Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Bitter Praise


Dear Kevin Camp,

First, thanks for submitting and for entrusting me to add my personal comments.

Your writing is good, but I'm having some trouble getting hooked into this story. It seems a bit detached and explanatory—the narrator almost seems to be describing someone else. He's so distant from his story that it doesn't allow for any tension, which means it's difficult for this reader to want to know what happened next. And so far (5 pages) I don't see anything really new or different about the topic that would make me stay with it.

Sorry.

Sincerely,
Joe Ponepinto

Fiction Editor

Tahoma Literary Review

Please remember that these comments are the editorial opinion of one person, and nothing more. Joe's comments may or may not agree with feedback you have received from other editors, writers, or family members.

You can go here to view the submission:http://tahomaliteraryreview.submittable.com/user/submissions/4338981

Sunday, August 23, 2015

How I Totally Missed It




Women, I want you to know that I missed it, completely. You win, if there is any winning here, and I deserve to be viewed wrongly. I had the best intentions, and maybe that is the first sign of wisdom, but I had no clue what it was like to be something like a woman. It is something like complete transparency, even if you block it out, even if you try to laugh it off.

For the past two weeks, a rabid hacker and I have been having it out. That explains the crazy, truncated posting and lack of posting at all. When a narcissist with his own cult of personality takes aim at you, heaven help you. It makes me understand all the better the bad behavior of men at sci-fi and fantasy cons, as they can be demons with a total sense of entitlement to everything. Thank God all men are not like this, but in that environment it's easy to see it all as malevolent.

I can't get him to go away. I can alpha dog away most people, but not genuine psychopaths like this. Mental illness is the only motive I can think of for behavior like this. I had good motives. He'd had an interesting life. I wanted only to tell his story on Daily Kos, a win/win situation for both of us. I've had good experiences like this before, very mutual. But lord, had I known the hornet's nest I was about to walk into, I would have walked away.

I keep thinking that unless this guy was a raving psychopath, this could have been a good story, an inside look at Anonymous, the hacker collective. Instead, he got into everything, my phone, my e-mail, everything. My loved one thought I was crazy, and if I didn't have such rock hard defenses, I might have gone today crazy myself.

What does he do? He keeps his own domain and sells overpriced pornography. I guess some people have to make a living, but I have decidedly less renown for the Anonymous Movement now. This was until I ran into a squirrel running in a thousand different directions, none of which I can really explain or control. As is often the case with situations like these, he has his own autocratic followers and I have made it clear that I will not accept his foul behavior. For a time he backed off, but I am in correspondence with the local news to tell his story and I guess that set him off again. I've already reported him to the Feds and will do so tomorrow to the local cybercrimes unit.

This is not comfortable. I am not in control. I do not know what it will take to make him go away. I can scare him and bluff him but he pops up with insult text messages. These are what as known as evidence. And what he can't see if that every message is another piece of evidence. This man is crazy but would want nothing more than to be on MSNBC for the sake of being known, the way so many criminals are apt to be.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

One Request

Keeping Messing with My Opposition. It only increases my odds.

No, I'm Serious

Let's part ways and go elsewhere. I am not going to keep trying.

Disappointment

I can't reach an Anonymous person who has complicated my life. Let's just end it and go from here.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Quaker Lawyer




One of the peculiar issues among many are those that plague so many lawyers and Friends. Or, as Dorothy Parker put it, On hearing that another actress friend had broken her leg working in London: “she must have done it sliding down a barrister.”This could be a result of the numbers in Washington, DC. It may be that there is too much need in a capital city. Every single city has its numbers.

In the beginning, in the UK, certain people could not hold certain occupations, particularly the cleric and the professional. Many Quakers were shop-keepers. A UK man named Cadbury developed the first milk chocolate, called Dairy Milk. He was a believe in temperance, developing milk chocolate would be an adequate substitution for alcohol. The same was true with the development with root beer developed in the US by a man who made root beer for the same reason, a druggist named Hires who worked in Philadelphia.

One might think lawyers would shirk away from controversy and those particular occupations would seem not especially Quakerly. Lawyering is a fight and those who are attracted to it out of the love of the fight. If they don’t do it, they don’t do it. But better we fight our problems than grab swords.

