From Atop A Coal-Fueled Carriage

Pulling out from an agreement

Makes us strong, put America first, he says.

How does reneging on promises, putting us first on the bottom, help us in any way?

“The Deal Maker” backing out of deals we create,

Doing no part in the Agreement the U.S helped make

Three countries not partaking

Syria only because of internal war making

Nicaragua wanted stricter enforcements

We, by choice and choice alone, pull out of the Agreement.

Because Trump treats the country like his marriage,

Disregarding his monogamous vows, grabbing whatever pussy he wants from atop a coal-fueled carriage.


Dear Deplorables: “Make America Great Again”

Dear Deplorables,

I still can’t wrap my head around what you were thinking.

You voted on the promise of “Make America Great Again.”

Deportations, children of immigrants being bullied by students, and harassed by cops, people wanting to flee the country, rejecting the the poor and their health,

Making it impossible for international businesses to hold meetings, making it harder for corporations to do business abroad with the U.S, backing out of agreements the United States made in the first place, making it impossible for our allies to trust us.

You voted on the promise of “Make America Great Again.”

Not only have you done just the reverse, but you’ve made it so it will never be great again within our lifetimes.

“‘Support’ Our Troops”

They say “Support Our Troops”
By sending them off to hurt and be hurt
In the violent, scorching rhytm of the desert
Where they shoot and maim and kill, and other atrocities better left unspoken
Citizens slaughtered, hospitals bombed, collateral damage, all considered a just token.
For them to come home beaten, damaged, broken.
The VA offers some benefits, true,
But what’s that worth when every day, their numbers decrease by 22?
With every slain troop
Replaced by another teenaged recruit
To fight in the desert for another 10 years (or more)
They say ‘Support Our Troops’
They mean ‘Support Our War.’

The Fault in Our Republicans

Something a bit different today.

The above clip is from an interview with Bill Moyers of political author Jonathan Haidt. In it, he talks about how Liberals value ‘care’ while Republicans value ‘fairness.’ That Republicans want to live in a world here karma functions.

It didn’t occur to me until quite recently that is basically the root cause of so many problems with the Republican platform, and their usually unkind attitude towards civil rights.
These are comments by a Congressional Republican on the new Healthcare bill that passed the House. Basically as I understand it, from his perspective, the bill is trying to make it easier on taxes for people who live healthy lives. Which leaves out that from the bill makes it harder for people who have preexisting conditions to get guaranteed coverage, whether it’s their own fault or not. This has been a point of contention with healthcare in the Republican party for a long time now.
I finally connected this train of thought to the above clip by Jonathan Haidt, in a video that I was … subjected to twice in my government class. In it, Haidt talks about the five moral pillars of liberal and conservative ideology. In the video he says, essentially, that conservatives, basically, want to live in a world that’s fair, a world in which karma functions, and I realized that this drive is basically the root of all the problems with the Republican Party that allows to excuse, brush off, downplay or outright ignore a variety of injustices and inequality.
They want to live in a world where karma functions, where good things happen to good people who do good things, and bad things happen to bad who do bad things, and that good people don’t suffer for no reason, they if they’re suffering, they must have done … something to deserve it, right? Like, they don’t know what they did, but it’s got to be something, doesn’t it?
And here is where the problem comes in; they act and pass legislation as if they do live in that world. and they’ll make whatever conclusions they have to, or ignore whatever complaints in order to keep up that illusion. They’ll insist if a cop shot a black person, the black person probably did something to deserve it. They’ll insist that there’s nothing with a bill that restricts who can use which bathroom, or with allowing certain institutions to refuse service to gay couples, or that there’s a wage gap between sex and race, and they’ll turn a blind eye to all of this and other things. Corporations doing unethical things in the name of profit? Well, surely the hand of God will come and make sure they go bankrupt, right? Right? Somebody has a paying job but is still poor? Well, they must be spiritually bankrupt, and that’s why they can’t make enough money to get over the poverty line.
The conservatives both in and out of government frequently resist, and want to repeal legislation having to do with granting civil rights. Things like the Equality Act and the Equal Rights Amendment. They refuse to pass these things, and when they do pass, they work to get them repealed, as a form of denial. Because having these kind of bills passed, having them exist means admitting that people are treated unfairly on the basis of their sex, color, creed, or orientation.
The conservatives hate to acknowledge these things, because to acknowledge would be to admit that there is discrimination, that there is inequality, that someone can be live a good, moral life and still end up below the poverty line, that sometimes, innocent black men are shot because a police officer has a bias towards racial stereotypes, that sometimes women are paid dimes on the dollar in their paychecks compared to men …
Admitting all these things exist would be to admit that we live in a world in which karma … does … not … function. And that is a thought that is too terrifying for them to entertain the idea of, even for a second.
But, as I’m sure several of you can attest, this ideal world where karma functions, that world where life is fair …
We don’t live in that world.
What do you guys think? I’d love to hear a discussion about this.

