Why Elections Matter - And Debates Leave Too Much Unsaid

Is there ever going to be a serious conversation about what the repercussions would be if Roe vs Wade was overturned? This is not a theoretical matter because it could really happen in the not too distant future, at which point the matter ceases to be about opposing talking points and transforms into nitty gritty details to be dealt with.

I respect someone sincerely having a Pro Life position but I’m tired of hearing politicians say “I’m pro life”, “I believe in the sactity of life”, “all lives are sacred” without then detailing a follow up plan.

Suppose Romney wins the election and eventually he’s able to appoint enough conservative Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe vs Wade.

So it’s now illegal for a woman (guy who contributed to the pregnancy bears no consequence of course, a major flaw in plan) to get an abortion. Penalty for breaking the law must be decided on.

Jail time seems ridiculous. So I guess you go with a hefty fine. But not everyone will be able to afford the fine. Jail time for those who can’t pay? Result, prisons overflowing with poor women.

Whatever penalty is decided on, let us assume it’s quite pursuasive. This means far fewer abortions, far more babies. The number of women who get pregnant without planning to parent will stay the same. After all, many of those who are anti-abortion are also illogically anti-contraceptives.

So now what? I will conservatively guess that the birth rate increases by 50%.

Women who wish to avoid the penalty for getting an illegal abortion (I won’t even get into the safety of the inevitable bootleg abortions from the network of unlicensed practicioneers that will emerge) decide to give birth even though they don’t want/plan to parent.

A percentage of these women will give a half hearted shot at raising the children. I'm going to say 20%. These are mostly poor, single women pushed to care for children they don’t want in their lives. The picture will not be pretty in those households but all that matters is squelching abortions.

But how about the other 80%? The attitude of these women is that you can make them carry to term but you can’t make them parent. 10% of these pregnancies are hidden and babies end up left in dumpsters.

Now we must deal with 70% of babies born to women who did not want and do not plan to raise them. The system (which takes various forms, much of it private/charitable, but much of it also government run or dependent on government money) will have to take care of these children. Adoption agencies and foster care system become overloaded but all that matters is squelching abortions.

I will generously assume that if you’re going to overturn Roe vs Wade you’re also going to pass laws that make adoption extremely affordable. As result, 25% of these children find welcoming homes.

It would be nice if all of these households had guaranteed healthcare. That’s a separate though certainly not unrelated matter for another day/post.

25% is probably too high a projection. After all, a fair number of the children will be the result of rape and even incest. This makes them way less adoptable. It’s not like reducing the cost of adoption means everyone becomes willing to do it. Many people have no interest in parenting, or no interest in parenting someone who is not their biological child. As for those who are willing (God bless them), they’ll have some restrictions (such as no can do if child is the result of violent rape) for obvious reasons.

But I’ll stick with my optimistic 25% guesstimate anyway. That leaves 45% of the babies whose biological mothers could/would not raise them going into the sytem.

Now as we know, the Romney/Ryan budget calls for making massive cuts to social services even though a massive INCREASE in funds to social services would be required to handle all of these children.

What we have here is another case of math that doesn’t add up. You want to “fix” our economy but simultaneously want to overturn a law that would eventually lead to a crippling of the economy. And keep in mind, this is the best case scenario I’m working with.

So maybe, just maybe, the issue isn’t quite so simple as saying “I’m pro life”, “I believe in the sactity of life”, “all lives are sacred”, “abortion is cold blooded murder that must be prevented at all cost”.

If that’s your stance, I understand and respect it. You believe in no exceptions other than perhaps when the life of the mother is at risk? Fine. I too wish that the number of abortions that occur each year considerably decreased, although since I am a man and cannot get pregnant, I’m not so arrogant as to think I have the right to tell a woman what she is allowed to do with her body. But if you are that arrogant/self righteous then I really need to hear your follow up plan. I need to know how many lives you are volunteering to care for if you insist on taking away women’s reproductive rights. If you are going to insist that every child be born then surely you will be doing your minimal share to address the consequences of this taking place. You don’t want to just overturn a rule of law and then let the chips fall where they may, correct? Not when those chips happen to be lives that you profess to care so much about.

