J.D. Rhoades's Blog, page 33
May 1, 2012
Hard-Boiled Gazetteer to Country Noir, by Bill Ott
THE DEVIL'S RIGHT HAND gets a shout out from Booklist's Bill Ott in the article Hard-Boiled Gazetteer to Country Noir in Booklist Online:
This supercharged crime-fiction debut, in which bounty hunter Jack Keller, a Gulf War vet with a head full of nightmares, tracks a couple of dumb and dumber ex-cons, is the narrative equivalent of a string of homemade bombs timed to explode at random along the North Carolina back roads. Like Stephen Hunter’s Dirty White Boys, however, this is not simply a car chase with fireworks; Rhoades builds his rampaging white boys from the ground up, and Keller is the kind of flawed noir hero whom women want to nurse, cops want to bust, and bad guys want to hurt.
The article also features Elmore Leonard, Frank Bill, and a lot of other people who I am humbly honored to be numbered among. Check it out. And thanks, Bill!
Get The Devil's Right Hand, at Amazon.com
This supercharged crime-fiction debut, in which bounty hunter Jack Keller, a Gulf War vet with a head full of nightmares, tracks a couple of dumb and dumber ex-cons, is the narrative equivalent of a string of homemade bombs timed to explode at random along the North Carolina back roads. Like Stephen Hunter’s Dirty White Boys, however, this is not simply a car chase with fireworks; Rhoades builds his rampaging white boys from the ground up, and Keller is the kind of flawed noir hero whom women want to nurse, cops want to bust, and bad guys want to hurt.
The article also features Elmore Leonard, Frank Bill, and a lot of other people who I am humbly honored to be numbered among. Check it out. And thanks, Bill!
Get The Devil's Right Hand, at Amazon.com
IT'S ALIVE!
Monster: Nightrider's Vengeance , written under my pen name of J.D. Nixx, is now available in the Kindle Store. Nook version to come, or you can download it at Smashwords.com.
Vampires! Werewolves! Zombies! Made real by the lights of perverted science.
We are death, we are the darkness.
We are the shadows that rend you,
Your fear made flesh.
We are Nightriders.
The Nightriders were the ultimate terror weapon, a generation of genetically engineered vampire soldiers, created in the image of man's most ancient nightmares. But when the war was over, their makers saw what they'd done, and they were afraid. They turned against their creations and tried to wipe them out.
One survived.
Now Laura So, the last Nightrider, comes out of the darkness and sets off across humanity's far-flung settled worlds, seeking vengeance on the ones who ordered the massacre of her people, Along with her lover, the more-than-human medic who saved her life, she confronts not only her enemies, but the question of who she is and her place in the universe, Because beneath the monster's skin there beats a heart that's all too human...
Vampires! Werewolves! Zombies! Made real by the lights of perverted science.
We are death, we are the darkness.
We are the shadows that rend you,
Your fear made flesh.
We are Nightriders.
The Nightriders were the ultimate terror weapon, a generation of genetically engineered vampire soldiers, created in the image of man's most ancient nightmares. But when the war was over, their makers saw what they'd done, and they were afraid. They turned against their creations and tried to wipe them out.
One survived.
Now Laura So, the last Nightrider, comes out of the darkness and sets off across humanity's far-flung settled worlds, seeking vengeance on the ones who ordered the massacre of her people, Along with her lover, the more-than-human medic who saved her life, she confronts not only her enemies, but the question of who she is and her place in the universe, Because beneath the monster's skin there beats a heart that's all too human...
April 30, 2012
It's Times Like This That I Miss The Roosevelts
Latest Newspaper Column
It's times like this that I really miss the Roosevelts.
Recently, the right got its knickers in an even bigger twist than usual, and given the customary highly torqued state of said knickers, that is very twisted indeed. The impetus for this torsion of the collective conservative undergarment was a quote relayed by one of Fox News' most reliable Obama bashers, Steve Doocy of "Fox and Friends." Doocy, with the sort of smirk you imagine on the face of a tale-bearing adolescent girl intent on stirring things up, told the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, that the president had told a crowd, "Unlike some people, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth."
Immediately, the Right Wing Fake Outrage Machine went into high gear to defend the delicate feelings of Mitt Romney. The remark was "snotty," the New York Post sniffed. The conservative blog "Hot Air" got downright huffy: "By September he'll be referring to Romney as 'Moneybags.'" Even the supposedly liberal "mainstream" media picked up on the horrific act of disrespect to poor Mitt. ABC News called the remark "a hard-to-miss shot" at Romney.
The problem is, that's not what President Obama said. The actual quote, delivered in a speech about federal funding for student loans, was: "Somebody gave me an education. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn't. But somebody gave us a chance - just like these folks up here are looking for a chance."
Nothing whatsoever about "some people." Not even a veiled reference to Mitt Romney. The "unlike some people" was a complete fabrication by Doocy.
Here's the thing: Mitt Romney may get his feelings hurt when people point out that he's rich, but the fact is, he actually is rich. He is very rich. His dad was the president of American Motors. He's so rich that he's having a lift installed in his multimillion-dollar beach house because he doesn't have room to store all the cars that he parks there. That's rich by any definition of the word.
