Still writing

So writing's been going slow. The reason, I think, is I've been taking the unreasonably hard route. This is a common theme for me. I do everything the hard way. It's usually because I need to challenge myself. This is something I do with school projects as well. I tackle really hard problems or issues that sometimes goes over the heads of my professors who give me a B, then someone who does a brain numbingly easy project skates by with an A just because they colored within the lines.

I'm pretty excited about this project. I've been working on it for a really long time now... since 1998. I took a business calculus class then, and while bored out of my mind, I began sketching out notes for this universe. A good vs evil story is too over done. Also, dragons and elves in fantasy is about as fresh and original as a vampire story. Not saying that a story needs to be original to be good. Just saying that I don't like coloring within the lines.

The other thing I really like is hard fantasy. This is a really rare and unusual combination. Some might even say an oxymoron. Basically, it means you still have fantasy elements: be it unicorns, dragons, vampires, or magic, but you give a scientific explanation for it. It's not that fantasy writers are incapable of doing so. It's that few feel the need to do so. Really, what weirdo watched Lord of the Rings and said, "Hold on a second, there's no such things as hobbits," and walked out of the theater? No one cares if it makes sense. The story and the characters is what sells it. But I like hard fantasy anyways. Here's why.

I think giving the reader a feeling like the world you create has more impact if it's plausible. I used to play dungeons and dragons a lot as a kid. I know. You're shocked. But when I was the dungeon master, if I played strictly by the rules, my players would use those rules as a standardized tool kit to solve mysteries in the world. In other words, let's say there's a murder mystery. The victim was killed by lightning, indoors. That means it's not a druid(they can only cast lightning outside). It's not a cleric--they don't cast lightning at all. It's no other spell caster, but a magic user. The Lightning Bolt spell is from the school of Evocation. A Necromancer specialist doesn't have access to Evocation. So the players can use these clues to narrow down their suspects and unravel the mystery. Maybe, if they're really good and one of them knows an awful lot about magic, they can judge the power of the spell by examining clues and find out if the killer is a lackey or something more dangerous.

Now other DMs might think, "The rules are too restricting. They hamper my creativity." And I watch these DMs work, and when they give tasks to their players to solve, the players try a few things then give up. Why do they give up? Because since the DM doesn't play by the rules, they cannot use the rules as a toolkit to narrow down leads, so in a sense, they're wasting their time even trying. The world now has no structure and no meaning. It would be like an episode of CSI where DNA evidence, finger prints, etc, are never completely reliable. After a while, you'd just give up.

So, I've tried to make a world that's physically plausible. The "planet" itself is a flat world where the sun rises and sets in the same place. Ok, so that's a challenge. A number of things wrong here. If the earth was flat, gravity would cause us to all slide towards the middle, just as our round earth pulls us to the center now. But a flat planet is plausible if the people live on one side, and on the other, a distance away, is an object of incredible mass. The flat planet essentially becomes a shelf keeping us from falling into the massive object on the otherside. But what keeps the shelf from falling?

What keeps the earth from colliding into the sun? After all, the sun does pull us towards it. What pulls us away? You've probably heard about centrifugal force. It's that thing that keeps water in a bucket, even when you spin it upside down. So at the same time the earth spins around the sun, causing the earth to want to fly off into outer space, the sun pulls the earth towards it due to gravity. The two forces exactly cancel each other out. Now before you think, "See? Only God could have reached such an amazing balancing act!" Keep in mind, this is the same thing humans have figured out how to do to keep satellites up in the sky by orbiting around the earth. If a satellite didn't spin around the earth, it would instantly start plummeting towards us. Sometimes satellites do come crashing down. But the earth took billions of years to work out its balancing act. No doubt other planets weren't so lucky and crashed into our sun long before life started here. But I digress.

The sun rising and setting in the same place in my world is a hard system to explain, but I'm happy with how I have it. It has to do with the creation of the planet and the final mystery--and that, I'm keeping under wraps for now.