If in fact you don’t have a follow up plan, then you need to go sit quiety in the corner and give more serious consideration to who you plan to vote for.



p.s. - NOBODY PUTS BABY IN A BINDER

Judging Presidential Idol

Who do you think won the first Presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? Well, according to a CNN poll 67% believe it was Mr. Romney. That number sounds about right when compared to an unofficial poll of my Twitter feed. If Romney won, this means Obama was the loser. I disagree on both counts. It’s apparent to me based not on the debate but reactions to it that the winner was Style, and the loser was Substance. Substance is specifically indicating how you intend to address a problem and why you believe it has a solid chance to be successful. As for an effective style, it seems some examples would be ignoring and/or speaking over the moderator, being loudest and the most demonstrative, in general coming off as more aggressive than anyone else in the room.

Now I find nothing wrong with being demonstrative/loud/aggressive (rudeness to moderator is less than charming but not a deal breaker), so long as this is the manner in which you are delivering facts and common sense and a well laid out plan. If instead you are vague, denying what I plainly heard you say just the other day, making grand promises without showing a shred of evidence as to how it’s possible to achieve them, then I don’t care how much flair you demonstrate. While writing this I had a flashback to that little old lady from the Wendy’s commercials. Where’s the beef, she would demand to know. Mitt Romney did better than many expected from him and Barack Obama was less animated than a great number of his supporters hoped for. Expectations held in advance strongly influence determinations made after the fact. But ask yourself this. How can you declare Romney to be “the winner” when his claims on stage were both toothless and beefless? Perhaps Mitt made a stronger impression on you, particularly in comparison to his previous bumbling and stumbling. But do you intend to vote for an impression or for the real deal? Will you vote for the man who says and proves by actions how he’ll maintain Medicare and Social Security, promote improvements in the education system, lower the unemployment rate and deficit, increase our independence from oil and the nations in possession of much of it, cut the middle class a break in hard times rather than making the rich richer? Or will you vote for the man who says he’ll do all of that too, but gives no indication of how he would accomplish anything other than the opposite?

Mitt Romney’s campaign for president has been full of contradictions and inconsistencies. At one time or another he has been on both sides of most issues. The most blatant instance is his assault on and promise to repeal a healthcare plan that is based on his own model from when he was governor of Massachusetts and still possessed 47% of the heart provided by the Wizard of Oz. There are not enough hours in the day, much less in a debate where you only get half of the alloted time, to point out every instance of Romney’s hypocrisy. Yet many wish that Barack Obama had highlighted considerably more of them than he got around to. Consider me one of those people. But please don’t declare that I am someone who thinks Romney won the debate, and definitely do not place me on Team Style. No, I ride with Substance all the way. President Obama’s agenda may not be perfect (perfection is impossible anyway when met with obstruction from the Senate at every turn), but it is a plausible solution. It is tempting to want and believe in quick fixes, explaining why so much money has been made off of diet pills even though we know calorie control and exercise are what works. Turning the economy around cannot be done overnight, and not simply because George W. Bush was given 8 years to mess it up. Slow and steady is a believable course of action, no matter that it makes us understandably impatient. Waving a magic wand while cutting taxes on the rich to instantly create 12 million jobs is a far less plausible plan. That’s true even when it’s proclaimed with fantastic showmanship.

Left leaning political pundits are in an uproar. Social media is in a tizzy. Mitt Romney won the debate, they cry. All is lost. Perhaps Romney did win the debate per your personal standards of what victory looks like. If you think all is lost, though, then you must believe that the “independent undecideds” are just as easily swayed by sound and fury that signifies nothing. Keep in mind that up until now nothing has been able to swing them one way or the other. How this can be the case continues to befuddle me. I’m not sure whether they number in the millions, the thousands, or the dozens. I have no idea if they’re spread throughout the country or reside together Big Brother style. What I do know is that those who support Obama still support the President, those who support Romney still support him, and talking softly while carrying a big stick tends to be more effective than empty handed shouting.