But so what? There really is nothing wrong with a political candidate being rich. Which brings me to the Roosevelts, Theodore and his distant cousin Franklin.
They were rich guys. They went to the finest schools, lived in mansions, belonged to rich people's clubs. They were the closest thing we had to a hereditary aristocracy. And no one cared, least of all them. They didn't pretend to be "regular guys." They did, however, recognize the fact that some people were poor and unemployed and exploited, and they tried to do something about it.
Contrast them with Mitt Romney. Mitt and his people are always trying to convince people that he's just a middle-class schlub like the rest of us, sometimes with comical results.
Take, for instance, the time when Mitt tried to claim he was "unemployed" too, because he was running for office. Or the time when his wife, Ann, told a reporter how they'd struggled in college and grad school, only making it "because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time."
Wow. I don't know how you did it, Ann, with only Daddy's stock to get you by, not to mention the house he bought you when you graduated.
Some of these clumsy attempts by the Romneys to make themselves look middle-class can be blamed on the American media's obsession with "regular guyness," the idea that we're so shallow that we'll make our voting decisions for the highest office in the land based on whom we'd rather have a beer with.
Sadly, it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which gave us eight years of George Dubbya Bush. So the media and their ridiculous "regular guy" narrative bear some blame. But Romney's buying into that schtick to try to cover up the fact that his platform and his policies boil down to "even more tax breaks for me and guys like me, and the rest of you are on your own."
The problem is not that Mitt Romney is rich. The problem is that he's a phony. A fake. A slick, pandering snake-oil salesman with no compunction about saying anything at all if it'll get him into office so he can continue the Republican plan to turn this country into an oligarchy where the rich rule and the rest of us can take what they deign to give us. And no amount of Romney's pretensions to being anything else will cover that up.
It's times like this that I really miss the Roosevelts.
Recently, the right got its knickers in an even bigger twist than usual, and given the customary highly torqued state of said knickers, that is very twisted indeed. The impetus for this torsion of the collective conservative undergarment was a quote relayed by one of Fox News' most reliable Obama bashers, Steve Doocy of "Fox and Friends." Doocy, with the sort of smirk you imagine on the face of a tale-bearing adolescent girl intent on stirring things up, told the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, that the president had told a crowd, "Unlike some people, I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth."
Immediately, the Right Wing Fake Outrage Machine went into high gear to defend the delicate feelings of Mitt Romney. The remark was "snotty," the New York Post sniffed. The conservative blog "Hot Air" got downright huffy: "By September he'll be referring to Romney as 'Moneybags.'" Even the supposedly liberal "mainstream" media picked up on the horrific act of disrespect to poor Mitt. ABC News called the remark "a hard-to-miss shot" at Romney.
The problem is, that's not what President Obama said. The actual quote, delivered in a speech about federal funding for student loans, was: "Somebody gave me an education. I wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn't. But somebody gave us a chance - just like these folks up here are looking for a chance."
Nothing whatsoever about "some people." Not even a veiled reference to Mitt Romney. The "unlike some people" was a complete fabrication by Doocy.
Here's the thing: Mitt Romney may get his feelings hurt when people point out that he's rich, but the fact is, he actually is rich. He is very rich. His dad was the president of American Motors. He's so rich that he's having a lift installed in his multimillion-dollar beach house because he doesn't have room to store all the cars that he parks there. That's rich by any definition of the word.
But so what? There really is nothing wrong with a political candidate being rich. Which brings me to the Roosevelts, Theodore and his distant cousin Franklin.
They were rich guys. They went to the finest schools, lived in mansions, belonged to rich people's clubs. They were the closest thing we had to a hereditary aristocracy. And no one cared, least of all them. They didn't pretend to be "regular guys." They did, however, recognize the fact that some people were poor and unemployed and exploited, and they tried to do something about it.
Contrast them with Mitt Romney. Mitt and his people are always trying to convince people that he's just a middle-class schlub like the rest of us, sometimes with comical results.
Take, for instance, the time when Mitt tried to claim he was "unemployed" too, because he was running for office. Or the time when his wife, Ann, told a reporter how they'd struggled in college and grad school, only making it "because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time."
Wow. I don't know how you did it, Ann, with only Daddy's stock to get you by, not to mention the house he bought you when you graduated.
Some of these clumsy attempts by the Romneys to make themselves look middle-class can be blamed on the American media's obsession with "regular guyness," the idea that we're so shallow that we'll make our voting decisions for the highest office in the land based on whom we'd rather have a beer with.
Sadly, it often becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which gave us eight years of George Dubbya Bush. So the media and their ridiculous "regular guy" narrative bear some blame. But Romney's buying into that schtick to try to cover up the fact that his platform and his policies boil down to "even more tax breaks for me and guys like me, and the rest of you are on your own."
The problem is not that Mitt Romney is rich. The problem is that he's a phony. A fake. A slick, pandering snake-oil salesman with no compunction about saying anything at all if it'll get him into office so he can continue the Republican plan to turn this country into an oligarchy where the rich rule and the rest of us can take what they deign to give us. And no amount of Romney's pretensions to being anything else will cover that up.
