All posts by sonworshiper

General

Banzai Chipotle

Leave a comment

The first time I heard of “chipotle flavor,” I thought the restaurant chain was branching out into the grocery store.

Living overseas in the military, I got used to certain things being pretty much unavailable. There’s often no local branch of the popular stores Americans find at their shopping center. We get the Commissary for groceries (albeit at a very nice price for most items) and the Base Exchange for everything else… a sort of department store with a little of everything but probably not the specific thing you want.

Eating at Chipotle is one of these experiences you can’t easily get overseas. It seemed high on the list of things people were looking forward to on returning to the States. Online shopping has changed a lot of the frustration of unavailability… but you can’t well order a stuffed burrito in the mail and hope it arrives fresh.

So it’s a pleasant surprise to find a wannabe Chipotle’s on a base in Japan. I received news of a short-notice temporary trip away from Okinawa to avoid some high winds that might make flying impossible. Upon arriving, I discovered an ad for Banzai Burritos in my room.

Someone had the bright idea of opening up a might-as-well-be-called-Chipotle’s on base, and it’s right across the street from the lodging building I’m staying in.

Well how am I supposed to say no to that?

20140731-154217-56537976.jpg

Cilantro rice… yes please. Delicious mixes of onions and peppers over grilled steak… of course. Fire-roasted hot pepper salsa? Sure, I’ll try a touch of that.

My first experience with Chipotle’s in the States was a military appreciation day. The local branch offered a free burrito to any active duty servicemembers (and I believe any veterans). Free is my favorite price to pay for something, so I made my way to the restaurant to find a line wrapped double around the entire dining room.

The burrito was worth every minute of wait.

Here at Banzai Burritos, every day is essentially military appreciation day. If I have to fly a long mission, I might as well pack a stuffed burrito in my bag. And if I have to spend an afternoon at this home away from home, enormous tacos will certainly ease the pain.

This trip definitely has a silver lining… wrapped around a grilled steak burrito.

Culture/Politics

Who Is My Neighbor?

3 Comments

There’s a new Golden Rule in some parts of America, and it goes something like this:

“Do unto others according to the amount of taxes they pay to your government.”

I saw a link on my Facebook feed where a Tea Party group is enraged because illegal immigrants were given government EBT cards to purchase food. Various groups scream on social media with headlines designed to inflame instead of inform.

“Those are taxpayer dollars!”

“We have vets who go homeless while illegal immigrants are housed. It’s not fair!”

All this (predominantly Right-Wing) fury makes me wonder.

I think of someone the Right often claims as one of their own: Jesus. Specifically, I think of when the lawyers and religious leaders came to Him asking “What is the most important commandment?” The story is captured in Luke’s Gospel (chapter 10, starting in verse 25ish)

He boiled it down to “Love God with everything, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

One of the lawyers looked for the loophole in this broad and sweeping command. Luke writes, “He, wishing to justify himself, asked ‘Who is my neighbor?'”

Great question. Jesus answers with the story of the Good Samaritan who encounters a victim in need. The Samaritan goes out of his way to take care of someone his culture said was his enemy. Jesus asks, “So who was the victim’s neighbor?” The answer the lawyer gives is: “the one who shows mercy.”

I for one would like my government, my society, and my country to be known for mercy.

The argument I hear is, “Well, why not let citizens be charitable instead of giving away tax dollars and American money to all these people?” It’s the same argument for doing away with or cutting back welfare and other forms of aid to the poor. Why can’t we let individuals and faith-based organizations give and serve, so that our government can use the money to take care of America’s other pressing needs?

Sure! That would be great… if enough people were doing it that government didn’t have to step in. But that’s not happening. Not enough individuals or charitable organizations are stepping up to the plate. So it’s either let people suffer because they’re not Americans, or because of their supposed and presumed bad life choices, or because hey life sucks and not everybody wins.

Or we can show mercy.

Mercy is costly. Mercy takes away from our resources to meet the needs of another. Mercy doesn’t focus on who “deserves” it.