It would seem to be a particular occupation that must be. I would rather us stick to peace and pacifism. I would rather move on and not worry about fighting. Otherwise, we seem very hypocritical as a culture. It is worthwhile that that we do not do our fighting like Game of Thrones and a more civilized culture, though it has many flaws.

We say we are one thing and often are another. Yes, even we are hypocritical. That is to be expected. But how to go forward, even when we are not especially problematic. I have had to live with the violence. But we know when to call in the heavy guns when we need them.

We could well brawl with sticks and end up in the pillory. We could end up with punitive punishment. But instead we deal with stress en masse, which is almost as bad. Lawyers protect each other. I saw that in one of my father's good friends. I wouldn't know how to eliminate the profession, but would do it if I could. And what would we do next?

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Trial Again

I head again for court in four months. This is my best shot. Mediation comes before a trial, but a trial takes 8 hours. Scheduling a busy docket will be not be easy. I am not expecting this, but it comes at maximum $5000. I will receive less than that, most likely. Those of you who are expecting an easy system should not.

A maximum middle aged woman insulted me in the grocery. The number is from Texas. She is alluding to the fact that I initially said I would sue for $25. This was before I had nothing to lose. And I did not.

One of my legal counsel does not give me good odds but I think the mediation system is in my system. Let's see what the sued parties say. Weird telephone number could mean good odds in my system.







Sunday, August 09, 2015

Quote of the Week



"The idea that every nation ought to have an atomic bomb, like every woman of fashion ought to have a mink coat, is deplorable."- Clement Atlee

Saturday, August 08, 2015

Friday, August 07, 2015

Foot-dragging and the Conservative Mindset


One of the reasons I left my place of birth, among many, is that I could not convince anyone to end Capital Punishment. For them, it was just punishment for the ultimate instance of wrongdoing. They cannot believe any other way is possible. Much like the pacifism I profess, they see it as pie-in-the-sky, not feasible in today's world. We live in a violent culture and must be violent in return.

Now we see extreme conservative angst over a phony video from Planned Parenthood. Though my father is much more conservative than liberal, he was on the Board of Planned Parenthood when I was a child. My father is probably closer to a libertarian than a Republican, but many Alabamians are social conservatives, especially the governor. who is a strongly religious man, a Southern Baptist.

What we see reflected at us is what some would desperately like to see. And we on the Left have taken stock in fantasies of our own creation. In the height of George Bush's stranglehold on the White House, he was said to have mimicked Adolph Hitler's bluster about Chamberlain's so-called scrap of paper prior to World War II, the theory of appeasement.

As for Medicaid in red states, there are any number of rationalizations used to deny coverage. Single adults are nearly summarily denied coverage. Only those living until the age of 17 are covered, after which they are cruelly trimmed from the roles. Preference is given to those with children, the more the better. There are so many fallacies in these arguments which pass for logic, I'm not sure where to begin.

Medicaid, to some, represents federal government intrusion into state's rights, an argument as old as the Republic itself. It is present when we discussed flying of the Confederate battle flag on a state capital, our latest talking point. But as Herbert Hoover tried valiantly to advance and failed, houses of worship, charities, and civic organizations cannot feed the poor, house them, and attend to their medical needs. Jesus may have advocated for such things in this own way, in his own time, but he lived 2,000 years ago.

It is short-sighted to believe otherwise. Even liberals have their criticisms of government, this one included, but the inertia that works, with time, is better than the condescension that never professes to try. It is, of course, told to us that the poor will always be with us. And by this, Jesus speaks in both the real and the abstract. We can speak of those with need and the means to help them. Both must addressed as each is equally important.

But I return to Planned Parenthood, or the real issue, an anti-choice stance. We may never eliminate the charges of baby killing or infanticide. Though I wish it was as effective as it is in theory, we as Quakers have sought to eliminate majority rules in favor of the consensus model. I make a proposal to you now.

Quaker-based consensus is effective because it puts in place a simple, time-tested structure that moves a group towards unity. The Quaker model has been employed in a variety of secular settings.