April 23, 2012
Okay, Here's the Deal
My sci-fi vampire revenge epic, titled MONSTER: NIGHTRIDER'S VENGEANCE, releases May 1st. I'll send a free Kindle or EPub copy to the first 20 people, not related to me by blood or marriage, who e-mail me at dustyr@nc.rr.com and put MONSTER in the subject line. In exchange, you agree to post an honest review when (or within a reasonable time after) it's released. Reviews can be on Amazon, B & N, blog, wherever, but they must be honest. Specify mobi (Kindle) or Epub format, and if you want me to send it direct to your device give me the address (e.g. mykindle@kindle.com), and remember to set dustyr@nc.rr.com as an address you can get files from. 
NIGHTRIDER'S VENGEANCE Cover
This is the cover for my upcoming e-book (the long-awaited sci-fi vampire revenge epic), by the multi-talented David Terrenoire. I like it a lot, hope you do too.
April 22, 2012
The Chairborne Rangers of the Right Wing: Pushing Barbarism
Latest Newspaper Column:
You know, I've never been to Afghanistan. I've never been in a firefight anywhere, although I have had a gun pointed at me, which is as close as I care to come, thank you very much.
But from some of the reporting coming out of there - such as Sebastian Junger's harrowing book "War" and the accompanying documentary "Restrepo" - Afghanistan is to stress, fear and paranoia what Mount Everest is to rock formations. And it seems like we can't go a month now without hearing about some of our soldiers (almost all of whom have been through multiple deployments) who have completely lost it under the stress.
From the Marine snipers photographed urinating on enemy corpses to the soldier who walked out of camp one night and started slaughtering civilians to the recently released photos of American troops posing with body parts and corpses, it's just one image after another that makes you wonder if maybe we've finally stressed our military past its breaking point.
Now, desecrating the bodies of fallen enemies is not a new phenomenon by any means. In "The Iliad," Homer describes how Achilles, maddened with grief by the death of his best friend, Patroclus, killed Hector, the Trojan crown prince responsible, then desecrated Hector's body by dragging it behind his chariot for nine days during Patroclus' funeral feast.
In the 15th century, the Wallachian prince known as Vlad the Impaler (later the inspiration for the blood-drinking Count Dracula) became well known for desecrating the bodies of vanquished enemies, mainly by sticking the bodies (and more than a few live prisoners) onto pointed stakes and leaving them for the invading Turks to find.
In the harrowing World War II memoir "With the Old Breed," Marine John Sledge describes the mutilation of American corpses by the Japanese on the islands of Peleliu and Okinawa - and the corresponding looting (particularly of gold teeth) and taking of other "trophies" from dead Japanese by our own people. And so on.
What does seem to be new is the idea, particularly among the right, that this is either (a) no big deal or (b) actually a good thing.
Homer describes how Achilles repented from his act and returned Hector's body after being confronted by Hector's weeping father, King Priam, not to mention getting a stern warning from Zeus himself that he was "tempting the wrath of heaven" by his act of disrespect to a dead enemy.
Sledge describes how he was dissuaded from the act of stealing the gold teeth from a dead Japanese soldier by his friend, corpsman "Doc" Caswell, who admonishes him, "You don't want to do that. What would your folks think?" And Vlad ... well, as noted above, his major claim to fame is as the inspiration for one of literature's greatest monsters.
In contrast, when those pictures surfaced of Marine snipers urinating on dead Taliban fighters, conservative radio host Dana Loesch turned gushing fangirl: "I'd drop trou and do it too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys." Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller tweeted, "I don't CAIR that these Marines wee wee'ed on murderous savages" (CAIR being the acronym for one of Geller's favorite bogeymen, the Council on American Islamic Relations).
Fox commentator Ralph Peters went on the air nearly apoplectic with rage about how the recent photos of soldiers with dead and dismembered enemies were being used by people - including, according to Peters, their own commanders - to "trash our troops."
I look at those images of young Americans, truly our best and brightest, behaving this way, and my heart breaks for them. I don't know if they'll ever make it back to sanity from that. I don't know if any person could.
Then I think of the passage from Sledge's book where he talks about Doc Caswell, the man who dissuaded him from desecrating enemy bodies: "He was a good friend and a fine, genuine person whose sensitivity hadn't been crushed out by the war. He was merely trying to help me retain some of mine and not become completely callous and harsh."
I compare that with the "callous and harsh" and downright barbaric statements from some of the Chairborne Rangers of 24-hour news TV and I wonder if we, as a country, will ever make it back from the abyss they're pushing us toward.
You know, I've never been to Afghanistan. I've never been in a firefight anywhere, although I have had a gun pointed at me, which is as close as I care to come, thank you very much.
But from some of the reporting coming out of there - such as Sebastian Junger's harrowing book "War" and the accompanying documentary "Restrepo" - Afghanistan is to stress, fear and paranoia what Mount Everest is to rock formations. And it seems like we can't go a month now without hearing about some of our soldiers (almost all of whom have been through multiple deployments) who have completely lost it under the stress.