Yeah, it’s your tax dollar. Sure, there’s a lot our government could do better. Of course I want immigrants to follow legal methods. No, when you boil it down to an overly simplistic question, I don’t think it’s fair that a veteran might go homeless while someone who’s not even a citizen gets cared for. Sure, I do wonder whether we’re feeding people we’ve detained while sorting out what to do with them, or handing over a bunch of electronic money without any concern for who we’re giving it to.

But Jesus didn’t say, “Suffer the law-abiding citizens to come unto Me.” He didn’t tell a tale of the Good Taxpayer who ensured his denarius was spent only on his nation’s citizens. I have a hard time picturing Christ flipping tables where detained illegal immigrants are being served food, or chasing the immigrants out of Wal-Mart.

And I remember the symbol of hope Ameica is to many on distant shores (and across distant borders). The plaque on the Statue of Liberty doesn’t say, “Give me your wealthy, give me just your best and brightest, give me those who have no needs and no worries.”

It doesn’t say, “Give me your tired, your poor, your outcasts… so I can send them back, rejected.”

There are better ways, perhaps. Reforms are needed, and a balance has to be found between a secure border and an open welcoming society.

But I feel like this pic from the Left calls the Right out on a political and philosophical disconnect.

20140723-051002-18602863.jpg

Let us not be those who, wishing to justify indignity and indifference, ask “And who is my neighbor?”

Culture/Politics

Cause of Death

1 Comment

Superman dies.

That was a headline in the entertainment section of the newspaper back when I was about 13 years old. “The Death of Superman” received all kinds of attention from the mainstream media. I recall hearing stories on the evening news announcing the upcoming event.

Of course he was back in about a year, to no one’s surprise. I, like many comic collectors, sighed and muttered, “I knew it!” The obvious marketing ploy and the inevitable resurrection cheapened the story.

Those memories came to me as I read about the upcoming Death of Archie in the ages-old comic series set in Riverdale.

When they were younger, my two teenagers sometimes picked up Archie comics. There was a level of “traditional” morality to the comics, and by that I mean something far different from current political debates about “traditional marriage” and such. This was more of a Leave It to Beaver 60’s vibe of wholesome humor and lighthearted drama where the biggest dilemma was how Archie dealt with being caught between Betty’s and Veronica’s affections.

Archie dying certainly shakes that up.

Instead of planning a resurrection, the writers avoid the end of the various Archie comics series by placing this death story in Life With Archie, an alternate timeline series that flashes forward to glimpse the near future of life after high school. They’ve shown how Archie might live as an adult, and now they can show how he someday meets his untimely demise. That way they can continue telling Archie stories and selling comics.

What got me, though, is the effort to jam a political agenda into the book. It’s blatant message-fiction.

How does Archie die? Channeling some Jack Bauer heroism, Archie dies protecting “the first openly gay Riverdale character” who is running for office on a platform focused on increased gun control.

“Look how progressive we are! Look how progressive Archie is!”

Sacrificing himself for another person is heroic, and I have no issues with that. Heroism is laudable and comic books are a way that we as a society reaffirm those values to our children.

The openly gay individual as the target is sadly all too reflective of true stories where people have been bullied, tormented, or even killed. I’m not looking at the writers’ choice to use the gay character as part of “the homosexual agenda” or whatever. Even though it feels like how so many episodes of Glee featured Kurt in the spotlight facing some dilemma, I’m not upset about the candidate being targeted or about Archie moving to protect someone who might be marginalized in many areas of the country.

Again, I think there’s a worthy lesson here. “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” Perhaps it’s “Everyone has value.”

What actually got me irritated is the gun control angle. Having the gun control advocate suffer an attempted assassination, and the title character dying by gunshot as a result, seems a ridiculously obvious effort to make an appeal to stricter laws. “Oh the horror of gun violence! If only we could pass more laws to protect ourselves! Don’t let Archie’s death be for nothing!”

