Robin Reardon's Blog: Robin Reardon: Speaking of writing..., page 3

The Smoking Gun

It took the U.S. a long time to force the tobacco industry to admit that their products were killing people and even longer to convince people that they would die from using tobacco. Some people still aren't convinced.

Guns in the wrong hands are more dangerous than cancer, so is it now the gun industry that has some 'splainin' to do? Well, it would do no good to put danger labels on guns. So we need to neutralize the virtual weapons the industry is using. And the primary weapon, wielded through the industry's proxy (the National Rifle Association), is money.

The NRA has LOTS of money

Although the NRA relies on many sources for its income, one of its primary sources is the gun industry. Not making enough money from hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts, the gun industry is getting the NRA to do the dirty work of convincing people not only that they personally need guns, but also that it's their patriotic duty to own as many as possible.

From Business Insider:

"Since 2005, the gun industry and its corporate allies have given between $20 million and $52.6 million ... through the NRA Ring of Freedom sponsor program. Donors include firearm companies like Midway USA, Springfield Armory Inc, Pierce Bullet Seal Target Systems, and Beretta USA Corporation. Other supporters from the gun industry include Cabala's, Sturm Rugar & Co, and Smith & Wesson."

From The Atlantic:

"Between [2005] and 2011... the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co...."

What do they do with this money?

They advertise. There are ads everywhere there can be ads making gun use look fun, sexy, and necessary. Many of these ads are political. According to the LA Times, the NRA spent almost four times as much money opposing Barack Obama as they did supporting Mitt Romney in 2012, and nearly twice as much opposing Hillary Clinton as supporting Donald Trump in 2016.

They bribe legislators. The value of bribes going from the NRA to legislators is, by any standard, extravagant. Even if we look at only the top 10 senators and representatives who've accepted NRA money, the total is more than $47 million.

MAKE IT STOP!

What can we do? In the words of Bruce Cockburn: "Kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight."

How do we do that? It's obvious that without legal controls, U.S. citizens will arm themselves to the teeth before they walk into a Walmart to buy yet another gun. So we need well-considered legislation to be enacted. This means we need legislators to value votes higher than bribes.

1. Let legislators know we're watching. Identify and shame the legislators who offer "thoughts and prayers" and then take NRA money. 

Use this map to see which of your state's representatives have accepted NRA money, and how much. Then write them a check with the words "Thoughts and Prayers" written into both dollar amount fields, and send it along with a note saying you know they will value this contribution even more than the [dollar amount] they've taken from the NRA.

2. Vote. That means all of us. That means this year, November, 2018. We know the NRA will be pouring massive amounts of money into the effort to maintain Republican majorities everywhere this year. But this money will be wasted if we vote out of office any legislator (no matter the party) who accepts NRA bribes and refuses to kick at the darkness of gun madness with legislation. 

Many legislators who get NRA money are already drinking the Kool-Aid. They're interpreting the Second Amendment as though guns haven't changed since 1776. These people have failed at their job of public service. They need to go.

What else needs to change? Here are a few actions we can demand legislators take:

End the sale of guns without background checksEnd gun shows where anyone can buy anythingCriminalize private ownership of semi-automatic and automatic weaponsCriminalize the sale of multi-round ammo clipsRadically increase the cost of ammunition with a heavy tax

And to anyone who wants to carry around a weapon that will kill multiple people with an ejaculative spurt of a large number of bullets: U.S. Army recruiters would like to talk to you.

Subscribe to my blog

Denying Gay Couples Art

Cathy Miller of Tastries bakery in Bakersfield, CA can refuse to sell to anyone who displeases her, according to the California Superior Court, because it's "art," and that makes it free speech.

According to this Feb. 7 Washington Post article, Judge David R. Lampe opined that “Miller is a practicing Christian and considers herself a woman of deep faith.”

If Miller's faith is so strong, it should support her through this perceived tribulation. I refer her to Jesus' response to the Pharisees when they challenged him on the very subject of sacred vs. secular:

“Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21

Miller evidently claims to have faith in her God. But if that faith doesn't outweigh this commercial transaction, it is paltry indeed. And she shouldn't look to the courts to strengthen it; she should look to her God.

