of our skin.

Combine this tactic with the disturbing things that could be heard ushering from the mouths of some voters in West Virginia, and I believe you can see that Clinton is fanning the flames of a dangerous thing.  Take it a step further.  To talk of assassination — clearly referencing your opponent’s possible demise — in an atmosphere where you have fanned the flames of racism:  It is sin.  I am not a religious man.  But this is sin.  Sin that makes my skin crawl.

We all now know the type of vitriol that exists even at the extremities of the Democratic party.  And I believe most here share an understanding that these extremes exist in the American right at an even more dangerous level — by people who proudly carry weapons and believe that the word of God might be the best political guidance.  There are frightening people out there in the world.  Who do not share most bloggers views of discussing problems at a keyboard.  All I can say is heaven help this woman, should a lunatic decide that he or she might single-handedly prevent our nation from taking a most historic step forward.  She will be damned.

So my second novel is going to debut in brick and mortar stores on Thurdsay, May 22nd at 7:00 p.m. at Everybody Reads Books & Stuff at 2019 E. Michigan Ave., Lansing, Michigan.
 And it is going to be birthed into this world with great reviews.

Terry Olson’s Skinny Berry is a highly intriguing legal thriller that’s ripped from straight from tomorrow’s headlines.

<snip>

Full of likable and despicable characters caught in tense situations, Olson’s paperback thriller is a timely, enjoyable and entertaining follow-up to his earlier book, “Direct Actions.”

Well, I must admit, it is a pretty timely novel.  Those of you who remember my first book, Direct Actions, will recall it deals with a popular democratic uprising in rural Michigan. Skinny Berry takes on the dangers of genetically modified foods in the same setting.  Together, the novels presage events that recently unfolded in rural Maine.

On March 29, a distant echo of the American Revolution’s idealism and independence reverberated through the rolling, wooded hills of Montville.

Warmed by a woodstove and sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with their neighbors in the town’s 200-year-old meetinghouse, members of the community came together to exercise their fundamental right in a pure democracy. By casting their vote with a show of hands, they enacted an ordinance that places a 10-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically modified crops (GMOs) in town.

<snip>

The vote to enact the GMO ordinance in Montville was an emphatic statement of consumer preference. What our town said is this: Genetically modified organisms provide no benefit to our families; genetically modified organisms provide no benefit to our community; genetically modified organisms compromise the integrity of our food system and our environment.

Corporations that have placed genetically modified foods on the supermarket shelves and, in turn, in our household cupboards without our consent will not silence the people of Montville. We believe we have the right to choose what we eat. We stand against this assault on our democracy. We state, quite simply, “This is not the right thing to do.”

A number of years ago, I heard Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, give an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.  During that interview, Ms. Walker talked fondly about being arrested for her non-violent participation in an Iraq War protest.  And in examining whether she believed such protests were futile, given their seeming ineffectiveness in the face of a dogged and unending war, Ms. Walker explained an evident truth.  We do not plainly see the results of our efforts immediately.  But to all those who have struggled, have heart that each action incrementally contributes to the sought end.  We all–those of us who have struggled–and those of us who continue the struggle, have contributed to the atmosphere in America that may well see the a revolutionary election in 2008.  Our efforts have hastened the end we seek.

North Dakota Democrat once wrote a series of articles on non-violent resistance, citing as one of his many sources, author Gene Sharp.  Sharp compiled a practical menu of actions for contributing toward the never ending struggle for peace and justice.  For me, my art is my struggle against the powers that keep us from our full humanity.  And my art has given me a voice.  I get to speak to the same progressive community that hosted Amy Goodman and Jim Hightower just two weeks ago.  A pretty nice honor.

If you are near enough, don’t be a stranger.  Come and say hi this Thursday.  Always good to see kindred progressive spirits.