The process allows hearing individual voices while providing a mechanism for dealing with disagreements.

The following aspects of the Quaker model can be effectively applied in any consensus decision-making process, and is an adaptation prepared by Earlham College, a Quaker college in Richmond, Indiana:

Multiple concerns and information are shared until the sense of the group is clear.

Discussion involves active listening and sharing information.

Norms limit number of times one asks to speak to ensure that each speaker is fully heard.

Ideas and solutions belong to the group; no names are recorded.

Ideally, differences are resolved by discussion. The facilitator ("clerk" or "convenor" in the Quaker model) identifies areas of agreement and names disagreements to push discussion deeper.

The facilitator articulates the sense of the discussion, asks if there are other concerns, and proposes a "minute" of the decision.

The group as a whole is responsible for the decision and the decision belongs to the group.

The facilitator can discern if one who is not uniting with the decision is acting without concern for the group or in selfish interest.

Ideally, all dissenters' perspectives are synthesized into the final outcome for a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Should some dissenter's perspective not harmonize with the others, that dissenter may "stand aside" to allow the group to proceed, or may opt to "block". "Standing aside" implies a certain form of silent consent. Some groups allow "blocking" by even a single individual to halt or postpone the entire process.
   
This is one model, but a more civilized approach, to these eyes. Majority-rules encourages foot-dragging and acrimony. If truly successful resolution of problems is what we seek, our system must be revamped entirely. As it stands now, it is all or nothing, and that has led to a whole lot of nothing.

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Dreams

One of my dreams for the past three years is to be published by The Sun Magazine. Like many publications, there is no style manual. One has to just figure out from observation and practice what the editor wants. I think I may have reached that apex, but that still doesn't mean how many hundreds of people are in the queue before me.

But they pay well. Extremely well, especially for fiction. When you don't need writing workshop anymore to motivate you, then you're halfway there.

The big project I mentioned a few days is speaking to an Anonymous member. As expected, he's been pretty cagey, unsure of our motives, slow to trust. I tracked him down this far and wish I could tell you more than that. It's a fascinating story. Now I just have to get him to tell him his. It's possible that he wants to be left alone, and not have this writer and local lawyer hot on his trails.

It's been a relatively mild summer, and this Alabama native is happy for the break. DC in August is notoriously dead, dating from an era before air conditioning where it was simply too hot to hang around and most people took vacations. The tourist season is largely over too, though I've learned how to avoid the big crowds. What mostly bother me are the perpetually high strung residents harboring notions of worst-case scenario.

I'm not the Type A sort. I have my times of fear and anxiety, but I try not to take myself too seriously. But everyone who lives here is competitive to the bone, especially the ones who deny it.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Apologies for the Delay



I'm working on a massive project that could be considered investigative journalism. A criminal defense lawyer has employed my services. I can say no more.

In other news, I've finished the "Dry Drunk" short story and have sent it along to eight publications. at this rate, I probably have 2 in 10 odds of being published. This one turned out to run 5,000 words, which is unusually long for me. I decided to scramble the order of the finished draft, just to do something novel. There are three submissions in addition that can be submitted, but not until September.

The last winning story, which received Honorable Mention, had to be submitted 100 times before one of them won accolades. This is why I know how difficult it can be. As it turns out, my creative writing CV has currently four substantive columns included. One never knows how to define quality. What I consider my best work of all has been rejected at least 60 times, enough so that I have put it on the shelf for the duration. Should I be published, it might be ready to be read.

I found a new Quaker Meeting, one that seems to be highly functional and friendly. I am one of the youngest there, as I knew I would be, but that scarcely matters. Compared to what I came through, I'd take almost anything if it was cheerful.

Sunday, August 02, 2015

Quote of the Week



"The relations between parents and children are certainly not only those of constraint. There is spontaneous mutual affection, which from the first prompts the child to acts of generosity and even of self-sacrifice, to very touching demonstrations which are in no way prescribed. And here no doubt is the starting point for that morality of good which we shall see developing alongside of the morality of right or duty, and which in some persons completely replaces it."-Jean Piaget

Saturday, August 01, 2015

Saturday Video



Follow me into the desert
As thirsty as you are
Crack a smile and cut your mouth
And drown in alcohol

'Cause down below the truth is lying
Beneath the riverbed
So quench yourself and drink the water
That flows below her head

Oh no there she goes
Out in the sunshine the sun is mine

I shot my love today would you cry for me?
I lost my head again would you lie for me?
I left her in the sand just a burden in my hand?
I lost my head again would you cry for me?