From the Marine snipers photographed urinating on enemy corpses to the soldier who walked out of camp one night and started slaughtering civilians to the recently released photos of American troops posing with body parts and corpses, it's just one image after another that makes you wonder if maybe we've finally stressed our military past its breaking point.
Now, desecrating the bodies of fallen enemies is not a new phenomenon by any means. In "The Iliad," Homer describes how Achilles, maddened with grief by the death of his best friend, Patroclus, killed Hector, the Trojan crown prince responsible, then desecrated Hector's body by dragging it behind his chariot for nine days during Patroclus' funeral feast.
In the 15th century, the Wallachian prince known as Vlad the Impaler (later the inspiration for the blood-drinking Count Dracula) became well known for desecrating the bodies of vanquished enemies, mainly by sticking the bodies (and more than a few live prisoners) onto pointed stakes and leaving them for the invading Turks to find.
In the harrowing World War II memoir "With the Old Breed," Marine John Sledge describes the mutilation of American corpses by the Japanese on the islands of Peleliu and Okinawa - and the corresponding looting (particularly of gold teeth) and taking of other "trophies" from dead Japanese by our own people. And so on.
What does seem to be new is the idea, particularly among the right, that this is either (a) no big deal or (b) actually a good thing.
Homer describes how Achilles repented from his act and returned Hector's body after being confronted by Hector's weeping father, King Priam, not to mention getting a stern warning from Zeus himself that he was "tempting the wrath of heaven" by his act of disrespect to a dead enemy.
Sledge describes how he was dissuaded from the act of stealing the gold teeth from a dead Japanese soldier by his friend, corpsman "Doc" Caswell, who admonishes him, "You don't want to do that. What would your folks think?" And Vlad ... well, as noted above, his major claim to fame is as the inspiration for one of literature's greatest monsters.
In contrast, when those pictures surfaced of Marine snipers urinating on dead Taliban fighters, conservative radio host Dana Loesch turned gushing fangirl: "I'd drop trou and do it too. That's me, though. I want a million cool points for these guys." Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller tweeted, "I don't CAIR that these Marines wee wee'ed on murderous savages" (CAIR being the acronym for one of Geller's favorite bogeymen, the Council on American Islamic Relations).
Fox commentator Ralph Peters went on the air nearly apoplectic with rage about how the recent photos of soldiers with dead and dismembered enemies were being used by people - including, according to Peters, their own commanders - to "trash our troops."
I look at those images of young Americans, truly our best and brightest, behaving this way, and my heart breaks for them. I don't know if they'll ever make it back to sanity from that. I don't know if any person could.
Then I think of the passage from Sledge's book where he talks about Doc Caswell, the man who dissuaded him from desecrating enemy bodies: "He was a good friend and a fine, genuine person whose sensitivity hadn't been crushed out by the war. He was merely trying to help me retain some of mine and not become completely callous and harsh."
I compare that with the "callous and harsh" and downright barbaric statements from some of the Chairborne Rangers of 24-hour news TV and I wonder if we, as a country, will ever make it back from the abyss they're pushing us toward.
April 15, 2012
The Best Answer to North Korea
Latest Newspaper Column
When I heard that North Korea was preparing to launch a rocket into space, I experienced quite a few different feelings.Certainly I was concerned, because engineering-wise, it's not hard to turn "rocket for space exploration" into "rocket that can carry that nuclear warhead we really hope those crazy so-and-sos who run North Korea don't have yet." But what I felt mostly was annoyance. Not at the North Koreans (see "concerned," above), but at our own government and its weak response to this event.What's this, you say? Has Rhoades suddenly become one of those fire-breathing jingoistic hotheads that want us to perform a military strike on North Korea, immediately if not sooner?Nope. I'm not thinking that small. That's what annoys me: that we here in the U.S.A., both the left and the right, are doing just that - thinking small. Military strikes? Sanctions? Pfft. Weak.Return with me now to the glory days of the late 1950s, when America discovered that our mortal enemies, the Soviet Union, had launched a satellite called Sputnik into Earth orbit. Sure, we flipped out, since the Rooskies actually did have nukes and were most certainly willing to aim them at us.But what did we do in response? Did we talk in stern tones about provocation and threaten to cut off aid? No. We went to the freakin' moon. That's right. The moon. None of this pussyfooting around with sanctions and useless finger-shaking. The Soviets put rockets into space? Well, by golly, we decided, we'll do that, too.After a few setbacks, we were doing it better.Oh, sure, the Russians sent a human up first, but Yuri Gagarin was just along for the ride, on a spacecraft flying on automatic mode. Not only that, but when he returned to Earth, it was by bailing out of his craft at 23,000 feet and landing by parachute. Our guy, when he went up, was an actual pilot, controlling his craft and bringing it down safely (even if it wasn't good for much afterward).Then President Kennedy doubled down. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade," he said, "and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."A mere eight years later, we'd done it. We had men walking, driving dune buggies, even playing golf, on the surface of the moon. Along the way, we developed some of the technologies that we use every day: communications satellites, weather satellites, and nonstick cookware. Take that, Ivan!That's how we ought to deal with some jackleg dictator shooting rockets into space: We show him we can do it better, faster, and with more vision and ambition than his sad little backwater could ever dream of doing.Personally, I'd love it if one of our diplomats could approach some North Korean functionary at a cocktail party and go, "I hear you're putting a satellite into space. That's just adorable. We're going to Mars, you know. Probably be mining the asteroid belt in 10 years. More caviar?"Sadly, we seem to have lost that desire to show the world what we can do, to "organize and measure the best of our energies and skills" by doing things like visiting our celestial neighbors. The Obama administration killed the ambitious Constellation program in favor of a smaller, less aggressive vision. While they're doing some interesting things in the area of private research and development, those seem mostly focused on keeping the aging International Space Station in Earth orbit, not doing big things like going back to the moon or exploring Mars.And make no mistake: Expanding our capabilities and our options beyond this fragile blue ball isn't just a matter of showing up our international adversaries; it's a matter of our survival as a species.One planet isn't going to be enough forever, and this one's right in the cross hairs of some big, extinction-causing rocks. You could ask the dinosaurs, if they hadn't been wiped out by the aforementioned rocks.