In Chicago, Illinois, my hometown, over the weekend of the 4th of July, there were 82 injuries and 14 deaths by shooting. Chicago also happens to be known for its (excessively?) strict laws about gun ownership. It’s not some cowboy state like Texas with a bunch of so-called “rednecks and crazies” strapping holsters to their belts and carrying rifles into stores. And yet, in the very city with some of the tightest gun control legislation in America, gun deaths and gun violence are constantly in the news.

Do we really think someone willing to murder another human being is going to suddenly take a step back and reconsider based on a new restriction on gun ownership? People who conduct drive-by shootings, when a new law gets passed are they going to open their eyes and declare, “Oh geez, I probably shouldn’t have sub-machine guns” or something? I’m sure that gang members routinely read over the latest legislation to ensure proper compliance. “Hey mang, it looks like we gotta store the bullets separate from the gun, and the guns gotta have a lock on the trigger so some kid doesn’t accidentally shoot himself. Good thing I checked the laws; I’d hate to be an irresponsible gun owner.”

Even the plot of the Archie comic reveals how utterly thoughtless is this line of logic.

Are we supposed to believe that an individual willing to assassinate a political candidate in person, up close, in public is going to be afraid to break a law concerning possessing a firearm?

Stories can certainly convey meaningful messages about beliefs and ideas, be they religious, political, social, or cultural. But good story comes first, not a ham-fisted message with a veneer of a plot draped over it. Preaching in a story is creative writing kryptonite. That’s why this smacks of a publicity stunt, and as a result, the “Archie’s death” comic is completely cheapened.

Fool me once, Superman, shame on me. Fool me twice, Archie? Not happening.

Gaming

What's Next

3 Comments

Next. 5e. 5th Edition. The newest edition of D&D is (slowly) crawling forth from the gates of Wizards of the Coast’s dark fortress.

Credit goes to NerdAtlas for calling my attention to this new release of basic rules for D&D. You can get a free download here and check it out for yourself.

I’ve been skimming my way through here and there. The basic “How does a game like this work?” stuff all seems pretty straightforward. The PDF has info for 4 core classes and races: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard, then Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Human. I have not yet dug into the mechanics so much, because the first several portions establish the basics for potential newbies.

One paragraph hidden within all that description caught my eye. It addresses the concept of advantage versus disadvantage. Without clarifying how difficult it is to gain advantage or suffer disadvantage, the text explains that these terms mean rolling two d20 instead of one for a given action. Advantage means taking the higher roll of the two. Disadvantage means taking the lower. That seems to create a huge impact on success or failure, but I’ll have to see how it plays out in practice.

Maybe it will do away with some of the more extensive math. I recall some 4e rounds that sounded like this: “Ok, I rolled a 12, but I get a +2 for proficiency, and a +1 feat bonus for using a fire spell. Hey, do I get that +1 because this character is marked? Yes, but your view is partially obscured by the smoke from the burning flesh of the orc at the target’s feet, so you take a -5 for that. Right, but I can use my Wand of Accuracy to add my Dex bonus to my attack for this round, so that’s a +4. No wait, +5 because we just leveled up earlier, right?”

I can see some benefit to getting away from that sort of thing… but maybe that all still factors in. I’ll have to read more to see.

I also appreciated the new level tiers. The writers made it clear that the four tiers between levels 1 and 20 don’t affect any rules or anything like that. They merely serve to give players an idea of where their characters stand in the big wide world. Levels 1-4 are apprentice adventurers, the novices learning the ropes. 5-10 are getting the hang of things. 11-16 are pretty big names, and 17-20 are legends on a worldwide scale. Far better description than the three-tier, 10 level per tier system of 4e… This new setup creates a shorter time as “newbs” and a smaller range at the pinnacle.

One thing I did like about the “flavor” stuff provided is how they describe the various races. I know, these four races are pretty much the bread and butter of most fantasy settings, so it shouldn’t take a lot of explanation to describe a dwarf. But I saw what felt like more effort put into helping a player figure out how to role-play their character’s race, as well as a good take on how each race generally views the other three.