Close your eyes and bow your head
I need a little sympathy
'Cause fear is strong and love's for everyone
Who isn't me

So kill your health and kill yourself
And kill everything you love
And if you live you can fall to pieces
And suffer with my ghost

Just a burden in my hand
Just an anchor on my heart
Just a tumor in my head
And I'm in the dark

So follow me into the desert
As desperate as you are
Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
And all the little pigs have God

Friday, July 31, 2015

New Life



You may recall a couple of weeks ago I bowed out graciously from my legal action in which I sued my Monthly Meeting. It seems that careful study on my own behalf has opened up a new option. It's called Small Claims Court. But like Pharaoh from Old Testament days, I am potentially being stonewalled by those opposing me, thought this does not deter my courage or my decision to see the matter until there are no matters remaining.

A few situations need to be explained. And I will define them to you as I did the five people being sued on Healing and Reconciliation addition to the clerk of the Meeting. Being that I am my own counsel for the duration, meaning I need to be my own lawyer, mostly because pro bono work for civil trials is almost impossible to find, I want to get across a few salient points. And because I was given permission by their counsel to speak to them truthfully, I speak my mind freely.

This legal action was never about money. Regardless of what some may have thought, I did not see myself as some cheap extortionist using fear to accomplish my aims. I much preferred the idea of a letter of apology given to me freely. That seemed the fairest way for both parties to get some of what they needed, to put together the best and fairest form of Quaker process, compromise. Though it has been rejected twice, the offer stands on the table.

We are headed for a period of small claims litigation, our final stop. Though I can ask for up to $5000 in retribution, I will ask for no more than $20. However if their counsel wishes to structure their defense as such, small claims is a smaller version of a full trial, without the immense expense and simplified for those like me like me who might need to serve as their own counsel. What monetary gains they might get, split five ways, will be minuscule, should they lose, and the same will be the case should I win.

I know their lawyer is working pro bono, but it is customary for him to take his cut of the gains, and he may find himself receiving little more than the price of a lottery ticket. He seems to be a principled person, but he still has to pay his side's court costs, which are somewhere around $300-$500 pre-trial and perhaps even to subpoena an uncooperative witnesses or two, which could cost as much as $50 a head. But with so little at stake, is there much difference between winning and losing?

Because my income is substantially less, I can get most of my court costs waived if I speak to the judge first. At minimum, he and I may be wasting a day of our time, walking from department to department, and his counsel for the trial and I might waste another jumping through all the hoops and filing the paperwork. A I mentioned above, I will probably need to pay to represent myself, which I am prepared to do. I may also need to pay $75 for a jury trial, which I am also prepared to do.

I urge the committee again, plus the clerk of the committee, to consider mediation. I would be satisfied with a letter of apology, then to be done with what has dragged on to over two months. I have made my intentions plain by filing suit and by leaving my former Monthly Meeting. I sent their counsel half of the medical paperwork that has recently taken place in my life. I wonder if they received it?

Though I do not obviously have the sworn testimony of a doctor or medical expert attached (though it could be easily produced), the evidence is powerful and strong on its own merits. I have had four surgeries in five years, plus developed five new chronic illnesses in four years. Whether you believe that correlates to your own observation, it's quite feasible to make a case for myself.

Court, even for one day, is a hassle for everyone. Having to plow through the evidence once more will be emotionally exhausting. And, be it known, I never sought to force my former Meeting to pay my medical bills. While my prior counsel did informally assess my medical bills at $50K, many people don't realize how expensive surgery and hospitalization are. The cheapest surgery I have ever had was $14K. The last hospital stay cost $12K a day. Out of pocket, for this year alone, my prescription drug bills have been $8K. Honestly, if I were to demand a true claim, as I was considering prior to full trial, I would ask for $100K-$150K.

