Militia Madness

I caught an interview with the Randall Stone, brother of Hutaree leader David Stone, on CNN yesterday. Apparently, the problem with David (according to his bro) is that he doesn't understand the Antichrist or the end of days correctly. And he just joined the wrong militia. Yikes. Here's a bit of the transcript.

ROBERTS: Well, let me ask you this question, if I could, Randall. And maybe you can shed some light on all of this.

What were your brother's religious beliefs? And what about this battle against the Antichrist that he details quite plainly on the Hutaree's Web site?

STONE: Yes.

I have tried to talk to him about that. What his Web site stands for is not about Jesus Christ, that his opinion of the Antichrist and my opinion of the Antichrist is totally different.

ROBERTS: Mm-hmm.

STONE: You know, sure, he is going to be a political figure, but you're not going to be able to take him out. For one, the false prophet's got to come into play.

ROBERTS: Right. Right.

STONE: So, the Antichrist can't do anything on his own.

ROBERTS: Well, was he a real end-of-days follower, as far as you know?

STONE: He never was growing up. I was always the one.

Now, a long time ago, dad was a preacher, and we went around to different churches.

ROBERTS: Right.

STONE: So, we wasn't one denomination or one certain religion. And we were taught that it's not about religion; it's about a relationship.

ROBERTS: Right. Right. But did he ever talk to you about the coming Armageddon and what he thought his role would be in that?

STONE: No, no. We never -- we never really discussed that.

ROBERTS: All right.

Well, Randall Stone, the brother of David Stone Jr., thanks for joining us tonight. Really appreciate your time, sir.

STONE: Well, I did want to mention one thing to you, though.

ROBERTS: Yes, go ahead.

STONE: Well, you know, all this talk about the militias and all this talk about what they stand for, you remember Paul Revere, right?

ROBERTS: Of course. Everybody remembers Paul Revere.

STONE: OK. Yes, Paul Revere had a purpose in life. And that one day proved to be a major turning point in America, whenever he was warning the militia people to get ready.

Now, that's -- you know, I don't know why my brother didn't involve himself in a militia that stood for something and had some values and beliefs.

And then there was Letterman (great interview) last night, where the sweet tea party lady from Idaho alleged an Obama birth certificate cover-up.

One of my few remaining conservative friends think the socialist left is driving this country toward a cliff. I'd be more concerned about the rabid dinosaur with claws like AK-47's coming up behind us.

The Real Message of Massachusetts

I have been arguing all week that the common interpretation of the Massachusetts election results -- that it was a rebuff of the Obama administration's policies leaning too hard to the left on healthcare -- is exactly incorrect. And today a poll was released that backs me up. From Boldprogressive.org:

We wanted to make sure you saw the Massachusetts Research 2000 poll, reported on by the Wall Street Journal, NBC, Politico, Huffington Post, TPM, and others. It polled critical 2010 swing voters: the 18% of Obama voters who returned to the polls and voted for Republican Scott Brown. On health care, they oppose the Senate bill because it "doesn't go far enough" and a whopping 82% support the public option. On the economy, by 2 to 1 they think Democrats have put special interests ahead of folks like them -- and by large margins think stronger regulation of Wall Street is more important than cutting spending. And 57% say Democrats are not "delivering enough on the change Obama promised."

A separate national poll suggests that both Medicare buy-in and the Public Option are still hugely popular. I hope anyone concerned about access to quality health care will contact their congressman and let them know that the watered-down, compromised Senate bill doesn't go far enough, and urge the passage of a reconciled bill with inclusion of the Public Option be sent to President Obama.

On Pacifism and Christianity

I've had this laying around on my hard drive for some time; I believe I wrote it sometime around Veteran's Day, during which I had lengthy back and forth about pacifism with some online friends.

I hate having stuff lying around my hard drive, and today, in honor of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., who at least tried to practice what he preached... I post about pacifism.

__________

First, let's get this straight: I am an American. I am proud of that. Although I've been to most of the Western democracies and a couple of the non-western non democratic ones, I like this one best. Furthermore, I like my state of California best of all the states, and my city of the Los Angeles best of all cities. I take off my hat at sporting events to sing the Star Spangled Banner, though I will not sing the the line glorifying bombs. I pay my taxes diligently and on time -- though I think I should pay more. I watch football on Sundays (and even more on Saturdays), and I shout U-S-A when we win gold medals in the Olympics. I esteem our Founding Fathers. I am not a Communist.