Ok, but on to what's been causing me the issue. I cut out 3 other main characters and just focused on one. She has a lot of crap to deal with, and she transforms throughout. It's a very emotional journey for her. I'm happy with her and the issues she faces. But I picked a really hard narration style to do this story in--Third Person Objective. It means the narrator is an objective reporter that only mentions what can be observed. No "In the character's heads" kinda stuff. So if a character is sad or angry, instead of saying so, I describe what the expressions look like and assume the reader knows those signs. It's basically like script writing. It works ok 80% of the time and allows the reader to be a more active participant, coloring in the story with their own interpretations along the way. Unfortunately, it's not a story open to a wide variety of interpretation, so readers keep coming up with weird conclusions that wreck the enjoyment of the story. I feel like I'm wasting too much time trying to micro manage details to shape reader perceptions of scenes.

This writer's group I'm in, I'm pretty happy with them, but they're just not feeling the impact from the story like I want them to. So I'm going to play around with it, and write with the exact opposite narration style--First Person Stream of Consciousness. Hell, I'm even putting it in present tense. It's similar to how people write blog style only for events happening in real time. In this blog, I'm assuming that I'm writing conversationally to another person. In this case, no one's actually reading this blog, but it does help me if I pretend like people are. Keeps me on my toes and in practice giving out as much information as possible with the least amount of words.

The narrator in the story is a little different. She's not assuming she's talking to another person, but rather trying to sort things out in her own mind for herself. Also, events interrupt her thoughts. I like this because Stream of Consciousness writing can fall into a trap of losing sense of time. Time is really important in fiction. I'll give you an example of writing that loses time:

"The detective scanned over the crime scene, her trained eyes soaking up every detail. Suddenly, she noticed something the other investigator missed. Is that a tiny spot of blood on the hallway? Would it match the killer's or the victim's? Carefully, she crept towards the spot and took a sample. Not a match to either. She shook her head at the lab results. An accomplice or an unknown, second victim?"

Wait, what the hell? What lab results? Is she still at the crime scene or is this several days later after a lab did a DNA test? You, as the reader, have no idea. What it is, is bad writing. If the problem instead is a lose sense of rhythm, then that can be equally jarring. Ok, more bad writing:

"The Space Commander looked over the palate of carbonite transductors in Storage Room 4. How many Nebulons could have been saved had only his crew been able to reach Orion IV and deliver these sooner?

It took three weeks for the Star Gazer to reach the jump point. Orion IV was now on screen. The Commander paced in front of his command chair. He rose his hand ready to give the order to plot course when the tactical office spoke. Nerubians. Not now!"

Ok, first off, he was in one room, then three weeks went by, I think, now he's on the bridge. I say "I think" because I don't know if the author's saying in the past it took three weeks and they're there now, or if he looked at the transwhattawhats and then it took three weeks. But even if we take this as sequential order, it's like the writer is yanking the reader through time. The pace is unpredictable and causes the reader to slow down and try and figure out what's going on. Any time the reader has to stop and go, "Ok, what's going on now?" it means reading your piece has become work.

Time cannot always flow at the same speed in writing. Characters sleep and do other uninteresting things that do not and should not be explained or detailed in real time all the time. But rhythm should still be predictable. What I like to do is pick real time scenes and use scene breaks to separate them.

Speaking of that, I should get back to it. Trying this new narration style, I should be able to crank through this faster and have a book with the emotional impact I was shooting for.

Dems: 1, Americans: 0

Well, the health care issue took a turn for the worst. Some people had thought that Obama would get how unpopular federal mandates are and reject this. I knew better, and I've posted as much. Obama is so convinced that Socialism is the way to go, that he thinks once Americans experience it, they will like it as much as he does. I don't fault him for this. I feel that conservativism is so good, most people will like it if they experienced it. Unfortunately, we keep getting Republicans that are not conservatives.