And as for artistic expression, who defines that? The courts? If so, let them consider these cases:

If a homophobic bigot wants to buy my books (which I consider art and definitely free speech) just to burn them, I have no legal recourse; nor should I.If a surgeon considers her work to be art, she might refuse to operate on someone for reasons that have nothing to do with her profession.

Judge Lampe further asserts that if the gay couple had chosen a cake already completed, Miller would have been legally obligated to sell it to them; but because in this case Miller would have had to create a custom cake, it crossed into the area of art and free speech.

I'm going to turn Judge Lampe on his head for a second. We have two cakes: one Miller created based on her own input alone (that is, not custom); another Miller created with input from a customer. Wouldn't the former be a truer expression of Miller's art?

Having the court determine what is art is not radically different from trying to legislate morality. There are assumptions we can make about what most people want supported by law: protection from murder, from material or intellectual theft, from violence, from fraud, from unfair business practices.

But we must be very, very careful when we venture into areas such as religion and morality. Quoting the Post article, "She believes that same sex unions 'violate a Biblical command that marriage is only between a man and a woman.'" Fine; but when her belief bumps into another's legal and civil rights, which should preside? I'm going to say the latter.

I saw an interview in 2015 (if memory serves) about marriage equality in which a "man on the street" expressed his belief this way: "It's like you're telling me that if I think marriage is something special between a man and a woman, you're calling me a bigot!"

Abominable sentence structure aside, no one needs to call this man a bigot. He's just done it himself. Bigotry is the reserving of a right or privilege for a select group of individuals, to the exclusion of all others, based on the "belief" of that select group. We need go no further back in history than the Black Civil Rights movement in the U.S. to see what this looks like. And it demonstrates how well bigotry works: It doesn't.

Cathy Miller and Judge Lampe would codify bigotry. The Post article says this case is likely to be appealed, and I hope that happens. Meanwhile I appeal to Miller's God to soften her heart, strengthen her faith, and encourage her to go on about her business. Literally.

Subscribe to my blog

Are you out of your mind? It's all about love!

There is a delightful podcast called WROTE, hosted by two great guys who write—and support writers of—LGBTQ literature. And they interviewed me!

The episode, "Are you out of your mind? It's all about love," was great fun to record. I just hope I don't sound as cray-cray to everyone else as I sound to myself. In my defense, Vance Bastian and S.A. Collins are very good at getting people to reveal their inner truths.

Give it a listen to find out answers to many burning questions. (Stay through the music interlude at around the half-way point to hear the entire episode.)

How did I come up with my writing motto ("The only thing wrong with being gay is how some people treat you when they find out")?What's one thing I still have from my childhood, and why is it named Abelard?What did Taylor Adams say to me while I was writing THINKING STRAIGHT?What was the first story I wrote? (It wasn't A SECRET EDGE. And I was all of 13.)Why did Ethan Poe's brother Kyle damage his own hand deliberately in THE EVOLUTION OF ETHAN POE? And what does it have to do with CSI New York?Who is Ted Haggard, and what does he have to do with AND IF I FALL?What the heck is a Kalalau outlaw, and where will it fit into my upcoming series, A NATURAL MAN? And when is that coming out, by the way?In what way will the series A NATURAL MAN be a bittersweet catharsis for me? Does it have anything to do with the way mountains make me feel?Where does the episode title ("Are you out of your mind? It's all about love") come from? Listen to the podcast to find out!

Abelard

Thanks, Vance and S.A., for a wonderful hour that was all about me!

Subscribe to my blog

Choose Your Gender: F / M / X

The acceptance of non-binary and fluid gender identity recently took major steps forward in California and Oregon. For some, the progress is glacial. For others, it’s sex run amok.

I live in Massachusetts, the first U.S. state to recognize marriage equality. That was May of 2004. It took eleven years for the recognition to spread across the country. If you consider that the gay rights movement got its official start in June of 1969 with the Stonewall riots, it took 46 years just to get this far (and there’s a long way to go).