I'm not asking for much. Perhaps a compromise is possible. Whether you believe it or not, I honestly believe seven years of living in the company of my former Meeting created many health problems. My therapist believes that I was re-traumatizing myself and encouraged me to leave long before I did. I have felt more at peace since I left two months ago and I do not regret my decision. The legal system is a blunt instrument, and I know that now. I may have needed to learn it for myself. The reasons I left need no further retelling, except, perhaps, at court. I do not wish any of you ill and never did.

Talk among yourself and, I urge you, please work out a settlement both parties are satisfied with at the end. I do not wish to become the sort of man with a grudge and manifesto who passes out mimeographed pamphlets to disinterested people at rail stations. When I share this continuing story with you, it is merely to educate those who want to know how litigation proceeds within Quaker settings. I have changed since my first post. I am no longer angry.  

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Religious Ideal



If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Matthew 10:14

God never promises the perfect house of worship, city, and demographic makeup. Our own founder, George Fox, wandered for years in eternal search for those very things. My father's mother, the daughter of a Pentecostal minister, dragged my father from one preacher to another, hoping to find a cure for her numerous chronic illnesses. And yet her faith never wavered, though I would question the tactics employed by those who claimed to heal with Jesus' steady hand.

I had dreams, too. I wanted to be a trusted elder, in the best sense of the word. I wanted to see a generation of children born, reared, sent off to college, and hopefully to return when it came their time to be mothers and fathers. I wanted to be weighty in the best sense of the word, too, a person whose opinion could be trusted, whose wisdom was impeccable.

My dream is the dream of many. One of my Friends wishes she could live in a tight-knit Friends community roughly 200 years ago, a place where every child was known by name, as was every adult Friend. And here we could be peculiar together. Here we could be plain together. Here it didn't matter that we stuck out to the outside world.

What is your religious ideal? Have you experienced it in your own life? If you have, you've been extremely fortunate. Most people I've talked to have experienced times of great discord within their own Meeting, no matter how small, no matter how large. It might be foolish to believe in this ideal, and yet we yearn for it. For a while, we see it, we fall in love with our Meetings, just as much as we would another human. But within a year or two, the honeymoon is over and everything has cracks in it, cracks large enough to peer through. And the most ambitious of the reformers begin work there. Some succeed. Many fail.

In my own life, it's a matter of proportion. Like plants, those plants that flower beautifully must be able to choke out, or at least rescind the growth of the weeds. I believe what all know what weeds are. And without a spade or hoe or shovel, and, even more crucially, the willingness to use them, weeds take root very easily. There was a time we tended our gardens. But then we confused flowering plants with blight, and our numbers shrank.

So we over-corrected. We pretty much let anyone join and instead of ripping the roots out as needed and pruning, we let them grow wherever they wanted to grow. And others came, infested with weeds. These were allowed to stay as they were. And eventually, there were more weeds than there were healthy plants. But an army of weeds can overrule the robust plants, and so they did. We were no longer a healthy garden.

And this is a familiar story I hear from Friend to Friend, though perhaps not in those exact words. And reformers who fight weeds take aim against an uphill battle, seeking to undo the permissiveness that we created for reading out Friends for not marrying other Quakers or bidding farewell to those if they fought in the Civil War. We created both problems, which has complicated efforts of those who fight today to make changes.

This might not be a very popular sentiment, but I think that sometimes things either are or are not. I don't mean gay marriage or Republicans versus Democrats. I couldn't care less about political or ideological issues in a religious context. To me, these are secondary issues. Instead, I care about the fate of the Religious Society of Friends, and being afraid of exclusionary policies to the point of paralysis is one such issue. I'm bisexual. There, I said it. Should I be not allowed in Worship? Of course not. But tolerating any people who are the weeds in our garden, the toxic ones, they should be eldered (gently, with civility and love), and if they don't respond, they need to go.

Some years ago I was clerk of Ministry and Worship. A man was sharing too frequently during Meeting for Worship. Devising a way of confronting him was difficult. He didn't join a committee and never went downstairs for coffee. So I sat next to him and when it came time for shaking hands, I asked him if we could briefly step outside.