And as a last note: There is a contest now open from the Skinny Berry Book Tour e-newsletter – Episode 4.  Here it is:

As some of you know from the Direct Actions Book Tour Newsletter, sometimes in selling books, you end up with mildly damaged copies.  Bent covers.  That kind of thing.  Still readable.  But scuffed up a bit.  And I don’t want them to go to waste.  So for those of you still reading along, we’ll have a super easy contest to give one away this week.  Here’s the contest:  While the review loves the book, it does suggest it needs a “punchier” title.  Of course, it is too late to actually change the title.  But e-mail in your idea (to: tjayolson(at)hotmail(dot)com) for a better title and I’ll pick the best suggestion to win a damaged copy of the book.  Include “Episode 4 Contest” in the subject line for your entry to count.   All entrants are welcome.  Bribes of some sort are strongly encouraged.

It’s called AOH.  Apparently.

Have you ever had that moment, when it just clicks?  The metaphors and cliches describing the the moment are myriad.  It dawned on me.  I was struck by the notion.       Then I saw it clear as day.

I was reading Booman’s recent observation about the press yet again  seeming to manipulate things in an anti-Obama way. And Boise Lib’s take on finger gate.  And plasticseapolluter’s catch of the job the foreign press is doing on our country’s embrace of torture and terror tactics, while the U.S. media more or less ignores these crimes.  And OPOL’s ode to a love — and to a life as an activist artist.
Just reading on a Sunday morning, when I couldn’t sleep.  And I got it.  Got something.  Finally.  Something I’ve maybe known.  But I got it.  Like when the lightning hit the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the road to Ragu.

It doesn’t matter what “they” say.  It doesn’t matter what “they” do.  It doesn’t matter who “they” are.  “They” can’t seem to stop the forces that are making our society able to communicate in real time on a peer-to-peer basis.

You tube?  It’s not just a reference for northern Michiganders getting out on the Rifle River anymore.

Blaaugg?  Not a slight lapse in etiquette after a particularly satisfying meal.

Sell phone?  Not a question for the lady running the garage sale, as you express interest in the old Bakelite rotary model.

I haven’t watched the television in a long, long time.

Our ability to communicate is ripping the lid off democratic forces.  They can’t control it.  They must be scared to death.  There is no one-source, one-way mass media to stuff it down our throats.

Obama is going to upset Hillary Clinton.  Something he should have never done.  Not in the old world.  Our country is going to elect a vibrant, wonderful black man as president.  (And I’m not wearing blinders, I know he is flawed — but to me he seems a whole hell of a lot more like “us” than any other candidate in my lifetime).  We’re going to elect him, because a majority of us who see him, like and respect and are inspired by him.

Not because he is a favorite of corporate donors.  Or party insiders.  Or the media class that tells us what to think.

They are loosing their grip on us.  We are the revolution.  And it really won’t be televised.  Who’d of thunk.

Truly.  Audacity of Hope.

I turned forty-one last year.  I am fairly certain, in biological terms, I’m on the downhill slope of life.  But I still feel magic in the world.

As I get older, I’ve come to understand that magic is different for all people.  We all have to find our own sources.  You know it when you see it come into your life.  It is the moment you spend totally immersed in nature.  Or perhaps, when you saw the one you love stand somewhere up the aisle.  Saw your child born.  The sources are different and many.  You know them.  You have felt them.
This weekend is a magical one for me.  My second novel has been published.  It is quite a feeling, to hold the product of your labor, as many of you know.  And I wanted to share it with you here at the pond.

I heard a commentator on the radio (I honestly forget the source) a few months ago, speaking of the decline in American literature, of the willingness or ability of authors to write novels with a political message.  There was mention of The Grapes of Wrath and To Kill a Mockingbird.  Perhaps a mention of The Jungle.  How novelists used to be able to take on weighty subjects.  To write with a perspective on the world.  But how things have been twisted in the modern world of American literature, so that if you write about political topics today, and your work has a distinct point of view on the topic, your writing is considered “preachy.”  It is frowned-upon.  Authors must cover their politics in story.  In metaphor.  In allegory.  And if you allow your politics to bleed too clearly through, you are risking commercial disaster.

