The New Definition of Author

Said it before and I'll say it again; anybody can write a book.

What follows when I say/write this somewhere is something like, "No, I couldn't," or, "Maybe, but not just anybody can write a good book."  Fair enough, but if you can put together a few thousand words, you can call it a book, put it up on Amazon.com and others as a legitimate publication, and sell it.

Because of that, we have to re-define author.

Authors, to many of us (I'm guessing, as I often do), are or were a group of people who had incredible writing skills.  They were unique, and considered very creative, artistic, and intelligent.  If they had a recognizable name, they were easily made into living (or dead) legends as soon as we learned about them.  Maybe it had something to do with our English teachers and their constant references and teachings of the great names.  Maybe it was an academic crush we had after reading one author or another.  Somehow, the term "author" had a very regal air about it.  It sounded like its own lottery victory--something like a knight or a Samurai.  Author.

Now, we new-age "authors" have to be honest about who we are.  If anybody can get a book out there, put before millions of people if they have the connections, advertising money, or just luck (anything other than a fantastic gift in their craft), we can't let the new term stain the old term.

The new author can be anybody.  Literally.  Anybody CAN write a book.  You don't see bands and musicians that perform local gigs being dangled in front of hungry listeners in fifty different countries unless they market it as such.  A sculptor, painter, or artist of any type typically has to break through some huge barriers to get any significant sales.  But not an author.  An author can put together something, get it before millions, and start making some money with no advertising dollars, no agent, no editor, no lawyer, no label, no imprint--nothing.  An author needs nothing but the will to write and publish his own work in order to be an author.

Of the other authors I talk to, with the exception of a couple, very few are having any illusions about the new definition of author.  They know that it doesn't take what it used to take.  Sure, some of the greatest writers of all-time have been self-published because no formal house would take them, and thanks be to the Gods of Words that they did.  And of these new authors, stars will emerge.  But never before has the entry cost been so low, and the potential payoff so high for a writer.  Never before has enough time in a day existed for somebody to risk the long, tedious process of putting down words at novel-length, (especially considering the initial investments before typewriters of type-setting them, presenting them to a publisher or agent, and then waiting sometimes months or years to hear if you had anything worth publishing) because they had more free time--didn't have to work on the farm sixteen hours a day, or the railroad, or the lumber mill.  Now, even full-time employees find time during their days to write and send it to themselves through e-mail, or jot it down somewhere on a break, then they have evenings and weekends.  Never before has it been so easy to call one's self an author.

The good news is that most of us know this.

Most of us, I think, are very respectful of what our more traditional heroes did to get their stories into print.  We are not them.  We are the new authors.

What does that mean to you as a reader?  Nothing, really.  Means you are going to have a LOT more to choose from, but you'll have to develop an eye for quality work or at least work that you enjoy (formatting problems and typos are on the rise, for some reason, even among big names).  You'll have to learn to have that discriminative eye to save yourself time from investing your precious reading time into a book you won't enjoy.  For writers, that means that you should have no illusions about how important you are just because you put a bunch of words on paper.  For one thing, no matter how good you write, you're nothing without readers.  Secondly, most of us do not write for fame or money and wouldn't mind being nothing--most of us would write if we were the last human on Earth and had no audience.  It's just a necessity.  Most of us, articulate or not, do not know why.  We just need to write.

To my reader friends, this writer is asking for your patience.  Yes, we're flooding you with new choices in reading now, and most of us cannot afford to vet our stories to the degree some household name in writing could--with the many levels of edits and re-working and teams of beta-readers and professional critiques.  We just want to tell our stories.  That means that, yes, we're going to put out some sub-standard work as a group.  The bar has been set high--it is now being lowered by volume of works produced and the trade-off of relaxed restrictions for more variety.  We want to keep the bar high but we are really nothing more, when compared to the traditional author, than a fruit-stand on the side of the road compared to a major grocer.  Our stuff might be great, and less filtered and more pure than the stuff you get through the grocer, but who is running our quality control?  Who is making sure we comply with FDA standards?  From which seller are you more confident buying from?

That's the struggle for us, while having to think (and discriminate) more is the burden for the reader.

In any case, I encourage readers and authors to share in that public discourse that defines what an author is in 2012 and beyond.  All that has happened is that the entire show has changed to open-mic night.  I think it's important that new authors aren't believing in something that isn't true and that readers aren't believing that the word "author" means what it used to.