But to quote Glenn Beck, "I fear for the survival of America as we know it," because such a broad portion of it refuses to look honestly at itself in the mirror.

I would like to agree with those who say that even if America is a secular nation, it is grounded in Christian values, but I do not. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, or couldn't be, but simply that it isn't, for one reason. Jesus Christ was, first and foremost, and at all times, a pacifist. And America is not.

There are many who argue the former as a point of theology. I've read their arguments, and I don't buy them. The first quote brought out by many Jesus-wasn't-a-pacifist commentators is from Revelation (a tale told by a madman, but that's another story:) "Out of His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty." The imagery is not that of a pacifist, you might think. But note that the sword comes from his mouth. Unless he's a sideshow entertainer of some sort, it is not a literal sword he wields. It is his WORDS that will subdue his enemies. This, to my writer's mind, is as clearly metaphorical as the suggestion that he is going to spend his time stomping on grapes.

True, Jesus says: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." But he clearly states in 2 Corinthians that "Though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world."

Of course the devil may quote Scripture to suit his purpose, but the most compelling evidence of Jesus' pacifism is in the larger story of his life and death. Though unjustly accused, and cruelly mistreated, he allows himself to be put death in the most painful way imaginable, without struggle, while forgiving his attackers and refusing to allow his own followers to stay the attackers' hands. That, my friends, is the very definition of a pacifist, and utterly in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of the Sermon on the Mount. " If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well... Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."

Christian America does not do these things. America at best distrusts pacifism and pacifists, and at worst, despises them. And this willful dichotomy, I do not understand.

If America was grounded in Christian values, it would not have gone to war in response to 9/11. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not ANYWHERE. It would have turned the other cheek. Some say that this would be giving up on our way of life, submitting to terrorists. So: choosing to turn the other cheek would be to give up on... our... Christian... way of life? Really?

This is the real world, some say. Aside from the fact that the Christian Jesus is supposed to have lived in the same real world, let's look at workings of the real world.

How, in practice (and for a Buddhist that word has a very specific meaning) might we have turned the other cheek in response to the slaughter of thousands of our citizens by angry and murderous terrorists? There are many answers, but the one that is clearly NOT the answer to a Christian nation is, "by going to war." What America could have, should have, might have done is respond by "loving thy enemy." Love the terrorists? Love Al-Qaeda? Yes, Christian America, this is what your Saviour preached.

"Today, we are all Americans" was the most common international response to 9/11. Yet the support was so fleeting. What did we do wrong? What could we have done, what should we have done, what might we have done to make that "today" into a lasting respect, a lasting peace, a lasting position of world leadership and admiration? I know that the one thing we should not have done was lash out. The opposite of turning the other cheek is hit back, and hit hard. That's what we did, and in doing so we betrayed our values. We should have been sad. We should have mourned.

And we could have examined what we could have possibly done to bring this hatred upon us.

Even if, after reflection, we could find nothing we had done wrong and for which we might be repentant (and curiously, the Christian right seems very suspicious of American "apology," a near-synonym of the Christian doctrine of "repentance"), if we held ourselves innocently victimized, we still should have simply loved our enemy. We might have spent every dollar we spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on humanitarian aid to those countries. On schools to counter the ignorance and hatred taught in the Islamic fundamentalist madrassas. On economic aid, to counter the Arab arguments that we are economic imperialists. On education programs in our own country, to increase our understanding of the people who attacked us, and of their motives. On securing our borders and ports against further attack, absolutely. We could have spent money and intellectual and emotional capital on anything - ANYTHING - but attacking those who attacked us. I wonder, what dividends would that have reaped? Where, ten years later, would our economy, our position of world leadership, be now?

But that is not what we did. We retaliated. In every sport we play, hockey, baseball, basketball, that's a penalty and worthy of fine or suspension. The instant we retaliated, we lost. We lost dignity. We lost respect. We lost capital. We lost the world's esteem, and our position as a beacon of freedom and democracy in the world.