When I heard that North Korea was preparing to launch a rocket into space, I experienced quite a few different feelings.Certainly I was concerned, because engineering-wise, it's not hard to turn "rocket for space exploration" into "rocket that can carry that nuclear warhead we really hope those crazy so-and-sos who run North Korea don't have yet." But what I felt mostly was annoyance. Not at the North Koreans (see "concerned," above), but at our own government and its weak response to this event.What's this, you say? Has Rhoades suddenly become one of those fire-breathing jingoistic hotheads that want us to perform a military strike on North Korea, immediately if not sooner?Nope. I'm not thinking that small. That's what annoys me: that we here in the U.S.A., both the left and the right, are doing just that - thinking small. Military strikes? Sanctions? Pfft. Weak.Return with me now to the glory days of the late 1950s, when America discovered that our mortal enemies, the Soviet Union, had launched a satellite called Sputnik into Earth orbit. Sure, we flipped out, since the Rooskies actually did have nukes and were most certainly willing to aim them at us.But what did we do in response? Did we talk in stern tones about provocation and threaten to cut off aid? No. We went to the freakin' moon. That's right. The moon. None of this pussyfooting around with sanctions and useless finger-shaking. The Soviets put rockets into space? Well, by golly, we decided, we'll do that, too.After a few setbacks, we were doing it better.Oh, sure, the Russians sent a human up first, but Yuri Gagarin was just along for the ride, on a spacecraft flying on automatic mode. Not only that, but when he returned to Earth, it was by bailing out of his craft at 23,000 feet and landing by parachute. Our guy, when he went up, was an actual pilot, controlling his craft and bringing it down safely (even if it wasn't good for much afterward).Then President Kennedy doubled down. "We choose to go to the moon in this decade," he said, "and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."A mere eight years later, we'd done it. We had men walking, driving dune buggies, even playing golf, on the surface of the moon. Along the way, we developed some of the technologies that we use every day: communications satellites, weather satellites, and nonstick cookware. Take that, Ivan!That's how we ought to deal with some jackleg dictator shooting rockets into space: We show him we can do it better, faster, and with more vision and ambition than his sad little backwater could ever dream of doing.Personally, I'd love it if one of our diplomats could approach some North Korean functionary at a cocktail party and go, "I hear you're putting a satellite into space. That's just adorable. We're going to Mars, you know. Probably be mining the asteroid belt in 10 years. More caviar?"Sadly, we seem to have lost that desire to show the world what we can do, to "organize and measure the best of our energies and skills" by doing things like visiting our celestial neighbors. The Obama administration killed the ambitious Constellation program in favor of a smaller, less aggressive vision. While they're doing some interesting things in the area of private research and development, those seem mostly focused on keeping the aging International Space Station in Earth orbit, not doing big things like going back to the moon or exploring Mars.And make no mistake: Expanding our capabilities and our options beyond this fragile blue ball isn't just a matter of showing up our international adversaries; it's a matter of our survival as a species.One planet isn't going to be enough forever, and this one's right in the cross hairs of some big, extinction-causing rocks. You could ask the dinosaurs, if they hadn't been wiped out by the aforementioned rocks.
Even if the thought of thumbing our noses at North Korea doesn't launch your rocket, that's another reason we need to remember who we are, hitch up our britches, and get ourselves back to the High Frontier.
April 8, 2012
Who Said It?