In summary, I guess I could say that the new author cannot carry by default what his traditional counterparts carried in status and esteem.  That still must be earned, in any field.  What we can offer is a fruit stand, and we can tell you how pure our fruit is, and we can talk about how we grew it and how enjoyable it will be, and we can sell it for less than the grocer.  Everything involved, to a reader and author, is still a risk, but it's not an incredibly important risk.  Try something new, hone your skills for separating bad writing from good writing in the early going, and let's move some fruit!

Update: We Are Still Losing the Battle Against the Creepy Smile

As much as I hate to report it, the creepy smile has not only survived our initial attack but gained momentum.

Just recently, a new season of my favorite show, "Through the Wormhole," started.  On the first episode, and several after that, I saw the dreaded "creepy smile."

If you missed my initial post about it, it refers to when somebody is smiling (usually a big smile) while they talk about nothing that could even be remotely linked to humor, funny, or even be seen as sneaky/cute/flirtation.  You dig?  See, when I smile while talking--when any normal human smiles while talking--it's because you are either about to deliver a punch-line, you are telling a funny story, or you're remembering a pleasant time and talking about that.  Also, you may smile while talking when the words aren't funny, but you're essentially flirting with somebody.

But not these people.  No, sirs and ma'ams.  These creepy fokkers are driving me insane.  Here's the real reason: it's not that they are usually physicists or science types, or very smart types you may see as a guest on a news program--the problem is what it means.  I have used every neuron I could fire up and my experience with psychology and sociology to determine that there are TWO primary reasons why they are doing this:

1.  They would like to show you that they are so smart that they can smile while telling you difficult formulas or news that only the elite might be privy to--difficult formulas or news that most people would make strained faces while delivering.  They smile in the same way a drunk dude would smile while trying to show he felt no pain as a cigarette was mashed into his arm (except there are no signs of faking it).  It is a huge sign of over-confidence.

2.  They have become "salesmen," of sorts, or in some way followed that old Socratic methodology of getting people to duplicate their behavior.  Why?  Well, the old Socratic method really focused on saying things that people would HAVE to agree with because they were commonly known facts or solid reasoning, and after getting them into a "yes mood," hitting them with the questionable material, such as why they should buy something.  In this case, the smile is to try to make YOU smile, and that tells them two things: first, you aren't real smart because you are smiling over nothing.  Two, it's hard to dislike somebody OR what somebody is saying as you smile at them.

My dear and great friends, all I'm asking you to do is insist, whenever you see the creepy smile, that the smiler then stop if he/she is talking and explain why they are smiling.  I can imagine some of the answers, like, "Well, I don't know, actually," or "Oh, I just love talking about this," or "Well, I was thinking about having sex with you, whenever possible."  The truth is that their motives rest with items numbered 1 or 2 above this paragraph.

What's more dreadful?  They learned this not by reading about it.  Not be being told.  They learned about it by seeing it on TV or elsewhere.  Silently, almost subconsciously, they adopted it.  In their minds, there was probably only this thought at the time; "I see.  People that smile while talking look really confident, and I want to look like that."  It's the dumbest gd bullshit I have ever seen and I plan to stand up forever against the creepy smile.

The creepy smile, my friends, is a direct attack on the special nature of a genuine smile!  We can't let them cheapen the human smile!  When they do, make them state why they are smiling, tell them why you think they are smiling, and then they'll stop!!  We don't want people to stop smiling; we want them to not use one of the greatest physical human behaviors ever for other-than-noble reasons

You Should Write Down Memorable Moments

We're a fairly lazy society as far as technology has let us be, and that's ok.  So many memorable moments can be captured on video or a snapshot that there's no real reason to have to record the event in words.  You can simply look at the photo/video and the caption you put with it to remember the moment as if it just happened.  But not every important moment to you can be photographed or recorded on video.

Although I've had this feeling a few times before, this is the biggest one.

I just finished writing a novel.

Sure, I've got the editing, formatting, and publication headache lying in my immediate path, but I'm here to tell anybody who doesn't know that besides meeting the perfect partner or seeing your child(ren) born, there is no greater feeling than completing a book.

And that is especially true for writers like me who haven't hit it big.  Large names in the industry know they will finish.  Even the ones who are only moderately known are pulling in $10-20k advances.  The big stars, much more than that.  See, they know they will finish.  They not only have the monetary support and outside expectations blowing into their sails, but they have a confidence and really, a rush on it because as soon as they can finish one, they can get the next advance and start the royalties rolling in (if they are motivated by money at all).  At the very least, they know that this is what they do for a living, and that gives them the full confidence that they will finish each book.