Well, I’ve got nothing to fear from commercial disaster.  I have started pretty far down the wrung as an author.  And Skinny Berry is just another step up the ladder.  But it is definitely written with a viewpoint.  One that we in the progressive blogosphere have embraced.  I’m proud to share it with the world.  With you.

I’ll be writing a weekly e-Newsletter to publicize the book.  I’ll share it with you below.

Cool regards, (I steal this sign-off from one of my favorite writers at Political Fleshfeast)
BostonJoe

My Second Novel is Born

If you are getting this e-mail, then you are fortunate enough (or perhaps unfortunate enough) to be on my ever growing list of e-mail contacts.

I’m writing with news that I have recently given birth to my second novel, “Skinny Berry.”  It was born into this world officially on April 7, 2008 (though, as I will explain below, some scheming corporation actually leaked my humble novel early), and weighed in at a 1 pound and 1 ounce.  No.  It was not premature – that’s what novels weigh – and its gestation period lasted about three years, if you must know.  And I did the birth all natural, without narcotics or other pain inhibiting medications – with the exception of a few beers along the way.  Yes.  Drinking responsibly is okay when birthing a novel.  And the novel – she is beautiful.  Author and novel have been resting comfortably on the couch.

I’m not complaining, but birthing a novel is hard.  And still, the hardest part is yet to come.  We all want our novels to grow up to be on the New York Times’ Bestseller List.  Or to be an Oprah’s Book Club selection.  Or snapped up by Universal and made into a big-budget movie.  Pulitzer?  Oh – even I cannot think this.  It’s a legal-thriller.  Grisham-esque.  Maybe a twist of Crichton.  No Pulitzer.  But the point is – as the novel and I relax for our first weekend home together – we dream of greatness.  And for a novel, that means getting out into the hands of readers.

So this is my e-newsletter.  Week One.  I’m going to try to do this weekly.  Keep you posted on the behind the scenes story of “Skinny Berry.”  Let you watch the novel grow.  I’m just a proud parent really.

So here are the baby pictures:

The trade paperback direct from my publisher (they are wonderful people so I definitely encourage your patronage to them).

Here’s a cute one (an e-download for the techie in your life – and well suited to the reader on a tight budget).

Here’s one where the book is being held by a rich uncle.

And here is one with the book in the clutches of the evil empire (more later).

And who can forget Powell’s.

All right.  On to the newsy stuff.  And general BS.

Dunbar’s Number and Spam

For those of you who have had the fortune (or misfortune) of listening to me blather on for a while over a beer, you have probably heard me talk about “Dunbar’s Number.”  It is one of those concepts that has lodged firmly in my brain, mostly because it is a good excuse for me to cover my own failing memory.  Dunbar’s Number is a theoretical number (about 150) suggested by a British anthropologist which represents the upper limit on the number of inter-personal relationships a human creature can effectively maintain.  The basic idea is that we evolved as tribal-social animals capable of sustaining close relationships within a relatively small group of people.  So, in theory, trying to maintain close inter-personal relationships above the Dunbar Number is like swimming upstream.

I’m way over 150 people with the e-mail list I have these days.  The wonders of technology.  So I’m definitely in violation of Dunbar’s Number, when I try to write you a personal note about my book.  But this is not SPAM.  This is an actual e-newsletter.  I am a real person telling you real (or in some cases heavily exaggerated) anecdotes about producing and selling my novel.  I had more fun writing the e-newsletter for my first novel than about anything I did  –  and I absolutely loved hearing from you all.  So don’t hesitate to write back, if you have a mind to.  This is interactive.  Art is interactive.  I’m convinced.

Still, should you want to get off this e-mail list, by all means, just drop me a note and I will take you off.  On the other hand, if you want to share this with people on your own e-mail lists, please do so.  I mean, it’s not a Nigerian inheritance letter, and it won’t enhance your sex life in any way (if it does – you should seek professional help immediately), but I think it may still have some merit – if we are thinking of Karma and such things.  So pass it along.

e-Newsletter Contest

For those of you who were loyal readers of the “Direct Actions” e-newsletter, you will recall periodic contest giveaways.  The response was actually quite good.  And very entertaining.  So the “Official `Skinny Berry’ e-Newsletter Contest” will be a recurring event.