Anyway, the point of this post is to call attention to the new rules being available, and to give credit to NerdAtlas, without whom I’d probably have missed this release.

More books are due throughout the rest of this year… but at $50 a pop for the core books, you can bet I’ll be paging through the free basic rules a bit more before committing to a new edition.

If you’ve checked the rules out or followed the development of this edition, what stands out to you?

Writing

Getting Pantsed

Leave a comment

One of my least favorite terms used of late among writers is “pantser.”

When I was about 9 or 10, there was an annoying girl at the local swimming pool who – in the middle of a crowd of swimmers – would pull down my swim trunks while I was swimming in the deep end. “Pantser” sounds like a middle school term for such a person.

But it’s meant to capture one side of a debate about writing. “Are you a planner or a pantser? Do you outline the main points of your story before you write a scene, or do you start writing by the seat of your pants and see where it leads?”

Planning is like following directions off Google Maps. The key steps along the journey are listed, and it’s on the writer to fill in the details in between. Pantsing, to me, feels like “I know my destination is over there and I’ll get there somehow” or even “I’m going for a drive today, and I don’t care where I end up.”

Both have their merits, weaknesses, and uses. For me, outlining is the most successful method for two reasons:

First, as soon as I realize there’s a problem, I can pause my effort, brainstorm a solution, and get back on track. Going back to Google Maps, if I miss a step or take a wrong turn, I can stop and course-correct to prevent wasted effort. I don’t have to finish a full manuscript before addressing glaring errors or issues. The minute I see the “Wrong Way” sign on the side of the road, I can stop and turn around.

Second, laying out key decisions, actions, and events well in advance, which makes foreshadowing possible. I know how the external and internal conflicts are going to be resolved. As a result I can build toward a more dramatic climax in the story. I don’t have to be surprised with my characters when suddenly we reach the final battle.

The first drawback to those key qualities are a lack of spontaneity or creativity in the writing process. If suddenly an idea strikes me in writing scene A, I may not be able to include it, because of how it will impact scene B leading to scene C. At best, I would have to make some changes to the outline to incorporate this change. Pantsers get the liberty of doing whatever they want and fixing issues later.
The second drawback is that once the story is “told” in my head, it feels “written” to me. I already know how it’s all going to play out. As a result, I can lose motivation for the tedium of putting all those ideas down on paper (or word processor screen).

Still, the benefits outweigh the potential trouble. What I don’t want to do is find myself several thousand words into a story only to discover glaring flaws in the basic premise.

To me, that takes away the fun and joy, like getting lost on the way to the party, or getting pantsed in the swimming pool.

What’s your favorite method to organize your writing efforts? Are you a planner or pantser, and why do you like that approach? Maybe there’s an aspect to either side that I’m not considering. Let me know in a comment.

General, Writing

Welcome to Okinawa

5 Comments

[Obligatory Trigger Warning: This post contains excuses for being absent from this blog for a lengthy period.]

My family and I moved to Okinawa Japan in June (more or less).

Just before leaving, I agreed to post more for the Omaha WordSowers, the writers’ group that my wife and I joined during our two years in Nebraska. I hoped (and still hope) to stay engaged with the group despite the distance.

So consider this the first post from Omaha WordSowers’ on-location overseas blogger in Okinawa, Japan!

Less than a month on island, and we were greeted with our first typhoon of the season (which stretches from June through October). Since Typhoon Neoguri appeared in mainstream news in the States, I figured a blog post on the subject is a timely way to return to this endeavor.

It might not be obvious from the reaction to this storm, but typhoons are frequent occurrences on Okinawa (and in this whole region of the Pacific). They’re essentially the same as the hurricanes that strike the East Coast.

The military installations on Okinawa are designed with this weather in mind. It would be no good if one of our primary airbases or Marine Corps camps got flattened every year by a common and easily anticipated natural weather threat.

