Too Good Not To Share!

I wanted to share this letter from this Huffington Post article.  This is too good not to share.  

Dear Governor Romney, 

I’d like to say congratulations on winning the republican nomination. But, I wish you stayed in Massachusetts. You’re plan for America isn’t what we need, and would hurt us more than it would help.

First, repealing Obama care and other health plans he’s put in place have helped families across America, including mine. I live in a middle class family, and two years ago my little sister; Kennedy was denied insurance because of her pre-existing condition. This was a huge emotional stress and financial burden on my entire family. Under Obama Care, insurance companies can no longer deny Kennedy and kids like her, the coverage they need and deserve. Because of Obama care my little sister was able to have the several surgeries she needed that helped save her life. Once the President was elected he put Obama Care into action, just like he promised and made it so that you could get insurance with pre-existing conditions. This has made a direct impact on my family. My family is with out a doubt better off now, than we were four years ago!

It is to my understanding that you stated that you were going to repeal Obama Care, including the part I have mentioned, which will take away the insurance we have and need for my sister Kennedy. Why do you think she doesn’t deserve health care? Also, when you were interviewed on “Meet the Press”, you stated that you would NOT repeal this part of Obama Care, but then your campaign backpedalled and on the “Tonight show with Jay Leno”, you said that you WOULD repeal this. 

Also, you’re domestic plans (birth control, gay rights etc.) are horrible! Women should get to manage their own health, and if you wonder why you’re not appealing to many women voters, rethink your birth control and women’s’ rights plans. And people should be able to marry whom they want. We built this country so people could have freedom, and not have religious beliefs control them to that length. This country was in no way built on any religion, so we should not create laws that repress the American people in a religious way and hurt our most vulnerable.  

Sincerely, 

Jackson Ripley, age 12

You can read the entire article here.

Enjoy!

Vague? From the Heart

James Poulos, on HuffPost Live: We Are the 47% episode, claims that Romney's statements, which I began discussing yesterday, were vague and simply campaign rhetoric.  Alyona Minkovski jumps in and asks, "Is it just about imprecise language?"  She goes on to question it.  And she nails it.  She asks if it isn't the general thinking in America that anyone who needs help from the government is a freeloader.  Sadly, Romney's words and attitude are part of our culture.  But in one way, these attitudes keep many who need help from asking for it.  So, where does that put Romney?  It's not simply about taxes, it's about caring; and clearly Romney doesn't.

I cry foul on Poulos's statement of imprecise language.  Romney's language is extremely clear, achingly precise.  He even uses the rhetorical repetition of "who believe ..."  He's trying to convince others, who most likely already think as he does, of something that is very real in his mind; but that's beside the real point. 

The more important issue is that this is Romney's attitude being revealed in a situation in which he thinks he is safe to say what he really feels, believes.  In this meeting, Romney speaks, as Poulos says, "almost stream-of-consciousness."  That makes my point all the more relevant.  Stream of consciousness means that you are not taking time to filter what is coming out of your mouth.  He is, in other words, speaking from the heart.  And his heart is hardened toward a very large number of United States citizens, including his own voters....  

You can read Romney's statements and watch the videos at here at Mother Jones.

Think About It!  

UPDATE:  I wanted to share this quote from Upworthy.com, "When These 6 People Think You Blew It, You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble":

“I disagree with Gov. Romney’s insinuation that 47 percent of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. ... I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be.”

          — Linda McMahon, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Connecticut

Romney's Falseness Revealed

Mitt Romney never had my vote, but today he showed the world who he really is: "Romney already has trouble relating to the public and convincing people he cares about them. Now, he's been caught on video saying that nearly half the country consists of hopeless losers."

"On the tape, Romney explains that his electoral strategy involves writing off nearly half the country as unmoveable Obama voters. As Romney explains, 47 percent of Americans 'believe that they are victims.' He laments: 'I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.'"

These people he's talking about are responsible, or are trying very hard to be in this economic environment.  I know from experience that it is difficult to "care for your life" if you can't make enough money to do that; or if you're disabled (i.e. unable to work) and can't even afford the medical care you need.  Romney has an over-inflated self-opinion.  And worse, he doesn't care about others.  What's sad is that many of the people who will vote for him feel the same way. 

It's interesting to me that those who have never had to struggle to make ends meet, who have never had to work from dusk till dawn trying to keep a roof over their family's heads, who have never had to wonder what they would do if they became sick and unable to work and medical bills started mounting: it is interesting that they think all the people who need help are lazy losers. 