"At some point, the American people have to ask themselves if the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans secret is because they're too good." - President Barack Obama

Fact Checks

Part II of Black Literature: Dead or Alive?

Back in August of 2009 I wrote this blog posting, posing the hypothetical question of whether or not African American Literature is still alive. By using the term “literature” rather than books/novels/fiction I hoped to draw a distinction between works of obvious literary merit and cases where brilliance isn’t quite so recognizable. Full disclosure: I was referring to books (self published as well as traditionally) that I snobbishly found by and large to be drivel. No reading of interior content or even much cover copy is required to make a quick analysis. A glance at the ridiculous titles accompanied by absurd cover imagery tells you all you need to know, basically, that these books are the publishing equivalent of coarse, low budgeted, misogynistic, violence glorifying hip hop videos. And when it comes to art that objectifies half the human race and prettifies the spilling of blood while setting back civil rights and social status equity strides by decades, I prefer the slick, well produced variety. Whether the protagonist is a pimp, whore, drug dealer or all of the above, bottom line is that you’ll probably have to go through A LOT of them to find decent writing. And yet A LOT OF THEM is precisely the number being published annually. The genre of urgan/gangsta/street books threatened to dominate the arena of “black books”, and in so doing, was causing damage that just may have been irrevocable.

I am therefore happy to report in September of 2012 as we prepare to kick off Banned Books Week that African American Literature is alive and kicking and thriving, delighting readers of fiction with melanin. As evidence I point to the titles listed below. Each of them was published in the 21st century (since 8/09 I’ve read several excellent novels by black authors [Kindred, Middle Passage, The Intuitionist, Tumbling, Things Fall Apart, etc.] that were published prior to 2000 as well) and reviewed after my concerned blog post. Those with asterisks next to them were published in 2009 or later. They collectively serve notice that great books by authors of color continue to be published in respectable numbers, meaning that we do indeed have balance, and that works just fine for me. I am not the swiftest reader, otherwise my line-up of evidence would be more plentiful. In addition to the books I’ve gotten around to, my TO BE READ cup runneth over. Apparently great novels are being written faster than I can read them, and this is the best possible news for the state of literature in any category.

My cynicism sometimes carries me away, and the speculation of others is often way off the mark. Turns out that radio didn’t kill the radio star, eReaders haven’t murdered the printed word, self publishing has not knocked off literary fiction, there's no reason to incarcerate book bloggers for the homicide of literary criticism, and ‘hood books have not stopped great works by African American authors and/or about everyday African American lives from entering the marketplace. They could certainly be promoted with more vigor, but the same can be said for literary prose in general. Twilight may have revived vampire stories (in glitzy teen fashion, anyway), but it is AA Lit that has risen from critical condition.



A Mercy – Toni Morrison

John Henry Days – Colson Whitehead

* Sag Harbor – Colson Whitehead

* Silver Sparrow – Tayari Jones

* Black Betty – Walter Mosley

* The Last Days of Ptolemy Grey – Walter Mosley

Hunting in Harlem – Mat Johnson

The Warmest December – Bernice McFadden

* Salvage the Bones – Jesmyn Ward

* The Intuitionist - Colson Whitehead

* The Taste of Salt - Martha Southgate

* Home - Toni Morrison

* Freeman - Leonard Pitts Jr.

* The Cutting Season - Attica Locke

* Loving Day - Mat Johnson

* Ruby - Cynthia Bond

* The Star Side of Bird Hill - Naomi Jackson

* Ghana Must Go - Taiye Selasi

STATE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN LITERATURE according to Malaika Adero

R.I.P. Miranda Parker, known to many as @DeeGospel on Twitter, founder of the hashtag #BlackLitChat

Open Mouth - Grab Foot - Insert

"My only concern is the poor, especially minorities, blacks in particular. The rest are set so can fend for themselves." – Invisible Obama

