I really hate politics, on so many levels. At least a salesman has a product in his favor. Something tangible, something real. A politician works on belief. But his/her beliefs are less then that of religion. Religion may fail in the concrete evidence department, but still has a structure and system to follow. But politics? Squat, generally.

And the polls and pollsters make it worse, much, much worse. Four years ago, Bush rallied on the fact that Kerry had flipflopped on several issues. But the fact is, all politicos flipflop, merely due to polls. So not only are their beliefs fluid--they ability to even stay on topic for too long is at risk.

I mention this, because I follow gay issues so closely. Yeah, an oxymoronic statement. I hate politics; I follow gay issues on politics. But then again, I hate some kinds of food--so I do watch for them on my plate. Lately, the winds of change have swept gay issues up to the forefront. Now, again, we are a topic for warm debate amoung the hets...for some reason, they love to pretend they are God and vote on stuff for us.

I never had to vote on their marriage, but they'll gleefully vote against mine.

Digression, sorry. But the fact is, both candidates have been quite candid on this topic of gay marriage. Of course they will be. They have to be. They don't want any sail to catch the winds of their opinions. And by staying as neutral, they appear to not support gay marriage and equality for myself and my family.

But, wouldn't it be nice if that wasn't true. What if, in all honesty, their young nephew, who looks fantastic in a dress, has long been a good friend and, even tho they play ignorant, they are, through a series of false fronts and business dealings, have been helping gay marriage all along?

Now, that's simple enough, but here's my twist...they BOTH were supporting it? Now Palin, she's something of a ignorant schmuck, so even if she wanted to be my maid of honor, I'd piss on her shoes. But for the other three? Wouldn't that be most awesome?



IF you found out that something you've believed true was actually false, what would you hope it would be?

IF:

Okay, I admit it, I'd love to give the snarky answer here. I was so tempted to just put "no" and leave, like the entire page blank, ya know? How pedantic would that be?

But the fact of the matter, I've been railed again from some of my friends from all over the block for my constant critism of classics. I thought, for example, that Gone With the Wind and Dances with Wolves were voluminous hack-jobs that made, by far better movies. Anything made my John Grisham was convoluted and should also be punished--yep--by being made into sub-par films for 4 star actors to finish up their studio contracts...

I also felt that many classic books SHOULD be held to the light, repeatedly, to help persuade us and remind us why, in the first place, did we see them as "classics." I look to specific fame there. I mean, The Adventures of Huck Finn? Every time I've looked between the covers on that one, I'm always impressed...the book does stand tall and resistant to critics. The Catcher in the Rye is another one. If I were to set my sights closer? Harry Potter's format and fame AS A BOOK are, by far, better then the editing and chop jobs Hollywood gives.

So, what is left for me to piss all over as if I'm better then the author? To do that, I have to find some redeeming book and, because the majority is so good, only the ending should change. I got one that pops up.

I am one of the few who really, really liked the prose of Moby Dick. It was the beginning of the adventure tale. And frankly, having Ahab go down with the beast is a damn good ending to two terrifically fully drawn characters. And Ahab would not have lived a sequel. But what if the book WAS the sequel?

Follow my drift here. What if we were led, as an audience, through this tale, believing this vile man died within the sea he so proportedly loved. Then have him rise and limp away from the table nearby as this story is regaled by the survivors of the epic battle? I get goosebumps. And people would question...is it a ghost of the man? Did he survive?

I also loved LOVED Treasure Island. But the ending is so anticlimatic. An adventure tale where the adventure was removed. I really liked the way they ended in the Disney Treasure Planet. There, with the excitement of the plunder being destroyed and the entire planet combusting, we have to race out and Jim FINALLY gets to be the hero he harbored so long. There, you have the rewrite done for me!

Lastly, The Haunting of Hill House. Good old Shirley Jackson. She kept me glued to those pages with mere creaks, hisses and heavy breathing. I was riveted at the rival of old fashioned ghosty-goodness. I wanted a climax to match; and she wound up that screw so tight, she painted herself into a corner by....merely having the protagonist go insane. It was like, like she, herself couldn't paint herself out of that corner and, instead, misdirected us. I was like, wha?

I was expecting spirits galore, a la, Raiders of the Lost Ark's final moments and the entire group running out and stuff. But no. She just went insane.

Boring.

So those are the three that come to mind. Now it's your turn. Go read and develop.

Peace.


If you could change the ending of any book, what would you change and why?

Returning to penmanship

Dear Reader,

I'm really, really trying to get back into writing, at least once a week. Here's his week's topic:

If you had to name the single most regrettable thing about your country's history, what would it be?

I'm reminded of a scene in the sci-fi movie Alien Nation. In it, a slave ship from another planet crashes near Los Angeles and the creatures aboard find themselves as a new minority in the City of Angels. As usual, it is not easy going, as many people suddenly say, "they are infrindging on my rights! They are reducing my freedoms." The aliens cannot assimalate smoothly besides their abilty to learn at an advanced rate and helping the economy.

In this particular scene, both a human (James Caan) and an alien (Mandy Patankin) are getting drunk and letting the sparks fly. The alien realizes something the human never could. See, the human had all the rights and freedoms of his country for so long, he never realized that they might not be excluding anyone. The alien speaks up, stating, "This country has given itself laws and ideals to which no one ever believed--and a group of people so ignorant of it they might as well get rid of them."

The truth of the scene, played in microcosm is that people don't realize what they have. And when someone who has been marginalized in any way asks for the same, the "haves" feel their ownership is diminished. That the value of the thing they have been privledged to has somehow been taken down a notch.

Let's move the scope back.

America was built on freedom. Yet, it was built with slaves. It took a good one hundred years of wrangling before this blight was removed and the word "freedom" could even remotely be defined as such. It took a hundred years more before those who were 'freed' could even have laws to protect them.

The darkest time our nation is experiencing is ongoing. We use the word freedom liberally, but have yet to understand its meaning at all. We say everyone deserves equality, but will do our best to make sure only some can sing it's praises.

Case in point, if someone says, "I'm sorry, but that makes me not take part equally, do you mind if can," there is always someone, SOMEONE who says, "no, sorry, you can't." They can usually find a decent reason to remove a fellow human from the rat race. They can quote scripture, human nature, past history or ignorance in their defence.

And freedom remains stagnant.

Freedom, like flowers, should grow and change to it's environment.

But so many hope it does not.

Why is that?

This time is regrettable. Regrettable that, after all these ages, it has not ended. I see little people, gays and lesbians, handicapped and Arabs wanting an equal part of the pie. Yet there are several who do not wish it, simply because they don't understand the feelings of oppression. Sure, you can look at me, and state, "it's because you think you are oppressed, Roo, that you can sign such."

But that is not true. I had a Jewish father, unrelated to me. I heard things my 'friends' said and began ot realize---they don't understand this religion, this group at all...and they were here BEFORE CHRIST.

Jews are still marginalized as well.

And now we are faced with the high possibilty of an African American president. And I sitll hear people yelling, "I won't vote for him...he's black."

And freedom's worth shrinks a bit more.

This is the blight and tragedy that needs to be stopped.4