Nearly everyone, right, left, center, Christian, Jewish, secular, tells me that we "live in peace" because of the brave soldiers who fight for us. But that ignores the real truth: we live in war, wars which we and our children and grandchildren pay for daily and will continue to pay for until long after we are gone. There is only no war in our daily lives because we pay others, mostly people less fortunate or knowledgable than ourselves, domestic mercenaries or our undereducated young, to kill others so that we in our "Christian" nation don't have to ask ourselves these questions: "Will I love my enemy and turn the other cheek, or KILL, right now, here, at my front door? Will I kill? And if I do, how will I reconcile it with my faith?" Instead of facing this greatest of questions for ourselves, we pay off violent men or our young people to do it for us. We ask them to do that which we would not. And they end up scarred, maimed, insane, dead. And then we solemnly "honor their sacrifice."

I submit that this "practice" is not only not Christian and not good, but will, unless we summon the genuine courage of true pacifism -- the willingness to die for the sins of others -- be our downfall.

No. Despite protestations to the contrary, America is the among the least-Christian nations I can think of.

I consider myself, as Dr. King did, a patriotic American working to change that.

About War, Peace, and Supporting Our Troops

We've been at war for so long, I almost forgot, until recent remembrances about Hiroshima reminded me of how horrified I am by it. Not just this war, or that war, but war at all. The fact that it exists, bad enough. But the glorification of it, to the point that "supporting our troops" is something that now defines our patriotism or lack thereof, has got me pissed off. I'm standing up on a soapbox and saying I'm Mad as Hell about it.

I've been a pacifist all my life, at least since I got thrown out of school for a day for wearing too many McGovern buttons to sixth grade on Election Day. Walter Cronkite reporting those killed in action figures every night on the news -- US troops 32, North Vietnamese 427 -- always made me queasy. I remember asking my mom, after watching those lopsided "scores" for a couple of years, "So that means we're winning the war, right?" She patiently explained to me that no, it did not.

So: I'm a pacifist. What does that mean, exactly? My right wing friends will immediately start in with either: "What about the Nazis?" or "What if someone was about to rape your wife?" I answer, "I might have supported our entry into WWII, but I wasn't there," and "I'd kill the motherfucker," and they smile smugly thinking they "got me."

But the truth is, there are exceptions to every rule; it doesn't mean we don't make rules. And if we're not constantly questioning and reassessing rules, then we're not thinking clearly or critically; we have become ideologues. And I am not an ideologue. I am one who believes that in almost all cases violence is a poor solution to problems, even and especially if the problem is violence. I believe that there are so few cases where war is the right option that it's worth making it a rule not to engage in it.

Here is I how I responded to a conservative friend who flipped out when I said I do not "support our troops," and and who accused me of drawing a "moral equivalency" between those soldiers who killed for the Axis powers and those who killed for the Allies. Pardon, it's long.

----

Our political views may indeed be irreconcilable, and reflect entirely different world views. While you may not share my world view, I wish to explain it, or at least try to assuage your lingering amazement that I deemed Nazi soldiers and American soldiers in WWII "morally equivalent."

First: I did NOT say they were "morally equivalent." I said that they were "more alike than different." These are two very different things.

There is no doubt that the moral arguments behind the two opposing forces in WWII were very different, and in no way equivalent -- at least in Europe. The Nazis were an aggressive, racist, murdering regime bent on global domination; the US was, at that time, a very nearly altruistic liberating force defending European allies -- "nearly" because we were of course defending our own economic interests in Europe. The conflict of Japan and America is somewhat less clear cut, as it was really about territorial hegemony beyond each's borders [further note... by that I include the formerly sovereign nation of Hawaii, hence my issues with raising the specter of Pearl Harbor.] Nevertheless, I would not argue, now, that we should not have entered into that war -- though I can easily see myself, as a genuine pacifist, arguing against it at the time... and who knows where the US not intervening in Europe would have led? Aggressive, murderous, racist regimes tend not to last very long, even without foreign intervention. But I digress.

I was referring not the causes of Axis and Allies being more alike than different, but to the Troops themselves. I was referring to the Average Soldier, who generally has neither the contemporary geopolitical awareness at the time of his 18-25 year old service nor the benefit of historical hindsight to accurately assess his or her own part in the geopolitical chess match. My argument was that as a group, those who agree to participate in the chess match as pawns for their country, patriots all, are liable to pay with their lives for whatever cause their King tells them they're fighting for -- without even a 50-50 chance that they're on some "right" side. Perhaps you'll agree with that... unless you're a "my country right or wrong" type... which is its own insidious brand of moral equivalency.

