-
I’m living in my own future,
I’m living in my own past.
I’m trapped in this painful moment,
But I know that it won’t last.
There’s a me looking back at this,
Proud that I broke free.
There’s a me waiting for this moment,
Unsure of what’s to be.
I see only this painful moment,
Full of woes and frights.
Yet the moments exist together,
As a web of lefts and rights.
My future, past, a present,
Exist together as parallel streams.
Although what I see as now,
Is an eternity it seems.
I need a way to rise above this pain,
And quench this hurt somehow.
I need to shift my focus,
And look back on the now.
I’m living in my own future,
I’m living in my own past.
I’m trapped in this painful moment,
But I know that it won’t last.
This blog began as a writing and literature blog with the occasional Op-Ed piece on current events & issues. The political writing has, slowly but surely, taken this blog over. Readers will still be treated to some of my thoughts on pop culture and sports, but, for the most part, Blogito Ergo Sum will feature my opinions on the state of our union and world.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
An Appreciation Of Literature
-
In an attempt to increase my positive revenue stream, this week I added an Amazon book store to my blog. I figured that since I blog as often as I do, I may as well make some money at it. Along the top of the blog, readers can search for, and purchase, any book Amazon has to offer. In addition to this ability, readers can buy one of my favorite books with one click along the left side. Finally, each entry will feature a selection of topic related materials, which readers can purchase.
It was as I was choosing my favorite books, that I began thinking about books. More precisely, I began thinking about the books I choose to read. Since I write crime fiction, my list is, of course, heavily weighted with crime fiction. Scattered among my favorite mysteries, one will find cookbooks, the culinary musings of Anthony Bourdain, and a few non-genre offerings which have spoken to me over the years, including Young’s ”The Shack,” and Cather’s “My Åntonia.” I read the blogs of “serious” writers though, and they tout Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea,” Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby, and the works of Shakespeare as “must reads“.
Since Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be watched, rather than read, I’ve made it a point to partake of as many of the plays as possible. However I must confess, most of the other “serious” works simply don’t do it for me.
When I go to buy a book, I ask myself why I should care about this character? I have to be able to identify with a protagonist, on some level, to enjoy a book. Are they saving lives, solving crimes, dedicating themselves to a cause greater than themselves, or educating the reader in some way? Am I at least going to read about a strong intelligent character with some kind of moral fiber? If the answers are no, I’m probably not going to spend time or money on that particular book.
OK, Cather’s Jim Burden lacks a certain degree of self esteem, and comes across as wimpy, making the reader want to slap him and scream, “Tell her how you feel!” We’ve all loved unrequitedly at some point in our lives though, and therefore can feel Jim’s pain.
On the flip side, while “The Great Gatsby” oozes with imagery and metaphor, it leaves me flat. Yes, I get the whole eye of god in the billboard thing, but when the characters are oblivious of reality, I can’t find anyone to care about. Likewise, while I can appreciate Hemingway’s take on man versus nature, at the end of the day we have Santiago killing a marvelous creature to prove he’s still a man, without anything tangible to show for his effort. As for Salinger’s piece, I may have simply discovered this coming of age tale too late in life to get much out of it.
Thus, I’m forced to ask myself if my lukewarm reception of such classics prevents me from being a serious writer? It’s a question which I’ve wrestled with. In the end though, I think an appreciation of literature is merely a matter of finding subject matter that speaks to you. I’m hardly a religious zealot, yet “The Shack” challenged me to reexamine my beliefs, and thus became one of my favorite books.
I may, or may not, be a serious writer, whatever that really means. Nevertheless, I don’t think the question hinges on a specific reading list, or an understanding of certain key works. Readers, and writers, should focus on books they enjoy. If the “classics” truly excite and enthrall you, that’s great. If not, that’s OK too, as long as you’re reading something.
In an attempt to increase my positive revenue stream, this week I added an Amazon book store to my blog. I figured that since I blog as often as I do, I may as well make some money at it. Along the top of the blog, readers can search for, and purchase, any book Amazon has to offer. In addition to this ability, readers can buy one of my favorite books with one click along the left side. Finally, each entry will feature a selection of topic related materials, which readers can purchase.
It was as I was choosing my favorite books, that I began thinking about books. More precisely, I began thinking about the books I choose to read. Since I write crime fiction, my list is, of course, heavily weighted with crime fiction. Scattered among my favorite mysteries, one will find cookbooks, the culinary musings of Anthony Bourdain, and a few non-genre offerings which have spoken to me over the years, including Young’s ”The Shack,” and Cather’s “My Åntonia.” I read the blogs of “serious” writers though, and they tout Hemingway’s “The Old Man and the Sea,” Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby, and the works of Shakespeare as “must reads“.
Since Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be watched, rather than read, I’ve made it a point to partake of as many of the plays as possible. However I must confess, most of the other “serious” works simply don’t do it for me.
When I go to buy a book, I ask myself why I should care about this character? I have to be able to identify with a protagonist, on some level, to enjoy a book. Are they saving lives, solving crimes, dedicating themselves to a cause greater than themselves, or educating the reader in some way? Am I at least going to read about a strong intelligent character with some kind of moral fiber? If the answers are no, I’m probably not going to spend time or money on that particular book.
