war war peace war war
January 26, 2012
the case of the mysteriously missing book
January 25, 2012
That is the cover for The Crown.
One of my students [Nancy Bilyeau] wrote The Crown and is steadily taking over the world, even Oprah is suggesting you grab and read that book. Whoa. Pretty soon my students will be bossing me around.
[Not really.]
I am supposed to have a copy of that book. It is signed just for me and Nancy packaged it up and mailed it back in late December/early January. The book did not show and did not show and I thought, Oh well lots of late Christmas gifts in the mail are slowing things down still. And I waited. But it still did not show.
Then Nancy got the book back in the mail. The address label where my name and address were supposed to be had been ripped off the package so it was sent back to her.
She repackaged it up and put it in the mail to me —
And it hasn’t shown and hasn’t shown and hasn’t shown.
I am beginning to wonder if maybe an ex pissed off boyfriend is working at the Post Office in Queens ripping my name off packages.
:::grrr:::
*Postscript: FB Mail From Nancy Today: “You know what? I mailed it again today — a third time. PRIORITY MAIL. Supposed to be there by Friday at the latest. You WILL get this fucker!”
*There is a spiff trailer for Nancy’s book The Crown :::here:::
*You can order the book The Crown :::here:::
*Also I have been sprucing the AFW site and it has a new nifty gallery page :::go see:::
film the police
January 21, 2012
she’s so dramatic
January 17, 2012
I had a life partner —
Who was always vaguely trying to apologize for me. We had these really interesting neighbors. Every once in a while in the hearing of others I would mention how really interesting the neighbors were — and not in a good way. And my partner would smile apologetically and say, She’s a writer. She over dramatizes.
Two months after I left, my ex life partner driving home was stopped by police.
The whole neighborhood was cordoned off and surrounded by police.
The really interesting — and not in a good way — neighbors had bombed a house with a body inside that had a bullet through its head.
I do not over dramatize.
I notice things other people do not.
I have noticed this country will be dead in ten years or less if we do not stop the wars.
where the art work comes from :
that is naty chabanenko by hugh lippe
blackout!
January 17, 2012
We’re supposed to shut down —
The internet on January 18th. Everyone. All at once. It is a show of might for OWS [Occupy Wall Street] and Anonymous. Lots of people are going to do it. Wikipedia. Craigslist. Reddit. Probably not Amazon. Who knows. The tweets are crazy and mashed up and it just looks like a helluva lot of people are shutting down on the 18th.
That last time most people were off not paying attention on the internet, i.e. New Year’s Eve, Barrack Obama signed NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] into existence.
The shut down of the internet on the 18th is a protest of SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act]. And PIPA [Protect Intellectual Property Act]. [Yes I know they sound like hobbits what can you do?] These are allegedly anti-piracy laws supposed to protect intellectual properties. Actually they are kind of like the whole indefinite detention thing. If someone accuses you of being associated with terrorists, you can just get thrown in jail with no lawyer and no trial, under NDAA. Under SOPA and PIPA? If someone accuses you of piracy or piracy affiliation, they can shut your website down, bam. All your communications links. Bam. And any website you are affiliated with. BAM!
All it takes is a whisper. *1
No one was watching, on New Year’s Eve – or at least very few people, most people are celebrating on New Year’s Eve, not watching to see if their president throws a fast ball at the Constitution – when Barrack Obama signed away your rights to trial and to face your accusers and to your day in court and also to hello legal defense.
No one will be watching January 18th. They’ll all be on internet silence, in protest. *2
*1: the hollywood 10
*2: probably no one in ows has ever played hard ball with a studio during a strike before, this is exactly how they work: make you think it’s your idea to turn away and then while you have your back to the action strike like a fucking cobra*mashable has listed websites pledging to blackout on wednesday
tax dollars at war
January 16, 2012
the trouble with the left
January 16, 2012
One of the problems —
With self described “progressives” is a sense of moral superiority which translates to “I can do no wrong.” For example, the “progressive” man who continued to harass me on Twitter for stating I support Ron Paul. I asked him to stop. He didn’t. Apparently, “no” only means “no” if you are not a progressive with a moral superiority complex. I finally blocked him. He continued his tirade on Facebook. I again asked him to stop. He didn’t. I told him this was harassment. He still didn’t. So I blocked his ass there too.