To illustrate. If you believe that wars and armies are generally just or unjust, and that the troops fighting in them are therefore moral or immoral, and that ours, at least, are inherently "moral" and worthy of "support," I challenge you to rate from zero to three the Average Soldier in the following 14 causes, where 0 is a soldier fighting for an unjust cause, and 3 is a soldier fighting for a just cause. I suggest you do this without scanning the list first, just your first impression.

1. A British soldier fighting in WWII.

2. A German soldier fighting in WWII.

3. An American soldier fighting in WWII.

Easy so far, I guess; as you rightly point out, WWII was a fairly exceptional case.

4. Same American soldier, fighting against North Korea in the Korean War.

5. A Viet Cong soldier fighting against the same US soldier (who's a general by now!).

6. A Japanese kamikaze pilot.

7. The suicide bomber who drove a truck into the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in '83.

8. An Afghani Mujahedeen soldier fighting against the Soviet Union with American arms in 1979.

9. The same Afghani soldier, now Taliban, fighting against American soldiers with North Korean arms today.

9a. The same Afghani soldier, fighting against Afghanis in an attempt to re-take Kabul.

10. An Iranian soldier in the 80's, fighting the Iraqi army, armed by the US.

11. An Iraqi soldier in the 1990s, fighting the US Army.

12. A Panamanian soldier fighting the invasion of the US (poor guy)

13. An Al Qaeda general who dies plummeting into the Twin Towers.

14. An American soldier securing the Southwest against Santa Anna in the Mexican-American War.

I personally find it nearly impossible to meaningfully differentiate any "average soldier" in any of 4-14. Is the Viet Cong fighting to defend his village with a stick, or a paid operative armed by Moscow and trained by Peking, or just a brainwashed peasant? Is the Afghani right in warring against the Soviets, but wrong in warring against us? There are too many nuances for easy answers.

I suppose if forced to, I would give only one 3 (the British in WWII, who were a peaceful, democratic people actively defending their own homeland which was under attack despite signed treaties from an aggressive, racist, and murderous regime) and a 2 only to American soldier 3, who was primarily there as an ally of Britain and France, to liberate Europe, and who also probably also felt a genuine existential threat to his homeland..

I might give 1's to 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. They are, presumably, defending against what they (rightly or wrongly) perceive to be an immediate and existential threat from foreign troops on their own soil. But even then, are those troops all, therefore, equally worthy of "support?" The Panamanian army under Noriega? The Taliban? The communist, Soviet and Chinese backed Viet Cong?

I'd give zeroes to everyone else, because they're clearly fighting and killing on what I consider unacceptable grounds: on someone else's sovereign soil, sans a direct request or alliance with the sovereign of said soil and without a present and existential threat to their own homeland, generally with economic or geopolitical power as their goal rather than self-preservation.

Note that in every American war on the list with the sole exception of WWII, -- and almost all others not on the list -- I give America a solid zero because they fall into one or more of my "unacceptable" categories. We've never fought a foreign enemy in our homeland. [NOTE, I wrote this to my friend; he hasn't written back yet, but I've no doubt he'll say Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were homeland attacks. Fair enough... but again, WWII is an exception, and re: 9/11, see below.] I say, then why the fuck exactly are we warring so much? Why at all? You can give lots of answers, about spreading freedom and democracy (i.e. opening markets, i.e., seeking wealth and geopolitical power) and felling tyrants -- but as often as not we find ourselves not thanked for our benevolence in bringing war to these places.

So... all this makes me a pacifist. But I believe that being a pacifist doesn't mean I would never kill or commit acts of war any more than my being a Democrat means I can't vote Republican (though I never have). There are exceptions to every rule. I would make an exception in a genuine case of self-defense. I'd try to kill a guy trying to kill my wife or dog if I had to. But I don't believe we've faced a genuine war of self defense since the Civil War. You might argue that the war against Islamic Fundamentalism is one, or WWII was one. But just as I wouldn't drive across town and kill a guy who made a threat against my wife, I don't believe that "self-defense" includes us projecting military power across the globe. Absent existing alliances, I might have argued for mobilizing troops and arms to the east and west coasts of America to repel invasion by Germany and Japan. My idea of justifiable self defense against Al Qaeda would be, taking out those 9/11 planes the instant they were hijacked. But we missed that chance, and our military (for so it is called) budget would now be better spent looking more actively for Al Qaeda planes, boats, trains, suitcases, whatever, crossing our borders. You know... "defense."