The people who need help are human beings. 

They are human beings.

This arrogant man needs to get off of his high and mighty pedestal and realize that. Sadly, he won't.  He's convinced that he is better than those people on welfare, those people on disability, those people on Medicaid or Medicare, even those people who will cast their precious vote for him.  

They are human beings; many of them are proud, they have their dignity, and don't want to ask for help; they struggle between swallowing their pride (which they only have because of thinking like Romney thinks: i.e. anyone who needs help is a loser) and letting themselves or family members go hungry, lose their homes, or die from treatable illnesses because they can't afford to live in this America we have all made. 

I'm much angrier than I may sound here; I am watching my language, because I want people to read this and especially to think about it.  Please, just seriously think about it.

Article by Josh Barro on Bloomberg which spawned this post and from which I quote above: "Today, Romney Lost the Election."

Think About It!

Review of Alone With All That Could Happen

Alone with All That Could Happen: Rethinking Conventional Wisdom about the Craft of Fiction by David Jauss
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I just finished this; there is much to absorb, but for starters Jauss, as is hinted at in the subtitle, comes at writing from a different angle. At least one I haven't seen. There are several chapters dealing with many aspects of writing, but none of it is prescriptive: I loved that.

Not that I dislike prescriptive books on writing. They have their place. But, sometimes, you have to be reminded why you're doing this (beyond the "I just have to write" thing). Jauss shows some ways to make the connection between craft (which is necessary) and art (which is vital). Without art, fiction feels plastic: and I'm not talking about the good kind, i.e. flexibility. I'm talking about it feeling fake, lifeless. Art without craft makes for some tough, and let's be honest, boring reading on occasion. So, we need both, and Jauss helps.

It was refreshing to read a book about writing that isn't trying to make you sit down and write a set number of words everyday, or to write for a set number of hours. Jauss brings out different aspects that many beginning writers probably never even get around to thinking about. And I know some published writers haven't gotten around to them, either.

One of my favorite parts was the last chapter: in it Jauss argues that writers, in order to really be creative, must learn to think differently: they must learn to hold contradictions in their mind; they must learn to negate themselves in certain situations in order to spark the creativity.

That may sound weird, but I don't want to give away too much. If you are a writer, or are even interested in literature, this is an excellent read.

I'm going to read it again....

View all my reviews
Get your own copy:

Review of Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury

The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Faulkner was not afraid to break from mundane and predictable writing; that which later leads to obscurity. If you are looking for a nice point A-to-point B type story, this is not it. This leans more toward something like a mixture of his other work and Joyce/Woolf amalgamation. Yes, it has that in it (stream of consciousness writing). That said, it isn't Joyce or Woolf. It is Faulkner rollicking in the intoxicating power of words, at the height of his game. I love it because of that. Stick with it and you will see that there is a method to the madness; it is not for the faint of heart, to be sure (please excuse the cliché); it requires breaking out of the trained-laziness that much of contemporary literature and internet reading is breeding in us.

On that note, it is disheartening and nauseating to read about people who get bored because there wasn't tension in the previous two sentences, or because an author wants to take some time and really have a play with language. Editors, agents, publishers, writing gurus all spew the same thing: tension, tension, tension. It's as if the entire world is suffering from learned ADHD (not to take that disease lightly: I struggle with this condition myself, so I understand the pain it can cause; but, we cannot allow it to govern everything: i.e. make literature easier, more exciting, tension, tension, tension; but instead, we must make ourselves stick to something and why shouldn't that something be great works of literature?). If this is to change, we have to change it. Reading great literature requires sacrifice and sometimes it requires breaking out of the the blasé expectations of how literature "ought to be." "Oughts" are very ugly things....

Faulkner's writing, especially in this case, is more art than craft. Many of his other works are very tight, craft-wise (as is The Sound and the Fury; but it's tight in its own way: i.e. when there is what seems like a lot of jumping around, it really should not bother a contemporary reader, whose attention span has been hacked down to nearly nil by television and internet; this part of the book is very much like a movie: quickly switching from scene to scene, bringing into the reading the dizzying effect that the character is experiencing on the page).

The Sound and the Fury is one of Faulkner's more difficult books and didn't really catch on until after he had published Sanctuary. It isn't my favorite of those I've read of his works, but it is a strong book and has a lot to recommend it: chief being the way Faulkner plays with language and builds his characters.

Don't give up, it's worth the time you put into it.

View all my reviews
Get yourself a copy: