Skip to main content

Mid-point of 2016 Primary Season


At some point this morning I realized I could easily spend an hour or two trying to tweet out my reactions to the state of politics right now. Then I remembered - I have my oft neglected blog for such impulses.Basically one thing strikes me at this point in 2016. The Republican Party - all of it - has no business being in government. If the best the GOP honchos can do is suggest Ted Cruz is the lesser of two evils than we are looking at an institution that has reached and passed its sell-by date. Cruz is not fit to be president. As demonstrated by his shut-down scheme, he is not fit to be a senator. His suggestion that patrols should be conducted of Muslim neighborhoods is exactly the kind of policy proposal his father left Cuba to escape. 'Nuff said.That said, Trump has been able to do the one thing I thought impossible - make me mildly sympathetic towards Ted Cruz. So, here I go: comparing the relative hotness of candidate wives, threatening to expose information about said spouse, and just generally going after loved ones of a candidate's family is wrong. Simply wrong. It's the kind of thing that should relegate The Donald to the same dark, windowless room Mel Gibson currently inhabits.
Instead the carnival continues.I glanced through an article yesterday suggesting Trump, if elected president, would outsource his Supreme Court nomination process to the Heritage Foundation. That's his 'oh-so-sly' way of getting establishment types to his corner, I suppose.  I imagine his pitch as going something like this:"Okay, you don't like me. You don't trust me. But I know what you folks like, okay? Conservative judges. Very, very conservative judges. I'll get my best brand development - er, vetting committee - on this ASAP. I'll have the best words for whatever judge I pick. Tall. Conservative. Hates women. Conservative.  Loves the constitution. You're going to love him. Trust me."Does anyone seriously think Trump's approach to nominating a Supreme Court Justice will be in any way different than how he chooses any other part of his branding empire? You love Trump steaks, you'll love Trump Scalia!Bigger question. Why exactly does Mitch McConnell think he's going to get a judge he likes from Trump rather than Obama?For the moment the Garland embargo holds, even as McConnell's levy keeping the waters of reason from reaching the U.S. Senate continues to crumble. This whole episode - however it turns out - reminds me of how much I'm going to miss President Obama when he leaves office. Another president, confronted with McConnell's intransigence would fume, throw a tantrum, or give up. Obama simply presses forward.

In general, I feel like that's nearly always the right approach. Confronted with the insane, the boorish, the irrational, you can't join the tantrum. You make it clear what's going to happen and then you start walking ahead.

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing Horror

I'm wary offering advice to other writers. 

First of all I've got the whole imposter syndrome thing and whatever advice I give feels like a good way of revealing how little I know about anything. Second, what I've learned mostly relates to solving problems in my own writing. What advice does a dog have to offer to a duck on how to swim? 
However, for Arisia 2018, I'll be participating on a panel of doing just that - giving advice to aspiring horror writers about writing horror.

So, what truths can I impart?

Some advice feels absolutely true, if a bit self-evident.

You must read. If you're trying to write horror then you must read horror. Not just one novel. Not just one author. You should make a sincere effort to read everything by everyone. The more recent the better. The classics are always going to be there, but if you want a sense of where your stories could fit, you need to see what is being published out there.

You must write. I do not think you have to write …

Reading Response to "A Good Man is Hard to Find."

Reader Response to “A Good Man is Hard to Find” Morgan Crooks I once heard Flannery O’Connor’s work introduced as a project to describe a world denied God’s grace. This critic of O’Connor’s work meant the Christian idea that a person’s misdeeds, mistakes, and sins could be sponged away by the power of Jesus’ sacrifice at Crucifixion. The setting of her stories often seem to be monstrous distortions of the real world. These are stories where con men steal prosthetic limbs, hired labor abandons mute brides in rest stops, and bizarre, often disastrous advice is imparted.  O’Connor herself said of this reputation for writing ‘grotesque’ stories that ‘anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.’ This is both a witty observation and a piece of advice while reading O’Connor’s work. These are stories about pain and lies and ugliness. The brutality that happens to characters …

We Have Always Lived in Haunted Houses

As my final pre-Arisia post, I'd like to tackle ghosts. Metaphorically, of course, because ghosts are intangible and also don't exist. 


I don't believe in ghosts. Not the sort of ghosts, anyway, that float around decaying old mansions or scare impressionable media personalities. Physics, at least the way I've grown up understanding it, precludes the existence of energy that cannot be detected reliably. Put another way, physicist Brian Cox stated that if ghosts existed the Large Hadron Collider would have almost certainly found one by now.

So, when I say I'm a fan of ghost stories and tales of haunted houses, am I being hypocritical? Possibly, but I also think one can appreciate ghosts and haunted houses in a different way. Even though they might not exist in a 'peer-reviewed' and 'experimentally replicable' fashion, phantoms absolutely exist as a potent symbol of the past.

When we talk about ghosts what we're really talking about is that annoying…