Our housing is made like a concrete bunker, trading safety in a storm for the aesthetics we might prefer. Houses are not going to collapse, except perhaps in the most freakish of accidents. Occasionally we’ll see someone post a YouTube video of a tiny car getting pushed around or tipped over in the fiercest winds. But most of the time, a storm might mean a power outage or perhaps a small leak near a door or window.

(One wonders why they don’t make more houses like this in Florida and other coastal areas.)

The base did not escape completely unscathed this time. Some areas of the base are dealing with significant flooding. I’ve seen pictures online of water levels up to the windows of parked cars.

However, all military personnel and families are restricted to their homes for the duration of the storm, so one of the biggest problems requiring a solution is “What are we going to do to keep the kids occupied?”

As long as there’s electricity, that’s probably easy. But power can be fickle in a typhoon.

For my family, the power went out at 11:30 AM yesterday and stayed off until about 3 AM this morning. That led to some stir-crazy kids, a claustrophobic mom, and a frustrated dad thinking about how many dollars’ worth of food might spoil if the power didn’t get back on soon. We mitigated the boredom by taking advantage of the battery life of the iPad Air, on which The Lego Movie was previously loaded. I also read several chapters of Words of Radiance to the wife and kidlets, which is usually a treat.

The house really started getting stuffy and warm by bedtime. But this morning, I was able to take a hot shower and heat up breakfast. So I have no complaints, especially in comparison to what others are dealing with because of flooding. I’ll be in to work around lunchtime once the base finishes up recovery actions and releases us from our houses.

To those in the States who were concerned for me and my family personally or for the safety of our military personnel in general, you have my thanks. But I wouldn’t have you burdened with unnecessary worry, so I wanted to make clear that typhoons pose a fairly limited risk to all of us stationed out here. I’m more concerned about that flooding in other parts of the base than about the storm.

Here’s a picture of the view outside our house, from the front and back. You can see some busted branches and a tipped over can (not ours) that blew up against our van. All in all, the effect on us was minimal. Essentially I got a five day weekend.

Not a bad “welcome home” to the island where my family and I have spent 14 years already. We miss our Stateside friends and family, and I miss our writing community.

But thanks to modern technology, this is a first step to keeping in touch.

20140709-090305-32585524.jpg

20140709-090305-32585810.jpg

Culture/Politics

Pro-Choicers, Please Stop

5 Comments

I know, I know, another abortion post. And who cares about my opinion on this matter, anyway? I’m sure you all have your own, for or against. After seeing some very poor arguments on the subject, I just have to get some things off my chest.

If you’re pro-choice, you should care about my opinion, because I am here to help you, even though we disagree.

The fact is, a lot of you sound like tools. Stop it, for your sake and mine.

I hear a lot of arguments supporting the right of a woman to choose. Unfortunately, many of them are nonsense. I thought I’d be helpful and make a list.

1. Being a man, who are you to think you have a useful opinion on this?

Well, I thought I was a human being possessed (like most of us) of the capability for rational thought that allows me to observe evidence, consider facts, develop conclusions, and make value judgments about various things like we all do every day. It is both ludicrous and illogical to say that because I have not experienced a thing, I am incapable of making any judgment about that thing.

I have murdered exactly zero people in my life. Yet I am capable of coming to a conclusion about murder. I don’t want to do it. I don’t believe it is acceptable to murder people in cold blood.

Besides, I am able to speak to women who have had children and who have terminated pregnancies. I am able to consider medical procedures and their implications. How do we debate or establish medical ethics for as-yet-untried procedures or technologies if only those who have experienced them already get to weigh in on the matter? We use past evidence, past observations, past precedents, and we make a judgment, then evaluate whether that judgment holds true moving forward. We engage in healthy debate.

So stop stifling it by saying half of humanity has nothing to say on the matter.

2. It’s just a lump of tissue.

I suppose that’s accurate. I mean, so am I, and so are you, if that’s how you want to see things.