Even if that was how he feels (and it isn’t), the real live flesh and blood President Obama would never say such a foolish thing. Not during the heat of a campaign. Not in public. Not even behind doors he believed to be closed to the media. He learned his lesson about sounding even remotely condescending towards any group of people not serving in Congress the last go around. Yet there are plenty of people who believe my make believe quote to be an accurate summary of Obama’s point of view. Why? He’s a Democrat, ain’t he? He’s liberal, ain’t he? He’s Black, ain’t he? He’s not truly American regardless of where he was born, right? No matter what he says and does, there is a portion of the electorate that does not believe Obama gives priority to their interests. They require no evidence of this. That’s the beautiful thing about prejudice (not just talking race based prejudice either), it can’t be reasoned away because it’s incapable of recognizing things such as logic and common sense. Why believe their lying eyes when all that matters is what’s in their hearts?

Mitt Romney on the other hand did not need to carry the burden of appearing to care for only a select few. We didn’t assume that he’s only looking out for his select group of brethren from the start. After all, he has church service and a health care plan in Massachussets and even his “rescue mission” of the Olympic games to point to as evidence that he cares about ALL AMERICANS. Other selflish looking acts on Romney’s part may have given some people doubts about his character, but it would and should have been no great challenge for him to believably claim he’s running for President to help EVERYBODY. He’s a politician so of course he would have been viewed by the media and many voters with a degree of cynicism, even if he had a similar resume to that of Mother Teresa. Yet he should have been able to plausibly claim that he cares for that kid in the projects just as much as he does for that CEO who generously donated to his campaign. He merely needed to do a little acting. How difficult could that be? Romney has repeatedly shown he can appear to be convinced of one thing on Monday, and of the opposite being his belief by Friday. So surely he’d be able to make it to the end of a campaign without actually confessing that he could give a damn about nearly half the country. No way would he admit that he didn’t plan to preside on their behalf were we idiotic enough to elect him.

Guess again. The cat is out of the bag. It was a transparent bag so we could see the cat in there all along. But at least the feline was contained and therefore could do minimal damage. Now the critter is out and ready to race through all 9 of the Romney campaign’s lives. Mitt looks like a President, or so we’re supposed to believe. Appearances weren’t deceiving for long enough though. It didn’t take debating with the President to expose him. It didn’t take someone proving that he’s paid hardly any taxes over the years. It didn’t take making an absurdly dumb choice for vice president to be his undoing. Mitt Romney simply opened his mouth and told “his people” how he truly feels, because he didn’t think any of “the others” were listening in. There are a lot of others. I don’t know if the percentage is closer to 47% or 99% of the population, but it should be sufficient to make sure Mitt Romney never sees the inside of the White House unless he pays to take a tour.



"It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation.” – Obama campaign

“Had he (he being Mitt's dad, who was born in Mexico for fascinating reasons) been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this.” - Mitt Romney

On a completely unrelated note, please check out my interview with the blogger behind Layered Pages.

Handling Rejection for Dummies...I Mean Writers

I am nearing the completion of the final draft of my second novel, Matters of Convenience. Rather than self publishing such as I did with my first novel Patches of Grey, my plan is to start off on the traditional route. That means querying literary agents, hoping that this results in requests for the full manuscript, praying that it ends up in representation and that this eventually yeilds a publishing deal with one of the major players in the industry. Then all that's left to wish for is that a respectable number of copies get sold so things might go a little smoother the next go around. Along with querying and submitting and hoping and praying, also inevitable is rejection that must be shrugged off, perseverance that needs to take place. Nothing is guaranteed but the chances are great that an answer of NO (followed by multiple echoes) will be encountered prior to that elusive YES. If after some yet to be determined period of time a YES fails to materialize, Plan B goes into effect. But optimists don't think much about Plan B until Plan A has been exhausted. And optimism is the only option for a writer. Therefore the likelihood of rejections must be faced head on. Oh, did I mention that this year I'll also be looking to get a publishing deal for a children's book I've written that my wife will be illustrating? That means two separate channels of rejection will be in place. Not very pretty to picture. I need to motivate myself, and if any fellow writers/artists find their way to this blog posting, perhaps you will find encouragement as well. But what can I say that hasn't already been said eloquently by others? Not much. So I'm handing it off to them and that's what you'll find below, words of inspiration by those who fought the good fight and emerged victorious. Rejection doesn't discourage me, it just hardens my shell to help me bust through the wall. Also invaluable, having a sense of humor and an inflated ego. There will be no second person who believes in you and your talent if you aren't the first. The only way for a writer to handle rejection is self imposed amnesia. Then, even if you need to close your eyes, take your next shot.