Finally, and back to the point of "supporting our troops," I refuse to kowtow and give blanket "respect" to every American in a uniform. I'm happy to support and respect individual soldiers, who in my considered estimation fought for a good cause, for the right reasons, in genuine service to Good (whether or not that Good happens to align with American Interests). I know a lot of those people, and I do respect them. But I will not respect some guy who kicked ass in Grenada because he wanted a free education, or a woman who didn't want to go to college and couldn't qualify for any other job and said her interrogation techniques were her "duty" at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, or a guy who bought God's "Manifest Destiny" as a reason to slaughter Indians or Mexicans, or even a vet wounded because he was drafted into what he believed to be a bad war in Vietnam but didn't have the guts to resist. That's what "support our troops" bumper stickers not only ask me, but command me, to do.

That, my friend, is my take on America, war, and our "place in the world" as far as our troops go. I think if want to be leaders in the world, we should do so by example, not by force. And I think that for all that everyone "hates war," few people act to eliminate it. I think the only way to end collective behavior that we we hate is for individuals to stop participating in it. So, to that extent, I do not support our troops. I prefer to support those who choose not to go to war on principle. And I respect, more than a single one of our soldiers in uniform, the Gandhis and Kings and Aquinos of history, who find another way to fight tyranny.

I believe someone said, "blessed are the peacemakers." He didn't say anything about "our men and women in uniform."

Jess

Politics Meets Food -- The El Coyote Boycott

My novel, MY NAME IS WILL, is a cautionary tale about the danger of mixing politics and religion. I gave our friend Margie, the niece of the owners of El Coyote, a copy last week, but I doubt she's read it yet. Now she's learning the lesson the hard way.

Margie appeared on a list of donors to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign, which has led to calls for a boycott. Now as you know, I spend a lot of time at El Coyote, and I've spent some time here defending its kitchen. I'm going to spend a little more time defending it against a boycott.

Margie is variously described as the owner or the manager of the restaurant in various blogs and e-mails currently making their way around the 'net. My understanding is, she's possibly in line to take over someday; currently just an employee. When questions come up about the menu, or prices, or my and others longstanding request for some seafood, any seafood, she invariably refers us to the managers, Billy or Bobby. Billy and Bobby are both gay. In fact, I'd guess (with my fairly accurate straight man's gaydar) that a solid majority of the staff of the restaurant is gay. On any given night, particularly a Thursday (which has become an unofficial "gay night" -- always amusing when I sometimes go there with Kent while Sa's at her belly dance class!) a majority of the clientele is likely to be gay as well.

I'm sure she's not going to need to hear from me about the mistake I think she made donating $100 of her own money -- and listing her place of work as "El Coyote Cafe" -- when I go there tomorrow or Thursday for dinner. But I hope that the boycott call doesn't hurt their business. Some of the wages that her family pays to all those gay employees no doubt made its way into the No on 8 coffers. And I'd hate to take money out of the bank accounts and tip-takings of Billy and Bobby and Roberto and Jose and all of our other gay friends there, just because another employee (however closely related to the owners) prefers to donate differently.

We've talked with Margie quite a bit. She's the nice, tall, willowy lady who comes around with ice water and asks how you're doing. We talk about movies, current events, and, yes, politics. She's a Republican. So is almost half the country, and about four in ten Californians. She's also a lifelong Mormon (is there any other kind?). She was very excited about my book, and asked for a signed copy; I warned her it might be a little "racy" for her taste, but she wanted it anyway.

Perhaps when she reads the book, she'll get some reinforcement of the concept that toeing a church line on political issues is a slippery slope. But I think maybe she's already gotten that. From an apology letter posted online at shutupIknow, where there is some heated discussion of the issue:

I HAVE BEEN SICK AT HEART THAT ANYONE HAS BEEN OFFENDED BY ME.

I HAVE FAMILY, FRIENDS, EMPLOYEES FROM THE GAY COMMUNITY WHO ARE TREASURED PEOPLE IN MY LIFE.

I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE MORMON CHURCH ALL MY LIFE. I RESPONDED TO THEIR REQUEST WITH MY PERSONAL DONATION.