You’re also a human being, probably somewhere in the adult phase of development. That thing in the mother’s womb is also a human being. It’s a scientific fact that a zygote or embryo or fetus is a human being at an early stage. Those cells are alive and growing. They are living tissue that makes up a human being. Understand that part of why abortion supporters sound so callous to the opposition is because – to the opposition – you are talking about terminating a developing human being, not just removing an unsightly mole.

The debate becomes about when life begins, and how much do we value life. And we can have a reasonable debate about such things, so long as we still permit discussion of ethics in medicine.

But it’s not as simplistic a subject as some would like, and treating it as such does disservice to your arguments.

3. You just want to control women.

Honestly I don’t give any thought to what women (or men) are doing in the bedroom. Choices have consequences. That’s life. Risk STDs, risk pregnancies, risk emotional pain, live it up, enjoy physical pleasures, experience heights of ecstasy. Whatever.

But you’re still defending terminating a human being. I don’t want to control women (or men). I want to defend the women (and men) who don’t have a voice or the strength to defend themselves. This is why I break ties with some traditional Pro-Lifers who will say that contraception and sex education are bad things. I’d rather someone learn to use a condom than learn to choose a Dilation and Extraction.

4. You pro-Lifers don’t really value life. Look at the death penalty.

You actually make our case for us here, while revealing the flaws in your own. First, we do value life. We value it so dearly that when someone chooses to commit a pattern of crimes endangering or ending the lives of others, we feel that the threat they pose to the life of another is too great to justify the risk of further criminal activity. When actions establish a threat to society, we believe – due to the value we place on the lives of others – that the threat should be eliminated. Choices have consequences.

Almost every pro-choice person I know feels the same way about eliminating threats when life is in danger. One of the key provisions pro-choice advocates demand is that exception to abortion restrictions must be made if the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the mother. In other words, if that fetus is a risk, we have the right to eliminate that risk.

Pro-choice advocates are talking about possibilities and chances of danger based on past evidence. Supporters of the death penalty are operating on the same concern. There’s plenty of room for debate about the effectiveness of the police, legal, and judicial systems, and due caution must be made to ensure only those proven guilty are punished.
But please stop pretending that we don’t value life. We advocate eliminating the threat posed by the guilty, not the innocent

5. You pro-lifers don’t really value life. Look at guns.

Guns are a means of self-defense that we support based again on the value of life. My life and the lives of my family members are valuable to me, and I am eager to eliminate immediate threats to my loved ones. Guns are a tool to serve that purpose. We advocate legal ownership because it’s a Constitutionally-protected right and because it’s a way of protecting those we care about. We resist attempts to make guns illegal or place undue restrictions on ownership because gun control laws are demonstrable failures.

You don’t even believe in gun control, so stop acting like you do. If you believed in gun control, then you wouldn’t bring out the old saw about coat-hanger back-alley abortions. “If you make it illegal, it’s still going to happen, it’ll just be worse than before.” Sorry, are you shooting down your gun control argument or are you defending legal abortion? I forget, because there’s an obvious logical contradiction.

Certainly there’s a place in our society for reasoned debate. Nobody needs a rocket launcher or .50 caliber machine gun mounted on their minivan. Maybe handguns aren’t 100% evil too. Let’s talk and find a middle ground.

6. Like euthanasia, the individual mother’s choice deserves respect. No one else should choose for another.

We Pro-Lifers go nuts about cases like Terri Schiavo because we value life. Pro-Choice advocates reasonably argue that, when facing terminal illness or the ravages of old age, if an individual wants to die, why should we deny them that right? And they think us mad when we disagree, because that individual had the opportunity to choose, and choice is inviolate. Who are we to choose for them?

Again, the Pro-Choice position is inconsistent. The mother gets to choose for the fetus all the time, and we treat that decision as sacred. If the individual’s choice is so important then why doesn’t the developing human get a choice in the matter? Hey, maybe we should wait and get his or her take on whether they want to be prematurely euthanized.