"I discovered that rejections are not altogether a bad thing. They teach a writer to rely on his own judgment and to say in his heart of hearts, "To hell with you." (Saul Bellow)

"The vital point to remember is that the swine who just sent your pearl of a story back with nothing but a coffee-stain and a printed rejection slip can be wrong. You cannot take it for granted that he is wrong, but you have an all-important margin of hope that might be enough to keep you going." (Brian Stableford)

"Believe in yourself and in your own voice, because there will be times in this business when you will be the only one who does. Take heart from the knowledge that an author with a strong voice will often have trouble at the start of his or her career because strong, distinctive voices sometimes make editors nervous. But in the end, only the strong survive. Readers return time and again to the unique, the distinctive, storytelling voice. They may love it or they may hate it, but they do not forget it." (Jayne Ann Krentz)

"This is for writers yet to be published who think the uphill climb will never end. Keep believing. This is also for published writers grown jaded by the process. Remember how lucky you are." (Terry Brooks)

"You must keep sending work out; you must never let a manuscript do nothing but eat its head off in a drawer. You send that work out again and again, while you're working on another one. If you have talent, you will receive some measure of success - but only if you persist." (Isaac Asimov)

"If you've FINISHED writing a novel you are amongst the elite!!! You ARE NOT A FAILURE IF YOU CANNOT LIVE OFF YOUR BOOKS. You only fail by NOT TRYING." (Nadia Cornier)

“Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you're probably right.” (Henry Ford)

"All writers are crazy. So never mind what the editors and your family and your critique group tells you. Submit your manuscripts and keep submitting until you get an offer. Then you can be crazy, with a paycheck." (MaryJanice Davidson)

“I will act as though what I do makes a difference. (William James)

“There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it's going to be a butterfly. (Buckminster Fuller)




















“I think Audrey and that book of yours are two sides of the same coin. You’re petrified of rejection so you keep coming up with excuses not to put yourself in a vulnerable position. Maybe you should forget about her and your novel and just write a book of excuses. I’m sure it would sell a ton of copies. People are always looking to find new excuses for their failings.” 

~ from Matters of Convenience [a novel you readers should be sure not to reject reading]

IMAGINE

Several years back I used to write a monthly sports column for Suite101.com. For a good while after I moved on to other things my collection of articles remained archived there. Eventually the archive was eliminated. Quite a few of my articles were picked up by other outlets so can still be found online, but many of them vanished for good. The majority of these pieces were time sensitive, pertinent to a particular event. But a number of them are relatively timeless because the world of sports, much like the world at large, often operates in a cyclical manner. Yesterday’s news revisits today’s front pages and then fades away only to return again…and again…and again. When I wrote about the relationship between steroids and high profile athletes I did not bother to name names. Sports fans will recognize who I’m referencing in most if not all of the cases. But the names are basically interchangeable, as are the sets of circumstances. The primary difference between them is that some were caught red handed and with others there is a sliver of room for doubt. Ben Johnson, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Manny Pacquiao, Alex Rodriguez. There have been many others. There will be many others. Tests to catch them will grow increasingly sophisticated. New concoctions will be created to temporarily stay one step ahead of officials. Some athletes will be caught and proven guilty. Some will be caught and acquitted due to lack of sufficient proof. Some will never be officially accused, merely speculated about. Some we’ll remain clueless about. Round and round it goes. And so I’m reprinting IMAGINE here at A Line A Day because even though I wrote it way back in the day, I may as well have written it ten minutes ago…or ten years down the line.

