Oh, and....

I forgot to say yesterday: I want to be Chris Baty! What could be better than traveling around the country basically giving pep talks to writers, meeting writers, and writing? Why am I in law school, again? I mean, am I in law school? Is there really only one more full week of class this semester? Do I really have a 25-page paper due at the end of this month? Do I really have four finals to study for and take? Do I really need to apply for jobs for next summer? I mean, really? Is all this necessary? It all seems like such a useless bother.... Does this mean anything, or am I just being silly? Nevermind. I'm behind on my words...

Posted 08:05 AM | Comments (13) | 2L NaNoWriMo

Every Word is A good word

That's the great thing about NaNoWriMo—every word is a good word. When else can you say that? What other time do you get to write anything you want w/out worrying what anyone else will think? Freedom! I went to Barnes & Noble last night to listen to Chris Baty, founder of NaNoWriMo, talk about the “event,” why he does it, etc. It was great hearing him read his really bad dialogue—it was really bad, but that was the point. Mine is also really bad, but hey, it doesn't matter. He also gave some advice that I wish I'd heard may years ago because it makes terrific sense. He recommended that even if you don't write in a straight line from the beginning to the end of your book, it's a good idea to try to get a beginning scene, a middle, and an end. That way, you have a complete frame, and it's a lot easier to fill in the empty spaces later (like after NaNo if you get to 50k words and still want to work on it) than it is to make up that frame. I also have a tendency to reach a point in my novel where I start digging plot holes that go nowhere, but I feel stuck in them, like the only way out is to write my way out, which turns out to be mostly impossible, and therefore I get stuck in the hole and never finish the frame or anything else. This advice may prevent that kind of digging. At any rate, it will help give me some easy words, since I sort of have vague ideas of a middle and end and I'm sort of eager to write them. Maybe the next 10-20k words won't be so bad, after all. The evening w/Baty was kind of funny b/c when everyone got there we all sat around sort of quiet, maybe making half-hearted nervous conversation like “so how's your novel going?” I actually met some great people and we traded writing stories a bit, but as we waited for Baty to start talking, only a couple of people were using the time to add to their word counts. I know I could have easily put down an extra 500 words or so during the wait, but I felt self-conscious about pulling out my computer and tapping away. Then, after Baty had spoken for half an hour or whatever about what great craziness NaNo-ing is, the barriers and self-consciousness just melted away and everyone seemed eager to pull out the writing tools and start racking up the words. Like I said, that's a great thing about NaNo: it gives you license to be just a little crazy, less self-conscious, more free. Don't you wishi you were writing a novel this month? Hey, there's still time!

Posted 08:53 AM | NaNoWriMo

Week Two Woopty Doo

Working on the novel, slowly inching my way, 100, 900, 2000 words a day. I sit down to write .... What the heck should I say? But you know the saying, about no work and all play. These comments at Stay of Execution (from commenter “Matt” of Second Person Singular) perfectly capture one of the best things about creative writing:

...i've never written a page on which something unexpected didn't happen, i've never had any creative work merely assume the form i expected before beginning, there is always serendipity, the unexpected, something ....more than i was aware of when i set out...be it painting, or cartooning, or designing buildings, or writing... and those moments, come to think of it, are usually the most wonderful occasions in the piece, they are the strong points.

It's true. I'm sure if I ever sat down to edit and rewrite these drafts I've tapped out in the course of past NaNoWriMos I would find that the only parts worth saving are the parts I had never even thought about until they appeared on the page. The serendipity of the unexpected is not always welcome, though. I often have this problem where I'm writing along and a character develops some habit or tic or does something that requires explanation, and that sends me on some tangent, and that often creates new scenes and characters that I don't know what to do with. And I think this is where some theories of writing say you should just go with it, follow your characters where they lead you. And that's fine, but I don't see how I'll ever get a story out of it. At some point you have to impose some discipline on that rampant serendipity, give it some shape, put up some fences and force it to roam around in a more limited area. If you don't, you'll end up writing endlessly and creating creating creating something that no one, including yourself, will ever be able to read. The great thing about NaNoWriMo, though, is that you don't have to worry too much about those fences, that discipline. Not this month. I mean, you can if you want, but there's no pressure to do so. It's all about quantity, not quality. Unlike the phenomenal Sui Generis who already has nearly 40k words, I'm falling way behind in quantity, so, um . . . bye.