7. What about cases of rape and incest?

Before I make a point on this, let me refer you to #1. Even though I’m not a woman, I get to talk about this because like you, I have a brain and the ability to process information and make judgments.

Rape is horrific and unacceptable. Incest is terrible. I do not condone these things or defend them in any way. No one should be subjected to such abuse.

Still, based on that debate about what constitutes life and what life is worth protecting, some Pro-Lifers are going to advocate for abortion to be illegal even in these cases. Is that ballsy? Is that hateful? Is that “rare chutzpah,” as a friend put it? Do the math. If I think that a living human being is about to be terminated solely for the crime of existing, then I’m going to oppose that. If I think that we’re talking about killing innocent human beings, I will believe we are compounding a tragedy. It would be rare chutzpah for me to stand by and say nothing.

There are some arguably good ways and many obviously wrong ways to make these cases. These subjects are tremendously sensitive and merit every ounce of compassion one can muster. I want to smack Pro-Lifers who get aggressive in the face of a victim of rape or incest. Their tactics can be vile and hateful, doing far more harm than any supposed good.

Still, meaningful discussions can and should take place, based on the assumptions we all bring to the table about the beginning and the value of life.

8. Abortion should be legal – if not up to birth then at least up until the fetus is viable on its own. It’s just a parasite until then.

Yes, I know (thank you, science) that the developing human being receives resources from the mother during gestation, and can’t survive outside the womb on its own until… well, what is it, a 50% chance of survival at 24 weeks now? We keep getting better at saving the lives of babies born prematurely. Yay technology!

But I’ll tell you what. Just because a newborn comes out of the womb, that doesn’t mean it’s “viable on its own.” Try leaving an infant on the table right after birth (I mean, if that’s not already common practice at the local clinic). Is that baby going to survive? My eight year old is still a parasite on my resources and his mother’s sanity. My soon-to-be 15 year old is even worse, if that’s possible. The same folks talking about when a fetus is or isn’t naturally viable on its own are the ones telling me all about how it takes a village to raise a child.

So long as it’s a fetus up to a point, it can be terminated and that’s fine, I’m told. Actually, left alone in the womb, the fetus is generally going to be naturally viable. Let nature run its course, and in nine months, most likely, you’ll have a baby. It’s such a natural process that we see news stories of new mothers who had no idea they were pregnant.

It’s not some invader stealing from the mother. It’s a developing human doing exactly what nature intends it to do, in the only place it could possibly be at that stage, the part of a mother’s body that is designed or evolved expressly for the purpose of protecting and sheltering the unborn human being until birth.

9. Keep your religion out of my body.

Well I kept religion out of this whole series of arguments, so we have a deal. How about you likewise keep your dogmatic views about your personal freedom out of that developing human individual’s body?

General

Third Time's the Charm?

Leave a comment

After seeing several posts from gun-loving friends and a number of posts from supporters of gun control, I had a thought this morning:

It seems to me the folks who ridicule the War on Drugs and the War on Terror as examples of government incompetence are the same folk who demand the government engage in a gun control campaign to get guns off the streets and stop the violence.

Let’s see: After years of war on drugs, strict laws and stiff penalties, and tons of money spent, yep, there’s still illegal drug use going on.

But no, go ahead, I’m sure that more laws and harsher penalties will make criminals think twice about gun violence. Clearly the government isn’t doing enough. Clearly that’s the problem.

I know I’m being overly simplistic about a complicated issue, and I don’t mean to ignore the tragedy of the various shootings that have taken place in our society. But seriously, why do people think a War on Guns is going to be effective?

Culture/Politics

H Words

2 Comments

On Thursday, I sat in the presence of an apparent hate-monger. Worse, I listened to her advice on illustrating, collaborating with writers, and marketing.

I might never have known, without the intervention of the Huffington Post on my google search. The day has been saved, if “saved” is not a word too charged with religious meaning.