Most polls show that while only one-third of citizens agreed (at the time) with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) 1967 decision invalidating existing laws prohibiting interracial marriage, two-thirds agreed with the 2015 decision (Obergefell v. Hodges) invalidating state marriage laws stipulating gender requirements. 

Why this huge difference? Why wasn’t there a case for marriage equality heard by SCOTUS long before popular opinion was so strong? My guess: SEX.

California just passed SB179, the Gender Recognition Act, giving every state resident the right to change their legal documents to match their internal identity in terms of name and gender. Oregon let residents choose their gender on drivers’ licenses in June. In both states, the designation options are F, M, and X.

F=blue? M=Pink? Yes. Get over it.

X? Really? X is the traditional mark for people who can’t sign their own names. I’ll let non-binary people weigh in on what they think of that; meanwhile, I’ll accept the progress. And New York might soon follow suit. 

And here comes the push-back.

Whatever the issue, when one side makes progress, the other pushes back harder. So I’m seeing things like this, from an article posted on The Hill:

“This new law calls transsexuality good, when science, health, logic and love inform us it’s bad,” said Randy Thomasson, who heads the conservative group SaveCalifornia.com. “Science and God’s word agree you’re either male or female, not in-between.” 

Let’s take this rant one error at a time.

1. The law doesn’t say anything is good, bad, or indifferent. All it says is, “You know who you are better than anyone else.” And while the law says nothing about transgender, that is the hook Thomasson hung his argument on, so let’s continue.

2. Whether someone is “transsexual” is not indicated by identifying with gender X; medical science tells us that a transsexual person has had surgery and/or hormone therapy, and by no means have all transgender individuals taken these steps. Let’s assume Thomasson meant “transgender.” But even so, the X might indicate gender queer, or gender fluid, or someone who doesn’t identify with a gender at all, none of which is the same as transgender.

3. Far from labelling trans individuals “bad,” science is beginning to understand and validate the transgender issue better all the time. One major breakthrough was seeing that a trans woman (born with a male appearance but identifying as female) has a brain structure closer to that of a woman than of a man. 

4. Thomasson is right about the health issue. Here’s how we know:

One in four trans individuals have been physically assaultedAs of May 2016, nine trans individuals in the U.S. had been murdered41% of trans individuals have attempted suicide

5. Thomasson loses on the logic issue, however. In addition to points 1-3 above, he's also contributing to the problem in point 4.

6. Love. Well, Thomasson is showing us what a lack of that looks like. But even his god wouldn’t give him the right to decide where love is and is not. And while we’re talking about his god, does he think that god makes mistakes? If no, then the trans brain structure is not a mistake. If yes, then—well, why does Thomasson worship that god? And why should the rest of us take that erroneous deity seriously?

One thing fundamentalist religions have in common is a morbid interest in other people’s sex lives. The more strenuously someone protests against LGBTQ+ rights progress, the deeper into the gutter their mind is likely to be. And the more someone protests that they aren’t obsessed with some else’s sex life, the more they sound like Hamlet’s mother: “…[thou] dost protest too much, methinks.”

So will it take eleven years for non-binary individuals to be recognized across the country as existing on the face of the plant? Or will it take 46? Or will it take….

Subscribe to my blog

A.C.L.U. vs. the Spirit of the Law

The ACLU needs to get better at understanding law—not just the letter. It needs to understand the spirit.

As ex-ACLU board member Waldo Jaquith puts it: What’s legal and what’s right are sometimes different. 

Letter vs. Spirit

You’re driving your car. It’s 3:00 a.m. The road you’re on is in the middle of nowhere, an open plain ahead of you as you descend down a hill to an intersection where a stop sign instructs you to stop. 

Why does it want you to stop? What’s the objective? Well, under normal driving conditions (that is, at least some level of congestion on the road), the objective is safety. That stop sign is there to make sure you don’t get plowed into by another vehicle, and that you don’t do the plowing, either.

But in our scenario, in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, what’s the objective of the stop sign? There isn’t another vehicle for miles in any direction. So… do you stop? Or do you just take a quick look around and keep on truckin’, as it were?

The Letter of the Law

Let’s say you believe in the letter of the law. You stop. Okay, so a little time is lost, a little gas is wasted, and you’ve done what you’re supposed to do. No harm done, and sticklers are gratified.