He agreed.

"Friend," I said. "Would you please consider spacing out your vocal ministry? What if you spoke only every other week, not every single week?"

He got nasty nice at me. He asked me under what authority I spoke. I identified the committee to which I belonged. Then he accused me of being the Meeting police, got huffy, left, and never returned.

That was never my intention. But when we do not tend our garden, weeds feel entitled to be there. He felt entitled to be heard, week in and week out. But weeds do not intend to beautify their surroundings. They are there for their own reasons.

Too many Meetings are full of weeds. They discourage flowering plants or force the genuine article to the side, away from the action. They make committee service a chore, rather than a pleasure. This is to say that every Meeting has its share of weeds. But when the healthy flowering plants are in control, so too is God's hand at work. God's purpose for our lives is at work in those situations.

Don't worry that a garden spade is a weapon. Don't confuse pacifism with passivism. Any garden needs pruning now and again. On work day, consider bringing your own tools, the ones that exist between your ears. If you don't do it, no one else will. No one's asking you to be a Southern Baptist. We deserve nothing less than our Religious Ideal.

Sunday, July 26, 2015

When Stalking Laws Fall Short



Editor's Note:

One day early. I lied.

__________

Stalking has been a pertinent, highly publicized concern for women at least for the last twenty years. It has become many woman's personal nightmare, and paired with sexual assault, women's rights activists have pressed for legislation to strongly address it. It needs to be addressed, yet we lament a woman's very right to live in peace, one that could be under threat by deficient legal language, especially one not written for the internet age, but there is a problematic wrinkle to several particular pieces (and very crucial) legislation that already exists. The current statues are too clever by half.

Much like the phrase "rape", "stalking" is a loaded term that retains its ability to shock. One of the strongest anti-stalking law exists in the District of Columbia. It criminalizes any repeated communication to or about anyone, assuming a person you knew or even should have known would cause them to suffer emotional distress. Sometimes a scalpel can be used in place of an ax. This particular statue and what it legislates are often never cited when topics of this nature are brought in for the discussion.

D.C. Attorney GT Hunt, lawyer for three clients to follow, summarizes the legal situation like this.

Who could possibly oppose an anti-stalking law? Certainly not an elected official. The voting public is well-acquainted with stories of persons, usually women, who live in terror because someone, usually an ex-spouse or a rejected lover, is stalking them.

Often we learn of the stalking only after the victim has been murdered or seriously harmed. The stories fascinate, and are often terrifying, tragic, and outrageous. So every jurisdiction in the country has passed an anti-stalking law in the last two decades, and few officials or commentators have raised questions about their wisdom. But perhaps they should.
22 DC Code 3133(a)(3)(C) has been used to convict even polite, genial men who know better than to refuse to disregard boundaries. It has been used to convict an eccentric, but perfectly harmless man who left a series of polite messages for a D.C. Council employee, messages inviting her for lunch or coffee. It was also used as well to prosecute an ex-Scientologist activist involved in the Anonymous movement, a man who peacefully and consistently picketed their headquarters on 16th Street NW.

While motivated by good intentions, as Mr. Hunt suggests himself, I’m not happy with the notion that it’s a crime to ever hurt anyone’s feelings. This country was founded on the right to free speech and hurt many peoples' feelings. They called it the Declaration of Independence.

Passed into law in 2010, statue § 22–3133 refers specifically to Stalking. While some aspects of the law are clear, many others show some grey area. Emotional distress is a particularly difficult charge to make in court. Others are more cut and dry, but certain sections depend entirely upon interpretation. This is often what happens when we think that legislation is absolutely essential and called for by a clamorous public demanding judicial retribution. What this statute sought to protect was noble, but on at least two occasions, an overzealous interpretation completely missed the intent of the law. A difference exists between annoyance and fear. The statute confuses the two completely.

The Church of Scientology in Washington, DC, located at 16th Street NW, used this law to prosecute a particular zealous protester, anonsparrow1 AKA Brian Mandingo, who is one of the members of the Anonymous collective. Peaceful protest is freedom of speech held under the Constitution, and not meant to, in effect, stalk those who have a right to express their opinion. Fortunately, the judge threw out the charges against anonsparrow1, but a jury trial would have convicted him under this DC statue.