The local Christian writers’ group I joined two years ago, the Omaha WordSowers meet on the 2nd Thursday of each month. They have a guest speaker who provides information or personal experience about some aspect of the writer’s journey from creative idea to published work.

Yesterday’s guest speakers were Lori Schulz and Hannah Segura, who talked about the process of publishing Papa’s Plan for Buddy Bee, which Lori wrote and Hannah illustrated.

Papa's Plan for Buddy Bee
A 100% Hate-Free Children’s Book

Lori gave her blog site link, but Hannah only mentioned an online following where she posts some of her art. I searched in hopes of finding her blog or site, since I hope to stay connected with the friends and fellow writers I’ve made here.

Hannah is one of many home-schooled young people I’ve met that challenge old stereotypes of that method of education. She is (like they are) full of vigor and joy, polite, socially at ease, well-spoken, and most of all just plain nice to everyone.

So the first few sites I found surprised me, because Hannah was equated with hate. Some time ago, she illustrated another book written by a different Christian author, on the subject of God’s design for families. A Bible-believing author wrote a kids’ book about marriage being one man and one woman for life, and a Bible-believing illustrator drew pictures to match the story. This came as no surprise to me. It should come as no surprise to anyone else.

That word choice, hate, really bothers me.

Maybe it’s because I am a linguist by profession and a writer by passion, so words and their definitions matter.

Maybe it’s because I know Hannah as an acquaintance, and as trite as it may sound, she doesn’t appear to have a hate-filled cell in her body.

Maybe it’s because I’ve heard the same term used to accuse me of feeling a way I’ve never felt about someone else.

And maybe it’s because I’m sick of rhetorical guerilla tactics, using evocative words to provoke a reaction and “win” a cultural battle without any reasonable discussion.

People throw hate and homophobe (among other terms) around at anyone who bucks current public opinion, regardless of motivation, regardless of personality. It’s equivalent to creating a minefield around the discussion table. Anyone who tries to say something gets blown up before they can speak their mind. Nobody wants to be affiliated with hate. No one wants to be associated with a homophobe.

The target changes from discussing a cultural, political, or religious position to attacking an individual person.

Worse yet, if one’s intended purpose is to convince the opposition to reconsider their view, attacking them as individuals shuts them down.

“You’re full of hate.” If I don’t feel hatred toward anyone, this makes me defensive, eager to absolve myself of crimes I don’t think I’ve committed. It doesn’t help me hear opposing views.

“You’re a homophobe.” If I am not afraid of homosexuals, if I’m not one of those who says, “Eww they’re icky” and acts all disgusted, then once again I will feel the need to object instead of open up to a different point of view.

“You’re too close-minded,” I’ve heard people say when confronting so-called “hate.” Yes, I think, because you’re closing them down by attacking instead of opening them up by connecting.

That sword definitely cuts both sides of this cultural debate. I hope we all want to be above that sort of thing, whichever side we’re on.

Nobody gains anything from a discussion that never happens.

I’m a fan of understanding, of seeing from the perspective of the other. I have said and done many things out of ignorance, and my responses over the years on the subject of homosexuality are no exception. Thankfully, I’ve had the benefit of friends and even rational opponents who take the time to open my eyes to their point of view while demonstrating willingness to listen to mine.

So what helps that take place?

First, avoid assumptions.

Some hate and fear is obvious, but not all. Jumping to conclusions about what motivates an individual gets us nowhere but angry at each other. If I can’t know that someone hates another person, then ‘hate’ isn’t the right word. If I don’t know that someone actually fears another, then ‘homophobe’ is a poor choice. Build bridges, not walls.

Second, use accurate terms.

Maybe “ignorant” or “unfamiliar” is more appropriate. It’s hard to walk in the shoes of another, and we all pretty much suck at it. So instead of declaring “I know what your kind is like,” how about “Can I tell you what it’s like from my point of view?” Speak to flesh-and-blood people, not emotionless positions.

Let’s trade some hate for harmony.