I think this kind of belligerent “I’m right so you don’t get to say no” attitude is one of the problems with the progressive Left. I say this, being a member of the progressive Left. I get the irony in that. But it translates into the desire to continue massive federal controls on all aspects of life. You can’t let states do what they want because then you wouldn’t be able to impose your moral superiority on every other state in the nation. The cognizance of the fact it’s not always superiority or the progressive agenda that gets imposed makes no difference to them. The fact people in a less progressive state who oppose legalizing marijuana can continue to press for sending federal agents into California to ransack and close down medical marijuana dispensaries even though medical marijuana is legal in California doesn’t seem to penetrate. The fact a federal mandate against same sex marriage would allow the federal government to mass deny all same sex marriages in states that have legalized same sex marriages also makes no impact on the perception, If you just put the federal government in control of everything, everything will be okay because then YOU get to tell everyone else what to do.
Since saying I support Ron Paul, I have been called a racist, an idiot, stupid, ignorant, an enemy to women’s rights, and much worse. And have been harassed and hounded by members of my own progressive community to the point of blocking people after numerous requests they stop.
Dear “Progressive” Left:
“No” does mean “no.”
Harassment is not “moral superiority.” Nor is it justified by the belief your agenda is morally superior.
Harassment for the purpose of enforcing political homogeny and ideology is fascism and bullying.
When did that become okay with the Left?
never forget: the hollywood ten
January 14, 2012
who will you believe this time?
January 13, 2012
obama’s bill of rights
January 13, 2012
The Bill of Rights
The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791Preamble
Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech,or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,but in a manner to be prescribed by law.Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, andno Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions,
the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,
the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
*source of original bill of rights document: bill of rights org
support our troops, bring them home
January 13, 2012
who’s a real progressive?; or, why i’m supporting ron paul
January 10, 2012
Who’s A Real Progressive?~ by David Sirota
~originally published on salon.comIt’s rather sad that nearly every article written by a non-libertarian about Ron Paul begins with a disclaimer that the writer is not endorsing Paul for president. Yet, with a virulent case of Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome plaguing partisan Obama loyalists, it bears repeating if only to preempt future mischaracterizations and slander: I am not endorsing Ron Paul for president.
That said, I believe the argument being forwarded by progressive-minded Paul supporters is significant because it embodies a calculating pragmatism that highlights uncomfortable truths both about liberal priorities and about presidential power.
To review the basic Paul profile: When it comes to government social spending and regulation, Paul is more antithetical to progressive goals than any candidate running for the White House. This is indisputable. At the same time, though, when it comes to war, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts, cutting the defense budget, eliminating corporate welfare and civil liberties, Paul is more in line with progressive goals than any candidate running in 2012 (or almost any Democrat who has held a federal office in the last 30 years). This, too, is indisputable.
In seeing Paul’s economic views, positions on a woman’s right to choose, regulatory ideas and ties to racist newsletters as disqualifying factors for their electoral support, many self-identified liberal Obama supporters are essentially deciding that, for purposes of voting, those set of issues are simply more important to them than the issues of war, foreign policy, militarism, Wall Street bailouts, surveillance, police power and civil liberties — that is, issues in which Paul is far more progressive than the sitting president.
There’s certainly a logic to that position, and that logic fits within the conventionally accepted rubric of progressivism. But let’s not pretend here: Holding this position about what is and is not a disqualifying factor is a clear statement of priorities — more specifically, a statement that Paul’s odious economics, regulatory ideas, position on reproductive rights and ties to bigotry should be more electorally disqualifying than President Obama’s odious escalation of wars, drone killing of innocents, due-process-free assassinations, expansion of surveillance, increases in the defense budget, massive ongoing bank bailouts and continuation of the racist drug war.
By contrast, Paul’s progressive-minded supporters are simply taking the other position — they are basically saying that, for purposes of voting, President Obama’s record on militarism, civil liberties, foreign policy, defense budgets and bailouts are more disqualifying than Paul’s newsletter, economics, abortion and regulatory positions. Again, there’s an obvious logic to this position — one that also fits well within the conventional definition of progressivism. And just as Obama supporters shouldn’t pretend they aren’t expressing their preferences, Paul’s supporters shouldn’t do that either. Their support of the Republican congressman is a statement of personal priorities within the larger progressive agenda.