The first contest will encourage fast readers.  To enter, you need to send me an e-mail with 1) enough information to indicate you have read the book, and 2) detailing your favorite character and why you loved (or hated) them.  The first entry I receive for each character will win.  One entry per person.  Please put “Week One Contest” as the subject of your e-mail.  This contest may take a few weeks, as the book isn’t even in stores, so order up and send in your entries.  Those who have read advanced copies are, obviously, not eligible.

With this first contest, I’d like to offer a special prize.  Winners will receive one free copy of “Skinny Berry,” signed and dedicated however you want, and a photocopy of my rendition of how your favorite character looks (yes – I’m that demented – I actually know what most of the main characters look like in great detail).

Evil Corporations: GenAgra and Amazon

You will have to read the book to understand the particular evil of GenAgra.  But it’s not only fictional corporations that are greedy bastards – apparently.

The publishing industry has undergone some pretty dramatic changes in the past decade – from what I can understand, as someone starting at the very bottom, looking-up.  Like the changes in the music industry, technology has opened up impressive new ways for individuals and small companies to create and distribute the products of their artistic expression.  Little people can gain access to a global audience.  It is amazing.  Last year, for example, I was contacted by a friend (a Korean national) whom I had not seen for more than twenty years, to tell me he had come across “Direct Actions” while he was perusing the Internet at his bank job in Mumbai.

This model of distribution was not quick to gain acceptance from the more traditional mode of book distribution.  I had to fight like heck to get my first novel accepted into brick and mortar stores.  But just let something have a little success, and watch the corporate folks come running.

Amazon.com is a corporate giant.  Close to $15 Billion in revenue in 2007.  In March of this year, Amazon’s BookSurge (a print-on-demand division within Amazon) started contacting other print-on-demand publisher’s listing on Amazon and demanding that they sign contracts to start using BookSurge, or lose the ability to sell with Amazon.  Imagine your grocery store telling food manufacturers that they had to package their products with the grocer’s new packaging division, or their products could no longer be sold in the store.  It sounds kind of anti-trust-ish to me.  I’m sure better lawyers than I will be looking at that.  But Amazon is so big, they may get away with it.

Bottom line.  I’m encouraging people to buy from other sources.  Until the issue is resolved, or the Internet implodes or is replaced by an intricate system of carrier pigeons exchanging messages for us all.

And despite all this.  My book is still available at Amazon (at least for the time being).  And they actually released it a number of days before my publisher released the book (go figure).  Some of you who bought “Direct Actions” from Amazon even got notice of the new book before I knew it was out, as they directly marketed to you.  Big Brother.  I’m telling you.

Marketing Skinny Berry

This is going to be a long, slow road.  At least that is what I’m thinking.  The day job has been busy.  That is good fodder for future legal-thrillers.  But it means selling “Skinny Berry” will be all the harder.  Still, together with a number of you who have already shared wonderful ideas, I’ve got a few cool things that are in the planning stages.  I’m not ready to spill details at this point.  But I’ll keep you posted.

I hope to have a few events scheduled shortly – so that I can get a chance to see some of you again in person.  Ideally, we’ll get a copy of “Skinny Berry” into the hands of a thousand or so people by the summer reading season.  Perhaps you will see a fellow fan with a copy of the happy yellow novel at the beach.  And you can tell them you are an insider.  A reader of the Official “Skinny Berry” e-Newsletter.  Ah, the dreams we authors have for our newly birthed novels.

You Die-Hard Fans

If you’ve made it this far, there is no other explanation.  You are a die-hard fan.  And I’m grateful.  Thanks.  If you’d like to help out in trying to get “Skinny Berry” to the widest possible audience, I’m going to list a few suggestions.  You can undertake some, all or none of these suggestions.  Any little bit you do is appreciated.  And please tell me about your efforts via e-mail so I can thank you in future editions of the Official “Skinny Berry” e-Newsletter.