The Situation

Now let’s change the scenario, just a little. You’re back on that downhill slope. You see nothing ahead of you but the stop sign. Suddenly, in your rearview mirror, you’re nearly blinded by the headlights of an eighteen-wheeler, and then you’re nearly deafened by the sound of the driver leaning on his horn as the massive vehicle hurtles toward you with increasing speed.

The Spirit of the Law

This is a situation. Everything is a situation. Life requires us to use our brains rather than follow dogmatic laws and rules blindly. If you obey the letter of the law in the second scenario and stop at that stop sign, with the truck overtaking you because it has lost its brakes, will the objective of safety be met, or will you and possibly the truck driver as well die a grisly, horrible death?

The U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens freedom of speech. The term “first amendment rights” should be echoing in your brain right about now. And the ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, is a famous non-profit organization dedicated to protecting all civil liberties, including free speech, and they've been harshly criticized a number of times for their efforts (e.g., protecting the rights of a neo-Nazi group to march in Skokie, IL, forty years ago). Most recently, they defended the civil liberties of the alt-right to hold a rally in Charlottesville, VA about the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.

There were many factors contributing to the tragic outcome of that rally, where three people died and many were injured, including the apparent hands-off approach of local law enforcement. But it’s possible that without the ACLU’s involvement, the rally would have ended differently.

The ACLU claims to involve themselves on a case-by-case basis. If that is true, it seems to me they are still far too attached to the letter of the law. In this case, that law would be the first amendment.

In a country (i.e., the U.S.) where civil liberties are guaranteed for all citizens, including those of African descent, or those adhering to the religions of Judasim or Islam, or those whose sexual orientation or gender identity are non-conforming, or those who are women, where is the spirit of the law when one group demands the right to spew hatred and hurtle threats and brandish deadly weapons against any or all of the other groups and call it “free speech?” Where are the rights to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for those against whom the hate “speech” and violence is aimed? 

Waldo Jaquith, a former board member of the ACLU in Virginia, resigned his position and posted this on Twitter: “What’s legal and what’s right are sometimes different. I won’t be a fig leaf for Nazis.”

Fig leaf. The term brings scriptural references to mind. 

It’s time the ACLU got better at understanding—and standing up for—the spirit of the law, even at the expense of the letter of it.

Subscribe to my Blog

Waiting For Walker: Buddy Read!

Buddy Read: Enjoy a great book at the same time as others who share your interests, and exchange comments as you go. It's great fun! The Buddy Read for Waiting for Walker starts FRIDAY, JULY 14. Don't be left out!
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Facebook Says: No Christian Cross Emoji

On June 9, in honor of Pride Month and not long after the death of the man who created the original LGBTQ Rainbow Flag (Gilbert Baker), Facebook introduced a rainbow flag emoji, available alongside the usual icons that appear for responses to posts and messages. I used it many times, myself.

Before the month was out, a Facebook user began a movement to add another emoji to the list: a Christian cross.

Hate Will Out

My first response was, “How silly. As if Christians need new ways to express themselves.” Then I read a Huffpost article about it and saw how much hatred was behind this request, which became more of a demand. And my second response was outrage.

To be sure, it seemed as though some people wanted the cross for well-intentioned reasons, but this small voice was completely overwhelmed by statements like this one:

 “People took a symbol like the rainbow which means beauty and a non-destructive action and turned it into a destructive sinful symbol.”

And then there was this one, ranted by someone who misunderstands nature and thinks they can limit what their own god is capable of doing:

“You can’t cheat nature. God cannot create people of the same sex to ever fall in love with one another. He can’t.”

There is a term for these people: CINO. It stands for Christians In Name Only.  

The New Testament (Matthew, 22:36-40) quotes Jesus as saying that the two most important commandments are “Love God with everything you are,” and “Love everyone as much as you love yourself.” He adds that all other laws—all other commandments—must bow to these.

CINOs Fail At Their Own Religion

CINOs fail the test implicit in these verses. The Christian test is to love everyone, no matter how uncomfortable someone else’s characteristics make that Christian. And the test of everyone else is to love that Christian, even when he fails his test. CINOS fail the test almost every time they speak.