Latest Newspaper Column:
Hey, let's play a little game. I'm going to give you five statements regarding the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, and ask you to guess who said them. If that's too hard, just guess whether they were a Republican or a Democrat.(1) "The proper role of judges [is] to apply the laws as written, and not to advance their own agendas. Our founders gave the judicial branch enormous power. It's the only branch of government whose officers are unelected. That means judges on the federal bench must exercise their power prudently, cautiously, or some might even say, conservatively."(2) "I believe on the great moral issues of our time, the people have a right to speak and say what their collective morality is, the kind of country that they want to live in, and a few unelected, in some cases, or even elected, judges should not impose that."(3) "[F]or years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint - that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."(4) "Supreme Court justices have always had tremendous power within our constitutional system of separated and enumerated powers. In recent decades, growing concern has arisen over judicial activism on the court, which has the necessary consequence of taking power away from the elected representatives, and thus the people themselves, and conferring it to those with life tenure, unelected judges who have occasionally used this power conferred upon them in the Constitution to impose their own views and their own agenda on the American people and substituting that for the views of their elected representatives."(5) "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people. ... as president, I will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."OK, pencils down.(1) was said by He Who Must Not Be Mentioned, the former chief executive whose very name brings an immediate reflexive answer from conservatives asking, "When are you going to stop blaming everything on Bush?" Yes, folks, that statement deploring judicial activism came from the Dubbyaman himself, George W. Bush.(2) comes from the mouth of right-wing hero Rick Santorum, whose voice seems to be growing fainter and fainter, yet more and more shrill, as he falls further and further behind Mitt Romney.(3) is a recent statement from President Barack Obama (a Democrat, in case you didn't know), in response to a press question at the White House.(4) was said by Sen. John Cornyn, conservative Republican of Texas.(5) was said by presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.Now, let's go to Part 2. Which one of the above statements caused the following eruptions of indignation from conservatives:"This isn't right. It is threatening, it is intimidating." - Mike Johanns, Republican Congressman from Nebraska."[H]e's rejecting a basic premise of American law that has not been seriously questioned in 175 years, which is this: The courts have the right to review what the Congress does and what the president does and if the court finds that behavior unconstitutional, they can void, they can invalidate what the Congress and the president does. That's our system. That's what preserves the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority. No president has questioned this since Andrew Jackson!" - Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.And so on. The Wall Street Journal even called the remarks "unnerving."If you guess that conservatives went ballistic over a statement by Barack Obama about "unelected judges" and judicial activism that they would have cheered had it been made by any of the other people mentioned above, you win a cookie.It's one of those events that so perfectly sum up the culture of Wingnuttia: the faked indignation; the hysterical whining over "threats and intimidation" where none exist; and above all, the shameless two-faced-ness that presumes the audience is too stupid or too blinded by partisanship to recall that the statements they're supposed to be indignant about could have come, and in fact have come, from the mouths of one of their own candidates.The truth is not in these people. They have proven over and over that they will do or say absolutely anything to win, because winning is their only goal, not governing. They cannot be trusted to do either.
Hey, let's play a little game. I'm going to give you five statements regarding the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, and ask you to guess who said them. If that's too hard, just guess whether they were a Republican or a Democrat.(1) "The proper role of judges [is] to apply the laws as written, and not to advance their own agendas. Our founders gave the judicial branch enormous power. It's the only branch of government whose officers are unelected. That means judges on the federal bench must exercise their power prudently, cautiously, or some might even say, conservatively."(2) "I believe on the great moral issues of our time, the people have a right to speak and say what their collective morality is, the kind of country that they want to live in, and a few unelected, in some cases, or even elected, judges should not impose that."(3) "[F]or years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint - that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."(4) "Supreme Court justices have always had tremendous power within our constitutional system of separated and enumerated powers. In recent decades, growing concern has arisen over judicial activism on the court, which has the necessary consequence of taking power away from the elected representatives, and thus the people themselves, and conferring it to those with life tenure, unelected judges who have occasionally used this power conferred upon them in the Constitution to impose their own views and their own agenda on the American people and substituting that for the views of their elected representatives."(5) "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people. ... as president, I will appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices."OK, pencils down.(1) was said by He Who Must Not Be Mentioned, the former chief executive whose very name brings an immediate reflexive answer from conservatives asking, "When are you going to stop blaming everything on Bush?" Yes, folks, that statement deploring judicial activism came from the Dubbyaman himself, George W. Bush.(2) comes from the mouth of right-wing hero Rick Santorum, whose voice seems to be growing fainter and fainter, yet more and more shrill, as he falls further and further behind Mitt Romney.(3) is a recent statement from President Barack Obama (a Democrat, in case you didn't know), in response to a press question at the White House.(4) was said by Sen. John Cornyn, conservative Republican of Texas.(5) was said by presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.Now, let's go to Part 2. Which one of the above statements caused the following eruptions of indignation from conservatives:"This isn't right. It is threatening, it is intimidating." - Mike Johanns, Republican Congressman from Nebraska."[H]e's rejecting a basic premise of American law that has not been seriously questioned in 175 years, which is this: The courts have the right to review what the Congress does and what the president does and if the court finds that behavior unconstitutional, they can void, they can invalidate what the Congress and the president does. That's our system. That's what preserves the Constitution against the tyranny of the majority. No president has questioned this since Andrew Jackson!" - Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano.And so on. The Wall Street Journal even called the remarks "unnerving."If you guess that conservatives went ballistic over a statement by Barack Obama about "unelected judges" and judicial activism that they would have cheered had it been made by any of the other people mentioned above, you win a cookie.It's one of those events that so perfectly sum up the culture of Wingnuttia: the faked indignation; the hysterical whining over "threats and intimidation" where none exist; and above all, the shameless two-faced-ness that presumes the audience is too stupid or too blinded by partisanship to recall that the statements they're supposed to be indignant about could have come, and in fact have come, from the mouths of one of their own candidates.The truth is not in these people. They have proven over and over that they will do or say absolutely anything to win, because winning is their only goal, not governing. They cannot be trusted to do either.