Charges filed against Jeffery Davis, also of the District of Columbia, are closer to the statue's original intent. Mr. Davis made five polite inquires, asking if a young District Columbia Council would have coffee with him. His first attempt was unsuccessful, though cordial, as all subsequent correspondences were. Later attempts were reported as stalking, though it should be noted that Mr. Davis was consistently pleasant in his persistence.

He was eventually arrested and tried under §§ 22–3133, the defendant stating that the young worker feared for her safety. This was not the judgment of the justice of the peace assigned to the case, who retained an audio copy of every inquiry Davis made towards her.

To say again, in both of these cases, as in the case made by our founding fathers to create this nation, it has never been against the law to hurt someone's feelings. While well-intentioned, § 22–3133, extremism in defense of liberty is indeed a great vice. At no point is the Violence Against Women legislation part of an anti-stalking piece of legislation. Instead, the stalking bill is a popular reform tacked on to pending legislation that upon further glance seems to legislate very little with a modicum of only a few words.

Read it for yourself.

(a) It is unlawful for a person to purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual:
(1) With the intent to cause that individual to:
(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;
(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or
(C) Suffer emotional distress;
(2) That the person knows would cause that individual reasonably to:
(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;
(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or
(C) Suffer emotional distress; or
(3) That the person should have known would cause a reasonable person in the individual's circumstances to:
(A) Fear for his or her safety or the safety of another person;
(B) Feel seriously alarmed, disturbed, or frightened; or
(C) Suffer emotional distress.
(b) This section does not apply to constitutionally protected activity.
(c) Where a single act is of a continuing nature, each 24-hour period constitutes a separate occasion.
(d) The conduct on each of the occasions need not be the same as it is on the other


We live in a climate saturated by fear. Cable networks peddle it. And then there are the violent movies and video games which we watch and our children watch. It doesn't take much of either men or women to constantly fear for their personal safety, to say nothing of the legitimate fears women have always faced. And while I'll admit that the rates of violence against women are certainly much too high, flawed statutes like these only cause resentment and defiance, perhaps even non-compliance.

Indeed, I am under the cross-hairs myself for being no one but me. I'm a large man, of a large build, with an intense personality. In these irrational times, someone might well accuse me, baselessly, with their own honest fear, of being the next workplace shooter. This is a reality I must face, as I attempt to smile more and be more jovial, when neither are my natural state of affairs. Fear often affects only the person who is said to be blamed.

And it should be emphasized as Robert Frost wrote in "Mending Wall", Before I built a wall I’d ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out/And to whom I was like to give offense.

Quote of the Week



"You can't make poetry simply by avoiding cliché- Theodore Roethke

Saturday, July 25, 2015

Saturday Video



Ain't got no home, ain't got no shoes
Ain't got no money, ain't got no class
Ain't got no skirts, ain't got no sweater
Ain't got no perfume, ain't got no beer
Ain't got no man

Ain't got no mother, ain't got no culture
Ain't got no friends, ain't got no schooling
Ain't got no love, ain't got no name
Ain't got no ticket, ain't got no token
Ain't got no God

Well what have I got?
Why am I alive anyway?
Yeah, what have I Got?
Nobody can take away

Got my hair, Got my head
Got my brains, Got my ears
Got my eyes, Got my nose
Got my mouth, I got my smile
I got my tongue, Got my chin
Got my neck, Got my boobs

Got my heart, Got my soul
Got my back, I got my sex
I got my arms, Got my hands
Got my fingers, Got my legs
Got my feet, Got my toes
Got my liver, Got my blood

I've got life, I've got my freedom
I've got life, I've got my life

And I'm gonna keep it
I've got my life
And nobody's gonna take it away
I've got my life

Friday, July 24, 2015

Something Big for Monday

The hospitalization threw me completely off, and has left me unable to read for long stretches of time. But I haven't lost my ability to write and am working on something massive for Monday. Thanks for being patient. Saturday Video and Quote of the Week will be posted, as always.