In terms of the game of politics, this was a good move for Obama. It gives him the ability to say he's actually accomplished something. And it gives him momentum. Of course, the health care bill isn't the end of the changes. It's going to get more and more radical as time goes on. They'll be tweeking it more until the Dems get voted out. What's somewhat unfortunate is that many of the Dems that voted for it, don't actually like it. They made a political gamble. That's pretty sad to think about it. I mean, this should be about what's best for the American people. But that's been lost. It's a game.

The Republicans are in a difficult bind here too. Though the overall bill is unpopular, many parts of it are well liked by most Americans, including Republicans. After all, the Republican health bill and Obama's did have some of the same goals. It reminds me of what happened during the Great Depression. FDR, who was also a Socialist, massively expanded government. The Reps ran against him, but supported many of the same ideas FDR was using to get us out of the Depression. The Reps had their hands tied. The "guy that got us into this mess," was Hoover. Hoover was a Republican who was not a Conservative. Hoover cut taxes, but didn't cut spending. In fact, Hoover greatly increased spending--Hoover Dam, for example. So despite actual real conservatives running against FDR, voters were still mad at Hoover (seeing all Republicans as all the same). And of course, FDR managed to stay in power, getting re-elected 4 times.

Fast forward to today, Bush cut taxes but didn't cut spending. Now people are mad at the Republicans and a socialist was able to get in the white house. Real conservatives are coming forward to oppose him. Will Newt Gengrich, Mike Huckabee, or Mit Romney be able to beat him in 2012? Or will we see more socialism until we're on the brink of collapse?

It's interesting that Dems often get unfairly labeled as "Tax and Spend Liberals," when there's a few republican presidents who've been spenders too like Hoover and Bush. The Rep and Dem labels, perhaps, aren't as important. Maybe we should be lumping people by conservative or liberal.

Now, I've been a Republican all my life. But if I saw a Conservative Democrat like JFK on the ballot against a Progressive Republican like Hoover... yeah, I think I'd have to go with the Conservative in that case.

Anyway, back to the health care thing. So Obama and the Dems gave the Congressional Budget Office a bunch of bad numbers and highly hypothetical cases and asked them to score it to see what the healthcare bill would cost. The CBO wasn't given the whole bill. That's too much to read. They were given "what the bill will do," crib notes. The Dems didn't like the answer, so they kept going back--not changing the bill each time, but changing the crib notes. Finally, they got an answer and now claim the bill will actually lower the national debt. Yeah. No one with a brain actually believes this. I highly doubt even Obama believes this claim. The CBO says the bill will cost almost a trillion dollars, but will save slightly more than it costs. Keep in mind, the Dems went to the CBO years back to get Medicare passed. The CBO scored what the bill would cost years later. The real numbers of what it really cost ended up being 13 times what the projected costs were.

Now, we spend 43 cents of every dollar paying off the national debt. Imagine it the Dems projections for the Healthcare bill is just as off from reality as it was for the Medicare bill. So instead of a trillion, the bill costs 13 times that. That would double our national debt.

So instead of paying 43% of tax dollars just paying off the debt, we'd be spending 86%. That would absolutely bankrupt this country. Now, of course even the Libs wouldn't want that to happen. So if they stayed in power, they'd have to do what Liberals always do when their grand utopia ideas end up not working in the real world--massively raise taxes, massively cut services, or commit genocide(as the most infamous of Communist / Fascist leaders have done).

Obviously, I don't think we're going to be committing genocide in this country(again). So where does that leave us? Let's look at a Conservative approach instead. Cut spending by a lot. Before FDR, federal taxes were around 5%. Now they're around 35%. 7 times more taxes, government spending has gone up more than 7 times. Here's what I think. Massively cut government spending by privatizing schools, medicare, and social security. Eliminate the Post Office too.

Elementary schools get paid money based on performance and attendance. Parents can choose which schools to send their kids to(it's free to them), so those schools had better make those parents happy if they want government money. Schools might even advertise on tv to attract more numbers. Imagine that. Opening up a well run school would even be profitable by the educators who were really good at it. Keep in mind, good neighborhood or bad wouldn't matter. The money comes from the government--not the community. This is important because a lot of intelligent, talented kids grow up in bad neighborhoods with little to no opportunity to escape poverty. This is why African Americans are disproportionately represented in sports, dance, and music. Not because they're not smart enough to be physicists and doctors--but because they either don't have the opportunity, or have lost hope to try, so they feel basketball and rapping is their only option.