Posted 07:05 AM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Fear Breeds Repression

Still a little down after the election last week? Well, let's get over it, shall we? We've got some work to do, people! In that spirit, please read the following rationale for the First Amendment from Justice Brandeis writing in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (emphasis added):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law—the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

Brandeis was concurring here w/a majority opinion that has since been overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). However, Brandenburg implicitly endorsed Brandeis' opinion, so it's still more or less “good dicta,” and hey, we'll work for that, right? So here's to speaking up, and speaking out! Here's to Sonnets for Democracy! And here's hope “those who won our independence” were right, that “the power of reason as applied through public discussion” will be enough to overcome the tyranny of a certain majority that reared its ugly head one fateful day in November, 2004. The Counter Inaugural might be a good place to begin.

Posted 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | election 2004

With all due respect

Dear Justice Antonin Scalia, You are a punk. The condescending and caustic hyperbole of your opinions—especially your dissents—is an insult to your fellow Justices, not to mention the Congress and legislatures whose laws you so frequently and snidely mock, nor the citizens of the United States, for whose intelligence you so frequently show so little respect. This letter was occasioned specifically by your dissent in U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, in which you superciliously suggest once again that the majority has created an entirely new U.S. Constitution, simply because its interpretation of a part of that document differs from yours. Puulleeeez! You obviously like to think of yourself as a smart man, but you too often write like an overeducated grade school bully. Don't you realize that the condescending smirk etched between the lines of nearly everything you write only reduces the credibility of your opinions? Don't you understand that when you exaggerate your opponent's position, it only weakens your own position by giving your reader cause to doubt the sincerity and reliability of what you write? Even if I were to agree with your arguments at times, you force me to resist that impulse merely because those arguments come dressed in a costume of egomaniacal elitism of the most insulting variety. Get over yourself, will you? Sincerely disagreeing with you and your massive ego, -ambimb

Posted 05:10 AM | Comments (9) | 2L

Quickly Now

Heidi's maps of how the electoral vote went down do an awesome job of putting the supposed “mandate” in perspective. UPDATE: More map madness to make sense of the mayhem. Oh, and if you want a copy of the Daily Mirror's memorable post-election cover for posterity, you can get one here. After missing tons of class and reading this semester, I'm going to try to start being a law student again for a while. In the aftermath of this election, I'm less convinced than ever that some kind of legal career is even worthwhile, and still less sure of what direction I should take in such a career. But the question seems to be: Do we need good progressive legal activists, or do we need militant revolutionary leaders? Since I just don't think I'm cut out for the truly radical fight, maybe being a lawyer is my only option. Speaking of revolution, Happy Bolshevik Revolution anniversary, one day late. Do you know how hard it is to read U.S. labor law with the Bolshevik Revolution in your head? Is it just me, or is the world a really sad place right now?

Posted 10:40 AM | Comments (5) | election 2004

Golden Rule Politics

A proposal for the Democrats: Starting today, start preaching the gospel. Adopt a simple theme, and apply it to every possible issue. I'll make it easy for you: The Golden Rule. As I learned it, the rule is very simple: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or, even simpler but less mantric: Treat everyone else like you would like to be treated. Therefore:

• If you'd like health insurance, you need to help others get health insurance.
• If you would like to know that your children are going to be able to grow up in a world with plenty of clean air and water, you're going to have to start taking better care of the environment.
• If you want social security benefits, you have to be willing to continue paying into the system, and you have to support measures that will keep that money safe for future recipients.
• If you want the right to marry the person you love, and to enjoy all the legal benefits that are attached to such a union, you have to be willing to grant the same to all other Americans.
• If you want a decent wage and some sense of job security, you have to support increased minimum wages, living wages, and other measures to make employers more responsible to their employees.
• If you don't want to have to work in a sweatshop, you're going to have to support trade policies that prohibit sweatshop labor—and you're going to have to stop shopping at Wal-Mart!
• If you would like to know that you'll be able to safely and legally get an abortion if you became pregnant and did not want or could not afford to have a child, you need to support and preserve a woman's right to choose.
• If you want your kids to go to good schools, with good teachers and rich, diverse opportunities, you have to support school funding measures to ensure these schools have the resources they need. (Voucher programs do not qualify here, since they allow people to be selfish in making sure their child gets a good education, while leaving other children and parents to cope with failing schools. Is that how you'd like to be treated?)
• If you want to be free from terrorism and the fear of outside forces trying to control the way your country governs itself, you have to support the autonomy and security of all other nations around the world. Admit that the so-called “American exception” is a cruel hypocrisy that you only tolerate because you're an American, and which you would not tolerate if you were an Iranian, an Iraqi, a Venezuelan, etc.