OK, Cather’s Jim Burden lacks a certain degree of self esteem, and comes across as wimpy, making the reader want to slap him and scream, “Tell her how you feel!” We’ve all loved unrequitedly at some point in our lives though, and therefore can feel Jim’s pain.
On the flip side, while “The Great Gatsby” oozes with imagery and metaphor, it leaves me flat. Yes, I get the whole eye of god in the billboard thing, but when the characters are oblivious of reality, I can’t find anyone to care about. Likewise, while I can appreciate Hemingway’s take on man versus nature, at the end of the day we have Santiago killing a marvelous creature to prove he’s still a man, without anything tangible to show for his effort. As for Salinger’s piece, I may have simply discovered this coming of age tale too late in life to get much out of it.
Thus, I’m forced to ask myself if my lukewarm reception of such classics prevents me from being a serious writer? It’s a question which I’ve wrestled with. In the end though, I think an appreciation of literature is merely a matter of finding subject matter that speaks to you. I’m hardly a religious zealot, yet “The Shack” challenged me to reexamine my beliefs, and thus became one of my favorite books.
I may, or may not, be a serious writer, whatever that really means. Nevertheless, I don’t think the question hinges on a specific reading list, or an understanding of certain key works. Readers, and writers, should focus on books they enjoy. If the “classics” truly excite and enthrall you, that’s great. If not, that’s OK too, as long as you’re reading something.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
1,000,000 "Frenchmen" CAN Be Wrong
-
Today California’s Courts overturned the people’s ban on same-sex marriage. I posted a link to the news on Facebook, hailing the decision as a victory for liberty and human rights. Yet, my cousin commented that the decision signaled an erosion of voters’ power to govern.
In 2008, Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, was passed by 52.24% of California’s voters. Some would argue that the courts have no business overturning “the will of the people.” I thought about this, it sounds like a valid point. After all, Democracy is supposed to be based on “the will of the people,” isn’t it?
No, I'm sorry, as much as I love my cousin, this argument doesn't hold water. "The will of the people" was never intended to be able to circumvent the country's founding principles of freedom and personal liberty. If mere elections had such an unchecked power, the ban on interracial marriage would've been kept in place in southern states by southern voters of the time. Human rights are not commodities to be granted and revoked according to the whim of the populace.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Today California’s Courts overturned the people’s ban on same-sex marriage. I posted a link to the news on Facebook, hailing the decision as a victory for liberty and human rights. Yet, my cousin commented that the decision signaled an erosion of voters’ power to govern.
In 2008, Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, was passed by 52.24% of California’s voters. Some would argue that the courts have no business overturning “the will of the people.” I thought about this, it sounds like a valid point. After all, Democracy is supposed to be based on “the will of the people,” isn’t it?
No, I'm sorry, as much as I love my cousin, this argument doesn't hold water. "The will of the people" was never intended to be able to circumvent the country's founding principles of freedom and personal liberty. If mere elections had such an unchecked power, the ban on interracial marriage would've been kept in place in southern states by southern voters of the time. Human rights are not commodities to be granted and revoked according to the whim of the populace.
In the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
I Ask Unanimous Consent To Revise And Extend My Remarks
-
"Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness." ~ George Washington, First Annual Message, 1790
In my last blog, I questioned the patriotism of those who would break our nation's laws on her birthday. While I stand by the assertion that criminal behavior is inherently unpatriotic, I hope I didn't give the impression that most of the spectators fell into such a category.
Out of the thousands who were in attendance, I'd estimate only 5% of them were flaunting authority via illegal incendiary devices. The majority of the people were occupied with picnics, games of Frisbee, cook outs, and other acceptable forms of recreation. The trouble makers simply stood out more.
Isn't that always the way though? We tend to have a global reputation for being polluters, war mongers, and "ugly Americans." Yet, I'd argue our good works far outweigh our misdeeds & mistakes.
The following was written by an Australian Dentist, and arrived in my Inbox this morning. It does a superb job illustrating my point.
-
"To Kill an American
You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.
So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)
'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navajo, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim.. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan . The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.
An American is also free to believe in no religion.... For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.
An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.
The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return......
When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!
As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.
The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America
Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
So you can try to kill an American if you must.. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world.. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American."
"Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness." ~ George Washington, First Annual Message, 1790
In my last blog, I questioned the patriotism of those who would break our nation's laws on her birthday. While I stand by the assertion that criminal behavior is inherently unpatriotic, I hope I didn't give the impression that most of the spectators fell into such a category.
Out of the thousands who were in attendance, I'd estimate only 5% of them were flaunting authority via illegal incendiary devices. The majority of the people were occupied with picnics, games of Frisbee, cook outs, and other acceptable forms of recreation. The trouble makers simply stood out more.
Isn't that always the way though? We tend to have a global reputation for being polluters, war mongers, and "ugly Americans." Yet, I'd argue our good works far outweigh our misdeeds & mistakes.
The following was written by an Australian Dentist, and arrived in my Inbox this morning. It does a superb job illustrating my point.
-
"To Kill an American
You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.
So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)
'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish , Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navajo, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
An American is Christian , or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim.. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan . The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.
An American is also free to believe in no religion.... For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.
An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.
The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return......
When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!
As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.
The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America
Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11 , 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
So you can try to kill an American if you must.. Hitler did. So did General Tojo , and Stalin , and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world.. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)