Statistics now say that most newborns in this country are not white. This means if half our population will grow up feeling discriminated against, we're throwing away half our leaders, scientists, teachers, innovators, etc. Think of what well funded schools in poor neighborhoods could do for this country 20 years from now.

With a richer, better educated nation, we wouldn't need socialized medicine because more Americans would be able to afford it on their own.

Summit, spelled S. E. T. U. P.

So I watched the seven hour long, televised Health Care Summit yesterday. I actually thought it was fairly interesting. Although I agree with Republicans(duh, I am one) there, I thought the Dems did a better job at framing their vision and scoring political points.

The health care bill is vastly unpopular, despite the fact that most Americans want reform and really like some elements in the bills being discussed. Democrat voters generally highly favor the bill and are deeply irritated at Democrats in office unable to use their majority to make it happen. So the Dems needed to accomplish a few things at this summit. They needed to paint Republicans as obstructionists while building a case for why their bill was needed.

Republicans, on the other hand, needed to portray themselves as defenders of the people's will in fighting against an unpopular bill, while suggesting a different approach that will bring down costs and not raise taxes.

Again, I think the Dems did a better job. I still don't agree with them, but they were really well prepared and the Republicans just didn't shine. I'll give you an example. The philosophical differences between the two approaches are massive. Obama's plan raises taxes, forces people to buy insurance or they go to jail, and makes no clear promises to keep rates from increasing. Not to mention, the Government Option, which might lower consumer costs, could be massively expensive if manages by the inefficiencies of government.

Republicans don't want to force people to buy anything. They aren't raising taxes. And would clearly cause rates to go down. The catch; The Republican plan isn't going to do much to provide insurance for more people, other than to bring down costs. And because of this, Dems reject it. I could argue that the bad economy is the cause for why many Americans *choose* not to have health care. right now they're choosing stuff like food and car payments over insurance. But fix the economy and many of them will get coverage again.

Now, with such huge differences, you might find it weird that the Dems kept saying how close both sides were to agreeing. This is a ploy. It's a "We've made so many compromises to Republicans. We're just an inch apart. All they have to do is budge just a little bit, and pure magic will fall from the skies and everyone gets free ice cream and ponies," gimmick, and Republicans just didn't stand against that tactic. They just let the Dems get away with doing it over and over.

Obama even slipped in a comment that hinted at, "I guess you Republicans just don't care about all the people that die each year because they can't get coverage." Again, I was pretty disappointed the Dems would just wail on Republicans like that, and Reps wouldn't stand up for themselves. If I was there, I'd point out that it's true Americans might like certain elements of the Dem's plan and would like to see everyone get coverage. Then they are presented with how much it's all going to cost, then they're not in favor. After all, a major contributing factor to people not having insurance is because they can't afford it--not because it's too expensive, but because the economy has left less money in people's pockets, and has forced insurance companies to raise premiums to account for less costumers. The *last* thing Obama should be doing is passing a health care bill that hurts the economy. Let's not forget too, the benefits on the Dem's plan don't kick in for a few years, though the taxes start immediately.

Obama made one really good point against the Republican's plans, one they didn't have a counter for. If insurance companies are allowed to sell across state lines, they will relocate to the state that has the least restrictions on them, and they be able to get away with more things. Of course, nothing is stopping them from doing this now--a point no Republican challenged him on.

But in all, I would have rather Obama been more objective as a moderator. Of course, then he ran the risk of looking weak. He's already suffered politically with the belief that he let Congress do all the heavy lifting, crafting the bill in the first place, so to let his colleagues make his arguments for him, might have made him look bad. Obama needs to make his base happy. Republicans and Conservatives aren't going to like him no matter what he does. That, I think, is unfortunate. Not that I think Obama should be liked(in terms of his politics). But it's a sad reality that no president will ever be able to unite the country. We will always be polarized.