Imagine if you are a fanatic about professional wrestling. You watch with baited breath as your heroes do battle against their arch enemies. The combatants are bigger than life. There is something quite theatrical about their outlandish personalities, costumes, and storylines. The bad guys are so obviously bad, the good guys somehow overcome tremendous adversity and stacked odds to prevail time and time again. Yet nothing about this strikes you as suspicious, much less preposterous. Perhaps you are still too young and naive to be jaded. That will come later. Imagine if you are a true believer in the muscle bound men who defy gravity and logic, only to be told one day that it's staged, a scripted carnival act choreographed for your entertainment. Imagine how you would feel when this deception was brought to light. Imagine the sense of betrayal, the end of your innocence.

If that scenario doesn't disturb you, then try any of the following on for size, because unlike professional wrestling, there has never been any question that these sports are supposed to be for real.

Imagine if you found out that your favorite boxers were on the take, their bouts rigged from the outset by gangsters who control the sport you love. Imagine discovering that your favorite shoeless ballplayer and his teammates were bribed to throw the World Series for fast cash. Imagine if the player you most admired due to his grit and hustle was a gambling addict who bet on his own team's games when he became a manager.

If you can imagine all of that without your heart breaking, then perhaps we should move beyond history and on to current events. Imagine if players in the sport you love are growing bigger, faster, stronger, and better by the day. Imagine if they easily demolish records that had seemed set in stone and capable of withstanding the test of time. Imagine idolizing these men who take to the field of play with their bats and gloves and perform one amazing feat after another. Imagine if you believe you are living in a time when several of the greatest men ever to play the game are simultaneously demonstrating their out-of-this-world abilities, surpassing the milestones of the game's legends. Imagine how exciting this would be. Imagine how riveted and uplifted you would be. Imagine how lucky you would consider yourself to be. Imagine the wonderment that would fill your soul at the crack of the bat and soaring of the ball into the blue yonder.

Imagine now if those many blasts over the right, left, and centerfield fences turn out to have been artificially produced.

Imagine if the world's fastest couple was merely the world's most doped up couple, running not so much on adrenalin as on pharmaceuticals. Imagine if the accusations turn out to be true, that you've been deceived, that the pursuit of excellence you admired was chemically assisted. Imagine if those world records and Olympic medals are tainted.

Imagine if it all turned out to be a mirage, nothing but smoke and mirrors. Imagine if you invested your hopes, lived vicariously through the exploits of these men and women, were crushed by their losses and exhilarated by their victories, only to learn that it is nothing but a drug induced fabrication. Imagine if you come to realize that you have not been witnessing the glorious acts of extraordinary athletes, but rather, the remarkable results of steroid use. Imagine if your role models are proven to be cheaters and liars. Imagine if you no longer feel you can trust your eyes. Imagine if you decide to stop admiring and aspiring to be like these athletes, because they have proven themselves to be little more than con artists. How would you feel?

Imagine.


Points of views other than my own fence straddling one: This article is cynical about intents of the media rather than athletes regarding steroid accusations.

This writer thinks it likely that Usain Bolt (but not Michael Phelps) was the doping star of 2012 Summer Olympics.

Question of the day: Should Pro sports leagues just give up and allow PEDs?

Giveaway and Announcement

Goodreads Book Giveaway

Patches Of Grey

by Roy L. Pickering Jr.

Giveaway ends September 03, 2012.

See the giveaway details at Goodreads.

Enter to win

By all means join GoodReads.com if you haven't already (it's a fantastic site for anyone who cares at all about books) and enter for the chance to win a copy of my debut (and now AWARD WINNING ) novel - Patches of Grey. The winner will be selected on Labor Day.



For those of you unwilling to wait that long or to trust in the luck of the draw, if you read books on a Kobo or Kobo App and have $3 to your name - Patches of Grey is now availabe at Kobo.com



Speaking of being in a rush, THIS is a perfectly acceptable speed to run out like a BOLT of lightning and get yourself a copy of Patches of Grey in the format of your liking.