“Say No”

There she sat at the hearing, being dragged through coals that had long since burnt out, and they were merely pulling her body through cold rocks.
She glared at the Senator from over her bench, as he berated and confided he felt betrayed, enormously disappointed for having voted for her. Disappointed that she didn’t lie down and obey the men like a good girl. Disappointed that she did her job.
Twisting her words, misquoting her to support his own interpretation. Of course, she couldn’t say it was surprising. He seemed to have trouble, like most of his party, distinguishing the difference ‘lawful’ and ‘truthful’. One did not always correlate to the other.
He couldn’t know what it was like to be her. To have every word dissected for a possible double meaning to undermine her whole point. He could get away with misrepresentations, misquotes, and falsehoods because no one would pounce on it to accuse him of being a lying bitch. He couldn’t know what it was like to suffer consequences, as he was re-elected year after despite the many falsehoods he repeated for him and his party. And he was talking about the order in a hearing that was supposed to be about possible collusion, insisting she had said it was lawful, when she never said that and never would – he pretended he did to support his own version of events, because that what was his kind always did, and always been allowed to get away with. Because he could get with the complete lack of integrity, of moral fiber, to not care about anything as long as he got his paycheck from his corporate sponsors and didn’t lose his seat no matter how many votes they were against him.
He didn’t know the risk of being fired because he told someone ‘no.’ He would be in a position where an order would come down from on high that tested her skills and knowledge of the law, and she would stand her ground and say ‘no, this is not lawful’ to a spoiled rich brat who wasn’t used to hearing the word no, as if was completely erased from his vocabulary, so he had no idea what to do other than fire anyone who said to him – especially if that someone was a woman. As bad as the President was at taking no for answer, he was twice at bad at taking it from a woman. So was the Senator, come to think of it, given the pointless grilling he was subjecting her to was the result of her saying no.
He had asked her a question, 27 years ago, about what she would do if the President asked her to do something was unlawful, unconstitutional, or reflected poorly, and she told him, him and his fellows, that she wouldn’t go through with it, and she would oppose the President and refuse to follow orders that clearly violated the law.
Now she understood something about that question she hadn’t before. His question was not “If the President asked you to do something unlawful, or unconstitutional, or even would just reflect poorly, would she say no?”
But that wasn’t the whole question. The whole question he meant to ask her was,
“Would you say no, unless a powerful man who I respect more than you on the basis of party lines and what’s between his legs, told you otherwise?”
“Would you say no solely on the basic of its lawfulness, and not as a political policy matter, unless I happened to like that policy?”
“Would you say no, as long as it’s not an inconvenience to me?”
“Would you say no, as long it doesn’t get in the way of me or party’s agenda?”
And the answer to all of these questions, these subsets, clauses, and corollaries was all No. She wouldn’t roll over for any of these things.
Because unlike him, she was willing to risk losing her position in the hierarchy for putting truth and lawfulness over her personal agenda and feelings. Unlike him, she was willing to say no to a man who could benefit her personally if she would just do things his way. Unlike him, she was willing and able to be a check on the President.
But unlike him most of all, she actually did her job.
And she was fired for it, for being a woman who said no.
Inspired by the recent hearing with Sally Yates.

How Dare You

The American Healthcare Act is a question. A simple question, given legislative form.

That question is ‘how dare you.’

How dare you be a victim of rape.

How dare you be neurodivergent.

How dare you live after a car wreck.

How dare you live after being attacked.

How dare you live after a serious illness.

How dare you not have a fully working body and therefore be unable to contribute to society with manual labor?

How dare you have an abortion.

How dare you be trans.


How dare you exist?

How dare you.


The Inaugural Post

Helloooo, world!

As a self-published author, in order to be successful, I need to maintain an active online presence. My hope by starting this blog is to do just that.

I’m still settling in and getting used to this sort of online marketing and engagement after a long period of being a social media averse recluse, so bear with me if things here are a little wonky for the first few months. Over time, I will upload videos here, make announcements about new books and content, share some writing advice I’ve picked up over the years, and answer questions! So feel free to leave a comment below and get a discussion going. I look forward to hearing from you!

Fair warning, though: I am also a very liberal activist-in-training, so don’t be surprised I post something political. One might ask ‘wouldn’t it better to keep your politics and your writing separate to avoid alienating a potential audience?” which is a reasonable question, to which I counter: have you read Tolkien? Or Shakespeare or even Moliere? Writing is one of the most political things of all, just below politics itself.