I've been thinking a lot lately of what the US would be like if you did split the country in half. Let's say we make all the left wingers move to the left half and the right, to the right. That means I have to move from California to somewhere else. Now, let's say that people don't have to stay on their side after the move, but that if people do move, they can't run for elections--thus, the leadership on each side remains.

Several things would change. Though some things, like Social Security, that might not have come about by Conservatives without Liberals creating it, will probably persist in Conservative Land. But I would bet that rulings like Roe v Wade will be over turned. In Conservative Land, Creationism will be allowed to be taught in some schools--something I would be pretty unhappy about, but that's for another rant. The big war would be between Progressive Republicans and Conservatives, but without Dems to support them, the Progressives would fail to win elections. Welcome Citizen McCain--politician no more. Conservative Land would have low taxes. Public schools would be phased out for charter schools and private run schools. Parents would get vouchers, thus forcing schools to compete for federal money. Competition would drive up efficiency. The poor would get poorer because they would get left behind without government hand outs. The rich would get richer because they'd have less taxes and restrictions. The middle class still make up most the voters, so politicians would have to be able to keep them happy, so government benefits wouldn't go away for them.

Meanwhile in Liberal Land, the country moves towards Socialized Medicine. Everyone is covered. Welfare is expanded. The poor and hungry are taken care of. Taxes sky rocket, especially for the rich, and executive salaries are capped. (sounds crazy, but Obama has been pushing for that--if you don't know that, you're not paying attention to the news.) Banks are already partially owned by the Government--that increases. GM Autos isn't the only large manufacturing company that gets bought out by the government when it fails. The Gov buys out more companies as they fail. Liberal Land has now passed every single definition of the word "Socialism"--something the US is already close to now.

Ok, what's inevitable? Well, the rich people in Liberal Land look at how awesome life is like for rich people in Conservative Land so they move there. Poor people in Conservative Land are jealous of how well poor people in Liberal Land have it, so they move. Now you have the rich and educated moving to Conservative Land, and the poor moving to Liberal Land.

Liberals, using rich tax payers as ATMs, are having a harder time doing that. This is compounded by the huge migration of the poor and uneducated that need more benefits. The economy is booming in Conservative Land, but Liberal Land is a different story. They are forced to do one of the things that every Liberal, big government has had to do through history. Russia built a wall to keep people in and committed genocide against the poor. Nazi Germany committed genocide. Communist China committed genocide at first, and slowly moved to Capitalism / Conservativism. Socialist South American countries commit genocide and wallow in poverty anyways. You get the picture.

Pure Capitalist countries haven't always fared well either. Someone might ask why Conservative Land doesn't fall back to Feudalism. We've seen many cases of countries with massive divides between rich and poor due to Conservative. This is true, but all of those situations lacked democracy. Democracy is the key.

In either case, we can see that my hypothesis isn't so far off. I live in California which is swimming in Liberalism. Despite having massive advantages over other states in terms of resources--farmland, ample port access, and huge population of skilled workers, we lag behind many other states. Oppressive taxes force businesses to often look elsewhere. Obsessions with making teachers unions happy and promising teachers job security without any incentive to be good at teaching or anything, coupled with massive salaries to super intendants and other school executives, which as far as I can see, don't actually do anything, makes California's school system one of the most expensive per student of any system in the world, and yet is dead last in terms of results among industrialized nations. Y'all know that? We're dead last. Most expensive. Worst results. Now you can see why Liberals piss me off so much.

Remember that special election Gov Schwarzenegger held to try and cut out all the crap we waste our money on? All the unions that get rich off tax payers blanketed the air with negative campaign adds and all the stuff that would have fixed the mess we're in got defeated. So now we're stuck with one of the worst economies California has ever seen. We're in a lot worse shape than the rest of the country.

Well, if I really had my way, we'd ship all the Liberals off to Europe where they can have all the socialism they want. The US is the country we are now because of Conservatism.