April 2, 2012
BREAKING COVER FREE FOR KINDLE!
Laura Lippman says: "
Breaking Cover
won't surprise J.D. Rhoades' fans, who already know just how good he is, but it should win him many more. A breath-taking pace, paired with a sure sense of character and place, makes this book another winner. Rhoades' star on the mystery scene is rising almost as fast as his own stories rocket across the page."
Tess Gerritsen says: " Breaking Cover is one of those rare thrillers that combine smart, tense prose with a momentum that never quits. J.D. Rhoades revs this baby into action from the get-go and never eases up on the throttle."
BOOKLIST says:" Rhoades takes a break from his Keller series, featuring the Gulf War–haunted bounty hunter (Safe and Sound, 2007), with a stand-alone thriller starring rogue FBI agent Tony Wolf. Forced to break cover after rescuing two abducted children, Wolf—officially dead but living under the radar in rural North Carolina—suddenly finds himself on the run from both his former colleagues in the bureau (including his wife) and, more seriously, from the gang of drug-dealing bikers he infiltrated in his last FBI assignment. Tired of running from trouble, Wolf decides to go on the offense: take down the bikers, and expose the mole in the FBI power structure who is feeding the bikers information. If thriller fans are thinking Lee Child here, they're right on target. Like Child, Rhoades dishes out one airtight action scene after another, mixing in just enough character-building moments and holding our interest in a full cast of nicely developed supporting players. All that, and a Sam Peckinpah–like bloody, bravura finale that will leave even icy-veined thriller fans panting for breath."
BREAKING COVER: Free for Kindle for a limited time!
–Laura Lippman,
Tess Gerritsen says: " Breaking Cover is one of those rare thrillers that combine smart, tense prose with a momentum that never quits. J.D. Rhoades revs this baby into action from the get-go and never eases up on the throttle."
BOOKLIST says:" Rhoades takes a break from his Keller series, featuring the Gulf War–haunted bounty hunter (Safe and Sound, 2007), with a stand-alone thriller starring rogue FBI agent Tony Wolf. Forced to break cover after rescuing two abducted children, Wolf—officially dead but living under the radar in rural North Carolina—suddenly finds himself on the run from both his former colleagues in the bureau (including his wife) and, more seriously, from the gang of drug-dealing bikers he infiltrated in his last FBI assignment. Tired of running from trouble, Wolf decides to go on the offense: take down the bikers, and expose the mole in the FBI power structure who is feeding the bikers information. If thriller fans are thinking Lee Child here, they're right on target. Like Child, Rhoades dishes out one airtight action scene after another, mixing in just enough character-building moments and holding our interest in a full cast of nicely developed supporting players. All that, and a Sam Peckinpah–like bloody, bravura finale that will leave even icy-veined thriller fans panting for breath."
BREAKING COVER: Free for Kindle for a limited time!
–Laura Lippman,
April 1, 2012
The Bill Maher Rule
Latest Newspaper Column:
"Good afternoon. Thank you for calling radio station WING, your No. 1 source for news talk radio. Can I help you?""Uh, yeah, I'd like to talk to the person who schedules your 'Citizens Talk Back' segment. You know, the one where ordinary guys like me can comment on stuff?""That would be me, sir. I'm the producer. My name's Georgette. What would you like to comment on?""I'd like to talk about how that Geraldo Rivera guy said that Trayvon Martin got shot because he was a black man wearing a hoodie. That really burned me up. I mean, is that a stupid, racist thing to say or what?""Yes, sir, I understand. And if you don't mind my asking, I assume you're a liberal?""Ummm ... yeah, I guess so. Why?""And can you tell me the last time you publicly criticized Bill Maher?""What?""Bill Maher, the guy who hosts that show on HBO. Have you ever denounced him for calling Sarah Palin a nasty name a couple of years ago?""Well, no. I didn't even see that. Or hear about it. What does that have to do with - ""Oh, I'm sorry, sir, liberals are not allowed to make any criticism of anything anyone on Fox News or conservative talk radio says, no matter how stupid, unless they've publicly criticized Bill Maher. It's a new rule. So to speak.""What? Since when?""Since Rush Limbaugh called that young woman who testified before Congress about birth control a slut and a prostitute. Conservatives knew there was no way to defend that, so they pulled up an old quote from Bill Maher where he called Governor Palin a nasty name. That way, they could go, 'What Rush said was bad, but liberals didn't say anything about what Bill Maher said, so they can't complain about it.' They said it so many times on Fox that it became a rule. We even call it the Bill Maher rule.""That's ridiculous.""Let me see if there's some other way to help. Have you ever said anything critical of Maxine Waters or Shirley Jackson Lee?""I don't even know who they are!""Don't lie to me, sir. Every liberal knows everything those two have said, and their failure to abhor them every single day is an example of left-wing hypocrisy.""Let me get