But I have about 8 other unfinished works.  Moreover, a writer that hasn't "made it" yet always has to question whether or not his motivation will be destroyed by needs that dreams can't fill.  He has to wonder if he's wasting his time, and when you're writing a novel, you have a million chances to say, "I don't want to do this.  This is shit.  I'm done."

I've read a lot about this.  I, personally, have never really doubted that I was born to write, but from all I've read, the normal (I won't say average because there are few "average" writers in the world) writer often throws stories away, throws them in a desk and leaves them there forever or just stops writing them.  For many, they fear the embarrassment over their mistakes in content, form, structure, believability, or impact of a story.

Not me.

The reason is that I trust two things pretty well within myself--my ability to be a fairly accurate weather-vane for what is exciting or moving prose combined with my belief that I know people pretty well.  That's it.  I believe, correctly or not, that I have my finger on the heartbeat of human behavior and I believe that I accurately judge what will move a reader's heart and mind at a given time in our lives and that this knowledge will let me put down words that will be enjoyed by a reader. 

They say to write what you know.  Bullshit.  Write what you like.  Write what you would read--that's the best advice.  I write books that I literally read over and over.  Not because I'm proud of them or always looking for errors (no matter if they are good or bad) but because I am interested in the story.  Believe it or not, I write with a small feeling that the books I really want to read just haven't been published yet.  I write books that I know I will enjoy reading, even though I know that deep down, my true motivation comes from what happens when I imagine a reader taking in my story.  I can try to predict the impact and enjoyment, the fear or surprise that gives us that multifaceted human experience that we call life.  For reasons I don't understand and don't care if I ever understand, I like to give people something that their minds can enjoy eating and digesting.  I like to feed minds.  It's very fulfilling.  So what if mine is getting some food, too?

This is the night that I had never written about until now, even though it's my 4th published and 5th completed novel.  It feels like standing on top of a mountain that you fell off of fifty times before.  It feels like you've been wrestling a bear for six months and finally slammed his ass down on the mat and pinned him.  It feels good.  There is that knowledge that although now I do have some mucky work to do on the story, the story itself is complete (at least until the sequel).  It's done.  It's emerging on the other end of a war victorious.  It's telling your imagination, "Hey, kooky part of my brain, great effing job!  You did it.  You can rest, now.  You can go on vacation and re-charge--you earned it."

What a beautiful feeling.  This can't be captured with a photo or video--only writing, and so I did.

Get Your Religion Out of My Face

The biggest reason I signed up for service in the U.S.A.F., after wanting to get the Hell out of ma's house and a small town that didn't have enough action for me (but now is perfect) was because I have always been in love with the idea of defending freedom.

That freedom, in this country, means you get to worship whatever entity that you choose, or none at all.  I like that.  It's comforting to know that we can choose our own invisible men to praise or choose none at all.  Along with that freedom definitely comes some ruffled feathers, especially if somebody just believes you are entirely "wrong" in your beliefs, morally or factually.

I had somebody close to me send me her 5 millionth e-mail forward about Jesus a few years back, and it pushed me over the edge.  It wasn't any dislike for Christianity--it was my knowledge of her behavior as she preached the gospel.  I won't say any more than that so as not to give away any identities, but let's just say that it was like being sold Christianity by somebody who had never yet lived by the principles it taught.

So, I had had enough, and I grabbed my American flag and waved it about for a while before sending this response out to her and a few other people so there would be no confusion, and it worked.  It was very clear.  I was upset that I had to break it down into so much detail, but here's my advice to you--say it once, say it with love, and leave no room for interpretation if somebody is doing something that drives you insane on a regular basis.

In my message to her, everything I stated is still accurate as far as what I believe except that I'm a full-fledged Ignostic now.

My message follows:

"Hey Jane Doe,

     You know how much I love you, right?  Ok, well I went ahead and read this e-mail you forwarded.  And this e-mail is pretty much for you but I'm sending it to Jane Doe 2 and 3 as well so I can try to make my position clear here and live a more peaceful life, and hopefully to get the same type of cooperation from them as I hope to get from you. 