1.  Forward the e-newsletter to anyone who you think might be interested.  Drop your personal note to friends and family at the top and spread the word.  E-mail is incredible.  I actually helped that guy in Nigeria get his inheritance.  I kid you not.
2.  Write a review at Barnes and Noble and Amazon and wherever else you find the book.
3.  If you are a blogger, write a review, or post, or whatever.  I’m willing to send review copies to anyone with a decent readership – to get the word out.  I’ll be blogging about the book where I can.
4.  Media contacts – if you have any – I’m certainly open to give them access.  From one major radio appearance on a morning drive show in Saginaw, Michigan, I still get strangers two years later who mention they heard about me and my first book.  It is amazing.  I’ll follow up on any potential contacts you have.  Shoot me an e-mail.
5.  Word of mouth.  Obviously, it’s a good thing.  Maybe the best thing for a book like this.  So, if you like “Skinny Berry” (and “Direct Actions” for that matter), tell other people about it.  If your find new readers who are interested, get their e-mail and we’ll get them on the Official “Skinny Berry” e-Newsletter list.
6.  Spread the book around.  Sales are appreciated, naturally.  But if you can’t afford to buy your buddy a copy for his birthday, even lending your copy out isn’t a bad thing.  The more people who read it, the more chance it may break through to a wider audience.
7.  I’m happy to sign copies and dedications.  I’m quite sure we’ll have a number of signing events throughout Michigan.  But for those of you who are more remote, I’ll be happy to personalize a copy for the cost of postage.  (Heck for most of you who are friends – I may even cover postage one way).
8.  If you are outside Michigan, but interested in setting up an event, contact me.  If we can find a suitable location and ensure a fair turnout, I’ll probably make myself available.  Again, let me know your thoughts, and we’ll talk.
9.  The Faberge Shampoo Marketing technique.  Never fails.  You remember the commercial?  Right?  “So I told two friends, and they told two friends, and so on and so on and so on.”  God I’m getting old.
10.  Your own idea here.  If you have a creative way to help this novel get read, let me know.  I’ll share it with others in the next episode of the Official “Skinny Berry” e-Newsletter.

Thanks for reading.  We’ll see you soon (I hope).

And remember.  In selling books, it is all about the cookies.  For those of you who do not understand “the cookies” because you missed out on the Official “Direct Actions” e-Newsletter – we’ll fill you in as time goes on.

Best,
Terry Olson
Author
“Skinny Berry”
tjayolson (at) hotmail.com

I believe the following clip of Hillary on the campaign trail is important and deserves wider play.  I heard about this moment a couple of days ago on a blog (maybe this blog — I don’t recall).  But I hadn’t seen the actual moment until just now.

It is an example of the bankruptcy of her campaign.

She can only whiff at what Obama has brought to the table and then seek to co-opt his messages.  And then, when she co-opts the message, she sounds as phony as a three-dollar bill.
I keep seeing her, and thinking her own words will doom her.  But then again, it looks like 42% of those Democrats polled nationally still haven’t gotten the message.

So please play this.  And pass it around to your own blogging friends.  Let everyone who is still trying to make up their minds have a look at her.  And provide them a little context.  Like — before Iowa, Obama was the candidate of “change” and Clinton was the candidate of “experience.”  And then after Iowa, Clinton was suddenly the agent to actually “get change done.”  Remind them that Obama has been talking to sold out arenas — who he has inspired to believe in the process again — to come into the process or back to the process  — and remind them that these crowds of new voters will not respond to the lame message Clinton tries to take from Obama below  —  a message that has encouraged these fresh voters to join the man in pleading for change  — in communal callings of “Yes We Can!!!”  For weeks and weeks.  When he was up.  When he was down.  And that Clinton accused him of offering false hope with words for his efforts.  Then play them this clip — where Clinton again — lamely tries to co-opt his message.

She is not the messenger of change.  She is the messenger of doom.  See for yourself.