I could go on, but you get the idea. It's strong, visionary, yet simple. Sure, there is more nuance and complexity to each of these issues than the simple application of the “golden rule” can capture, but that can all be fleshed out as we go forward. The magic is the apparent simplicity of Golden Rule Politics. Most people will just “get it.” It will help the Democrats speak to the millions of Americans who see faith and values as their most important issues, and it will play equally well with more secular voters. Golden Rule Politics is nondenominational; every major world religion I know of has some form of the Golden Rule within its most basic teachings. (Are there any religious scholars out there who would provide textual support for that?) Golden Rule Politics has the added advantage of exposing the Republican view of morality and values for the hypocritical sham that it is. If anything, Bush-type religion may find support in the Old Testament's “eye for an eye” kind of thinking, but it displays little of the moderation and tolerance added by the New Testament. Golden Rule Politics could remind religious conservatives of the values many if not all of them were probably taught as children, and should create common ground between them and the rest of the planet. Disclaimer: I'm no religious scholar, but the beauty of Golden Rule Politics is that it doesn't require any particular religious knowledge or affiliation. If you have those things, you get the history of the ideas, but w/out that background, the rules are still simple and clear. Anyway, it's an idea....

Posted 01:45 PM | Comments (8) | election 2004

A Partial Explanation

I've heard talking heads say, and I agree, that many Americans have long supported Bush because they simply can't bring themselves to believe that he could have done all the bad things his critics say he's done. And really what we're talking about is this: Many Americans are simply horrified by the thought that their president, the “leader of the free world,” could take them to war and send more than a thousand American soldiers (and counting) to their deaths—on a stack of lies, exaggerations, and intentionally misleading innuendo. For these people, voting Bush out would have been an admission that they were wrong, that their president was a liar, and worse, that he was such an abominable person that would put greater value on oil or global power than he put on the lives of their loved ones and the peace and stability of the world. In this view, voting for Bush was a defense mechanism, a way for people to protect their minds and preserve their basic hope and belief that human beings—Americans, especially, and American presidents even more so—are good, trustworthy, and would never, ever, send thousands of people to their deaths without damn good reasons. Oh, and on a more basic level, voting against Bush would also be potentially admitting that we are not safer since invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power. In fact, it might be an admission that we are less safe because by doing this we have created more terrorists, not fewer, more hatred for America, not less. If you're kind of worried about terrorism to begin with, afraid that there really are shadowy armies of militants around the world who would like to see you or your country suffer, well, wouldn't it just freak you right out to admit that a huge part of what your country had been doing to supposedly make you safer was actually making you more vulnerable to terrorism? The mind recoils, then hand pushes the button for Bush. So yes, this election was about values. People did vote based on their core beliefs of right, wrong, good, bad. But this is not to say that more Americans agree with the republicans or Bush on these things; only that their basic beliefs in the good and the true made them utterly incapable of facing the horrible truth they would have to acknowledge if they decided to vote against Bush. Yes, Bush and Co. are winning the culture war—by bludgeoning the hijacking the basic goodness of Americans and turning it against us. By the way, if you're baffled by the vehemence of the anti-Bush sentiment in the country, look no further than the simple fact that loathing and even hatred are almost unavoidable responses for those who see the Iraq war as a mistake. Many of these people, myself included, really do believe that Bush and Cheney and the whole gang lied, manipulated, and intentionally mislead in order to get the authorization and support they needed to go to war. Exactly why they did this is the subject of some disagreement, but that they actually did it is not in doubt for these people. Can Bush “reach out” to these people who voted for Kerry and “heal the division” in the country? Yeah, sure. But first he'd have to publicly admit he'd lied, apologize for taking us to war on false pretenses, renounce all future interests in Iraq and Iraqi oil beyond a basic desire to see an autonomous and more or less democratic Iraq, invite the U.N. to take over control of all peacekeeping and rebuilding in the country, and maybe revoke every contract given to Halliburton since Bush/Cheney took office and get his Justice Department to bring suit against that company for stealing millions of dollars from the American people. Is any of that going to happen? Ha.

Posted 01:30 PM | Comments (1) | election 2004