The absurd demand for a cross emoji puts me in mind of a response to another effort: Black Lives Matter. Do you remember? Within weeks—maybe days—of the birth of that movement was this response: All Lives Matter. But this response was absurd, too; all you have to do is examine how black individuals have been (and are being) treated, and you can see the need to remind everyone that black people are just that: people. No reminder about “all lives” is necessary, because “all lives” have not been dismissed, discounted, denigrated, denied.

Dismissed. Discounted. Denigrated. Denied. Being treated like this applies just as well to LGBTQ individuals. They know exactly how this feels. They have been shamed for no reason other than misunderstanding for millennia. And the response to Pride is often, “Straight Lives Matter.” Well… straight people should just be glad they aren’t constantly told otherwise.

Pride Month Is Over. Pride Lives On.

Stonewall started a change, a revolt, a counter to shame. And the only way to counter shame is with pride. So June is Pride Month because it was June 28, 1969 when LGBTQ people began to fight back against the hatred. Gilbert Baker’s rainbow flag is a call to action, and it’s an expression of pride and solidarity. It’s a rallying beacon of hope for people whose lives are just as valid and matter every bit as much as the CINOs who condemn them.

The rainbow flag emoji fell off the list of Facebook icons at the end of June. I’m not aware yet of a response from Facebook to the request to restore it permanently. But given the attitudes and hatred from so many CINOs who want the cross added, I am very, very glad Facebook has not agreed to do so. 

Thank you, Facebook!

Subscribe to my blog

Waiting for Walker: Waiting for Your Comments

Waiting for Walker was one of the most challenging stories I've written. And I'd like to hear from readers about how I handled a couple of these challenges.

As many readers have noted, my stories tend to include unusual or even esoteric topics in support of the characters and the plot. Examples are dog behavior; synesthesia; autism; transgender; intersex; Paganism; the list is long.

I enjoy the research necessary to present unusual topics, and sometimes I rely on subject matter experts. But the story Waiting for Walker includes topics that were more challenging to me than usual. In my Author's Note at the back of the book, I indicated that I would set up space for comments about my success regarding these challenges. This is that space.

[WARNING: The remainder of this post contains spoilers.] 

Representing Islam

The story includes a U.S. soldier's conversion to Islam and what it was like for him and for his Afghani Muslim bride when he brought her to his home in Connecticut. To do this credibly and sensitively, I felt I needed to go deep enough into Islam to present it in support of this story without putting myself forth as any kind of expert—and, in my limited knowledge, without giving offense. 

One reader suggested that perhaps I shouldn't be writing about these topics. But I resist that advice on three counts:

My stories are the stories of my characters; they tell me who they are, what their dreams are, how they react to the world around them, and how they live their lives. I go where they tell me to go.Could I refuse to follow the dictates of characters? Yes; but—why? In fact, in light of the hate mongering and bigotry in today's world toward Muslims (here is just one example), I was glad the story line went in the direction it did; it gave me a chance to present Islam and Muslims in a favorable light and, I hope, to represent sensitively some of the challenges they face in trying to become accepted members of Western society. In my opinion, we don't have enough stories like this.I reject the old advice that writers should write only about what they know. While I believe it's good to begin there, what writers know can effectively lead them—and their readers—into fascinating new areas of life where they had not yet ventured. Without imagination, writers cannot write creatively, and they should not limit themselves to what they already know any more than visual artists should do so.

Your Thoughts

For those of you who have read Waiting for Walker and would like to comment about anything, but in particular about my treatment of Afghanistan and/or Islam, please use the comment section below, whether complimenting or criticizing. My effort was done in good faith; if that has failed, I'd like to know.

Thank you for reading. 

Subscribe to my blog

Waiting for Walker: eBook Pre-order Available!

My eighth novel, Waiting for Walker, is about a gay teen and intersex teen who fall for each other. They have many things to think about—and some decisions to make.

The story includes sailing on Long Island Sound, shark attacks, and a three-legged dog. How can you resist?