FOR YEARS THE EL COYOTE HAS FINANCIALLY AND GENEROUSLY SUPPORTED THE GAY COMMUNITY AND MANY OF ITS CHARITIES.

PLEASE BE OUR GUEST FOR AN EARLY LUNCH WED., NOV. 12TH AT 11:00 AM AT THE COYOTE AND ALLOW ME TO SPEAK WITH YOU PERSONALLY.

PLEASE CALL AND MAKE A RESERVATION AS SEATING IS LIMITED. (323) 939-2255.

Was Margie on the wrong side of this issue? I think so. Does the restaurant where she works deserve to be boycotted for it? I don't think so, but if you do, I'd at least go hear her out before deciding.

I leave you with a photo of one of the clearly-oppressed staff of El Coyote a couple of Halloweens ago. That's Roberto, affectionately known as Betty...

The Hot Chick and Other Republicanisms

Thanks to their handy convention, I think I've nearly got Republican ideology figured out.

Getting paid to serve your country is good, but getting paid to serve your community is bad. Government is bad when it tells you what to do about your tires, but good when it tells you what to do about your womb. Going to Iraq (or Vietnam) as a warrior, risking life and limb to serve God and country, is good; but risking life or limb to serve the truth as a journalist... wait, gimme a second... yeah, you're part of the left-wing mainstream media, so that's bad. Investing in alternative fuels because of global warming is bad, but seeking alternative fuels to achieve independence from evildoers is good. And drilling for oil is always really, really, REALLY good, but taxing oil company profits is always really, really, REALLY bad... and Dick Cheney had nothing to do with this message!

I just have just one remaining question: what does "moral equivalency" mean?

Mushrooms In The News

Some of the news this week threatened to throw me into the holiday weekend on bit of a downer. First there's the "Obama Running To The Center" news cycle. It was to be expected, but during the heady days of primary Obamamania I and much of his liberal base conveniently forgot little things like his support (albeit limited) of the death penalty and his, shall we say, "nuanced" take on gun control. I was headed toward despair when he came out in favor of Bush's faith-based initiatives plan, but it only took a visit to BlySpace to settle my nerves.

Then there was the LA Times piece on the lawsuit between the Tolkien estate and the recently-deceased New Line Cinema. I'm not a huge fan of the Tolkien estate (J.R.R. explicitly created Middle Earth for other writers and artists to use as a mythology, but his son Christopher has stingily kept the names, places, and tales strictly guarded for his own painfully pedantic purposes), but for them to have not received a penny of the billions of dollars raked in by the film trilogy is... well, there's no adjective big enough to describe the injustice. (I find it telling that, although a picture of the Professor appeared in the print edition, Tolkien remains anonymous in the online edition; presumably Elijah Wood makes for a sexier page.) As both a former producer myself and a playwright and screenwriter who's worked with some skanky money men, it never to ceases to amaze me how rare it is to find a producer who truly respects the writer. Many give lip service; few put their money where their lips are. I'm glad to say that my experience the publishing industry is a breath of fresh air. My agent Ellen Levine at Trident and editor Cary Goldstein and publisher Jonathan Karp at Twelve Books all define the word "integrity."

Speaking of integrity... I'm thrilled to note that my good friend and great comedian/raconteur Nick Revell has begun regular blogging for The Huffington Post. Think Jon Stewart about to start a pub brawl through sheer intelligence. This is a very good thing for the world.

Finally, I've had a couple of friends point me to a recent story about the long-term therapeutic effects of magic mushrooms. This comes as no surprise; it merely backs up the very real research that my fictionalized Timothy Leary spouts in MY NAME IS WILL.

That little tidbit heads me into the holiday -- and my book launch next week -- on a happy note. Have a safe and celebratory Independence Day weekend!

Blogs, Hers and Mine

I'm also thrilled to report that favorite political blogger is back online. For progressive political opinion with a suburban punk rock mom edge, there's no better place on the web than Bly Space. I'm proud to say that my anonymous-lest-she-become-the-victim-of-a-vast-right-wing-conspiracy (does anybody really deny that they exist?) has inspired me to blog again, and I hope vice versa.

Speaking of politics, I might as well link here to an op-ed piece I wrote in the LA Times a few weeks ago. It was actually written to run on Shakespeare's Birthday (April 23), the day after the Pennsylvania primary, but the Times wanted to run it right away. It'll make more sense when you know that.