Hence, we reach one of those impossible questions: From a progressive perspective, which is a more legitimate camp to be in? In terms of ideological allegiance to the larger progressive agenda, I don’t really think there’s a right or wrong answer. But in terms of realpolitik, there’s a strong case to be made that Paul’s progressive-minded supporters understand something that Obama’s supporters either can’t or don’t want to: namely, that a presidential election is a vote for president, not a vote to elect the entire federal government. As such, when faced with candidates whom you agree with on some issues and totally disagree with on other issues, it’s perfectly rational — and wholly pragmatic — to consider one’s own multifaceted policy preferences in the context of what a prospective president will have the most unilateral power to actually enact.
With Paul, it just so happens that most of the ultra-progressive parts of his platform (and legislative career) correspond to the presidential powers that are most unilateral in nature. As President Obama so aptly proved when he ignored the War Powers Act during the Libya conflict and started drone wars in various other countries, a president can start and end military conflicts with the stroke of a pen — and without any congressional check on power. Likewise, as President Obama showed when he assassinated American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and then his family without so much as a single criminal charge, a president can now trample or expand civil liberties with the stroke of the same pen. The president also appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, which now unilaterally grants trillions of dollars in bailouts without intervention from Congress. And, as President Obama proved with his administration’s crackdown on California’s marijuana laws, a president has far more operational control over the drug war than the congressional committees charged with oversight.
By contrast, the policy areas where Paul is most at odds with progressives are the areas Congress has far more control over — specifically, budgets and regulatory statutes —
why i’ll never vote for obama again
January 7, 2012
I could not have spelled out my grievances against Obama any more succinctly or eloquently than Glenn Greenwald does in his article Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies:
“The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
“He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.”
:::read the article:::
january classes start in one week
January 4, 2012
Two January classes, The Art of the Pitch and Visual Writing, start January 10th.
There are a couple seats left if you act fast:
Begins January 10, 2012
Visual Writing | Putting Vision Back Into Viewing | Online 6 Week Master Course | Start Date : 01.10.12 |
MAKE YOUR READERS “SEE” YOUR MOVIE: You will learn how to use the visual elements space, light, and texture to create locations and scenes readers can “see”; how to establish and utilize perspective in scenes and sequences to make a script visually dynamic; how to create and utilize perspective; techniques to make characters visually dynamic and “real” for readers; techniques to juxtapose exterior and interior visuals to create visually dynamic motion and space on the film screen; and more….
Instructor | Max Adams
Reading Material | supplied in class forum & library. Some outside material is linked to.
Viewing Materials | posted or available via Netflix, iTunes, YouTube or your friendly neighborhood video rental.
Weekly Chats | Thursday nights | 8 PM EST.
class seating limit : 12 | a writing sample may be requested prior to acceptance | a course deposit is required for this class
course fee : $375 |•REGISTER TODAY – SEATING IS LIMITED
more info : CLASSES
Begins January 10, 2012
The Art of the Pitch | Pitching Stripped of the Nonsense | Online 6 Week Master Course | Start Date: 01.10.12 |
GET READ AND SELL: You will learn the five essential elements your pitch must contain to sell to producers and studios; the two pitch models; action driven vs. character driven pitching; the six points an elevator pitch must contain to interest a potential buyer — and what an elevator pitch is; how to open; how to close; how to use your story’s turning points to make your story compelling; when film comparisons work — and when they don’t; how to address the specific concerns of different members of the entertainment industry; and how to condense and expand your pitch to take advantage of new pitching opportunities and mediums.
Instructor | Max Adams
Reading Material | supplied in class forum & library. Some outside material is linked to.
Viewing Materials | posted or available via Netflix, iTunes, YouTube or your friendly neighborhood video rental.
Weekly Chats | Thursday nights | 9 PM EST.
class seating limit : 12 | a writing sample may be requested prior to acceptance | a course deposit is required for this class
course fee : $375 |•REGISTER TODAY – SEATING IS LIMITED
more info : CLASSES
MARCH CLASSES
Two classes are coming in March 2012, High Concept Writing and Character Writing.
March classes begin March 13th.
•For more info on upcoming classes visit CLASSES.