Here's a synopsis:

Micah Jaeger's life is a mess. His folks have split, and his mother is seeing a medium to communicate with Micah's older brother, killed in Afghanistan. He had to change schools for his junior year, which made him retreat further into himself, hiding behind his camera—and hiding that he's gay.

One sunny day in June, as he's shooting a dead seagull on the shore of Long Island Sound, a mysterious guy appears in a beautiful sailboat. At first, the guy's boat shoes are the image that stays with Micah. But soon it's the person himself, Walker Donnell, who haunts Micah's dreams.

Walker's life looks perfect to Micah. His wealthy parents adore him. He has everything he could want. He's gorgeous and generous. And he falls hard for Micah. But he has a secret: Walker is intersex.

The closer Walker and Micah grow, the more Walker feels the need to be sure of himself in ways he hasn't fully faced before, and now it's his turn to retreat. Micah knows Walker is worth waiting for, so he waits. And waits.

READ CHAPTER ONE. Then:

Pre-order yours today!

Enemies of the Fearless Girl: Be Afraid

There is a famous bronze sculpture on lower Manhattan: the enraged Wall Street bull. And as of March 7, there is another statue facing down that fearsome creature: the Fearless Girl.

According to The Boston Globe, the new statue by sculptor Kristen Visbal was installed by a branch of the Boston-based State Street Corp. (State Street Advisors) “as a call for more women to serve on corporate boards.”

The first time I saw a photograph of this face-off, it gave me shivers. In a good way. I didn’t just want to cheer for that little girl. I wanted to be that little girl. 

I was a real tomboy in my youth, and I never got over the sense of power I got from beating the boys at footraces and volleyball and king-of-the-mountain, a test of determination and guts in which we ten-year-olds would scramble to the tops of the massive piles of snow on the school’s winter playgrounds and fight with our own team to keep everyone else from gaining that high ground. 

I’ve never been very good at keeping my place as a girl. I smile when I want to, not when I’m expected to. I’m the one who shovels the driveway of snow, and I love it. In my long career at a major financial institution, I gained the reputation of speaking truth to power—not just whether they wanted to hear it, but especially if they didn’t want to hear it. 

So that little girl fearlessly facing a raging bull gave me shivers in a very good way.

But, it seems, even in the form of powerful bronze, women are fair game.

The most predictable attack came from a scum-of-the-earth individual whose asinine friends cheered him on as he pretended to rape the girl. I only wish he had tried for real; just think what that particular little girl’s body would have done to his vulnerable male member. 

But as despicable as this act was, as exemplary as it was of the worst part of male chauvinism and dominance, it wasn’t as surprising to me as the other attack. The one that came from a woman.

In her March 14 Guardian article, it appears that Cara Marsh Sheffler is so hung up on the fact that Fearless Girl is on Wall Street—and was commissioned by a bank—that Sheffler’s own bronze core got all bent out of shape over what she sees as the “false reality” of “having it all.” It bothers Sheffler that Fearless Girl is leaning in. It bothers her that Fearless Girl was bought and paid for by what Sheffler sees as corporate greed. 

Sheffler isn’t wrong to see these things and to call them out for what they are. She’s not wrong to believe that true feminism is so, so much more than just playing the boys’ games their way. 

But it seems to me that Sheffler’s approach is all male. She’s attacking Fearless Girl and essentially blaming anyone who likes the image for betraying true feminism. She might as well be humping that girl, herself.

Fearless Girl isn’t afraid of the bull. IT’S THE BULL, Cara Sheffler, that you should be paying attention to. That’s “bull” in every sense of the word. It isn’t just the boys of Wall Street Fearless Girl isn’t afraid of. It’s Wall Street itself. This little girl isn’t wearing a pinstripe suit. She isn’t carrying a briefcase. She isn’t even wearing eyeglasses. And she isn’t smiling. 

In my not-so-humble opinion, Sheffler completely missed the point. Let the bull rage on. Let him paw the ground and snort steam from his flaring nostrils. Let him even pretend that by raping women, he’s forcing them to stay in the place he thinks they should occupy. 

That bull has not only met his match. He has met his downfall.

Subscribe to my blog