this straight. Someone on the right says something sexist, racist, or just plain stupid and mean, and I can't say anything about it unless I've gone out of my way to criticize something stupid or mean or outrageous some liberal has said?""Yes, sir.""And let me guess ... you get to pick the thing I should have complained about, and even if I've never heard of it, I'm a hypocrite because I didn't already fall all over myself to deplore it?""Now you get it!""No, I really don't. Do you demand that conservatives do that? I mean, I've seen some really nasty signs about President Obama. There was the one Photoshopped to make him look like a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. There's that bumper sticker someone put out that said "Don't Re-Nig In 2012" and an Obama symbol with a line through it. When someone comes on your station to complain about Bill Maher or Rahm Emmanuel, do you ask them if they've ever denounced those things?""Oh, no, sir! That wouldn't be honest. It would be trying to stifle debate!""Of course it would.""Oh, by the way, you can't ever say anything about racism by the Republicans or the tea party unless you've publicly denounced Senator Robert Byrd.""Isn't he dead?""Yes, but he was in the KKK.""That was before I was born!""Doesn't matter. I'm sorry, sir, it doesn't look like we're going to be able to help you today. Thanks for calling WING, fair and balanced news talk radio!""This is [bad word].""You don't have to use vulgar language, sir!""Rick Santorum did!""Yes, but you're not allowed to mention it unless you complained about Joe Biden saying ... Hello? Hello?"
"Good afternoon. Thank you for calling radio station WING, your No. 1 source for news talk radio. Can I help you?""Uh, yeah, I'd like to talk to the person who schedules your 'Citizens Talk Back' segment. You know, the one where ordinary guys like me can comment on stuff?""That would be me, sir. I'm the producer. My name's Georgette. What would you like to comment on?""I'd like to talk about how that Geraldo Rivera guy said that Trayvon Martin got shot because he was a black man wearing a hoodie. That really burned me up. I mean, is that a stupid, racist thing to say or what?""Yes, sir, I understand. And if you don't mind my asking, I assume you're a liberal?""Ummm ... yeah, I guess so. Why?""And can you tell me the last time you publicly criticized Bill Maher?""What?""Bill Maher, the guy who hosts that show on HBO. Have you ever denounced him for calling Sarah Palin a nasty name a couple of years ago?""Well, no. I didn't even see that. Or hear about it. What does that have to do with - ""Oh, I'm sorry, sir, liberals are not allowed to make any criticism of anything anyone on Fox News or conservative talk radio says, no matter how stupid, unless they've publicly criticized Bill Maher. It's a new rule. So to speak.""What? Since when?""Since Rush Limbaugh called that young woman who testified before Congress about birth control a slut and a prostitute. Conservatives knew there was no way to defend that, so they pulled up an old quote from Bill Maher where he called Governor Palin a nasty name. That way, they could go, 'What Rush said was bad, but liberals didn't say anything about what Bill Maher said, so they can't complain about it.' They said it so many times on Fox that it became a rule. We even call it the Bill Maher rule.""That's ridiculous.""Let me see if there's some other way to help. Have you ever said anything critical of Maxine Waters or Shirley Jackson Lee?""I don't even know who they are!""Don't lie to me, sir. Every liberal knows everything those two have said, and their failure to abhor them every single day is an example of left-wing hypocrisy.""Let me get this straight. Someone on the right says something sexist, racist, or just plain stupid and mean, and I can't say anything about it unless I've gone out of my way to criticize something stupid or mean or outrageous some liberal has said?""Yes, sir.""And let me guess ... you get to pick the thing I should have complained about, and even if I've never heard of it, I'm a hypocrite because I didn't already fall all over myself to deplore it?""Now you get it!""No, I really don't. Do you demand that conservatives do that? I mean, I've seen some really nasty signs about President Obama. There was the one Photoshopped to make him look like a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. There's that bumper sticker someone put out that said "Don't Re-Nig In 2012" and an Obama symbol with a line through it. When someone comes on your station to complain about Bill Maher or Rahm Emmanuel, do you ask them if they've ever denounced those things?""Oh, no, sir! That wouldn't be honest. It would be trying to stifle debate!""Of course it would.""Oh, by the way, you can't ever say anything about racism by the Republicans or the tea party unless you've publicly denounced Senator Robert Byrd.""Isn't he dead?""Yes, but he was in the KKK.""That was before I was born!""Doesn't matter. I'm sorry, sir, it doesn't look like we're going to be able to help you today. Thanks for calling WING, fair and balanced news talk radio!""This is [bad word].""You don't have to use vulgar language, sir!""Rick Santorum did!""Yes, but you're not allowed to mention it unless you complained about Joe Biden saying ... Hello? Hello?"