     I've told you that I'm Agnostic (although lately I've been considering adding a little "Ignosticism," in with it... it's a bit of a different creature...), that I always will be, and that I hoped you could respect it.  I think that you semi-acknowledged my request, but that in your heart, you believe that if you can just throw enough Jesus at me, it'll finally stick.

     Each time that I get something like this from anybody, after I've made my position known to them, hurts a little.  It has a ring of dominance to it, as if the sender is saying, "Yeah, ok, you aren't so sure my religion is the right religion (if any one necessarily is) but I'm just going to keep dunking your head into the toilet filled with my brand of Holy water until you believe."  And, as you imagine going through such a gross analogy, you are feeling what I feel when I get these e-mails (and these e-mails can come from different people I know, but don't worry--all will get this response from now on). 

     I love you very much, and I'm thankful for you and all of my family, and everything that my family and friends have done for me.  I am committed to our pact of the elimination of negativity, and it is in that spirt that I'd like to politely request, again, that you try not to send me religious e-mails, especially of the type that suggest any one human being might be closer to God than any other, or that some kind of "love," or "blessings," have been deposited into some imaginary bank account. 

     I've read the bible, cover to cover.  I've read more than my fair share of the al-Qur'an, the Veda, the Analects, the 5 classics of Confuscianism (Book of Rits, I Ching, Book of History, Book of songs and one other), the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Tao-te-Ching, and the Bhagavad Gita among others, and we aren't even into the real African and Greek gods yet, with those books.  We haven't even touched on alternative religions or even pagan ones that lasted for centuries and millenia.  And how many religions were never recorded, but were practiced?  Believed?  Religions that people lived and died for--that shaped their daily decisions?  It's a large, large number. 

     Normally, I wouldn't go into so much detail to try to explain to you why I'm a dedicated, committed Agnostic, who has lately also become a staunch defender of Agnosticism.  Again, in summary, I am a man who believes every human being, sane and insane alike, should be able to both choose and exercise their religion as long as they are not physically endangering anyone else or negatively affecting the general public good in their worship rituals.  

     Moreover, I'm not willing to tell any single religion or theism (including atheism) that they are wrong, are going to Hell, are mislead, or are right.  That includes you and Christianity--I'll give my life in a split-second to defend your right to pray and to try to heal people and everything else, because that freedom is automatic for Americans (and I think most of us would die to protect that freedom).  In return, all I'm asking for is that you not push your religion on me, because I don't see your religion in the same light as you--I see it as a practice, which was created by man (by Divine guidance or otherwise) and represents but a speck of beliefs that all humans before us and those alive among us, believe.  It's your speck--I respect that--but it ain't mine.  And of course you could be dead-right in your beliefs--I don't know--what I do know is that I will not commit to any religion until I am certain it is positively, absolutely, the only correct one nor will I rule any out as legitimate until I can find and equally dis-empowering argument against it.

     The truth is that I'm not going to live my life with any reward in the after-life as a goal (nor will I live in fear of an eternity in Hell).  If that costs me, please, let it cost me.  I am your [family member], Kevin A. Kierstead.  I'm not a fence-post Christian, nor am I a Christian who pretends to be one when it's convenient while routinely behaving in ways that would make any saint cringe (this is the bulk of my disgust for many religions, from al-Qaeda claiming to be doing Allah's work to the American Sunday Christian, who's normally breaking those commandments up like crackers every day but Sunday--or so many "priests," who saved their "best work," for Sundays, when they could get alone with the altar boys...)...nor am I a Satan worshiper or a whacked-out Wiccan.  

     I am Agnostic, and I have the right to be Agnostic, because I'm an American (it's automatic).  I will not routinely e-mail you anything trying to talk you out of Christianity, nor will I try to convince anyone in this world, including those from every practice I've written about in this e-mail, to see things from my point of view.  What I will demand, however, and what I am demanding now, is the right to not be bombarded by presumptuous messages from any of those religions (I know you don't come up with most of these "forwards," but I've seen soooooo many, and this is one too many).

     I really hope you don't take any offense to this.  I just know that I'm gonna be stomping around this old brown and green ball for some years to come, and I'd like to be able to peacefully dodge the flying carpets that tend to be zooming around regarding invisible deities and testaments that only the dead can validate.  I was talking to [my child] one day, and ever since she was old enough to talk, I've encouraged her to explore religion and that if she believed in a God (or anything else) and she wanted to "immerse" herself or get involved, I would get her to every single meeting needed for her to live that commitment.  She knows that, too.  And you know what she said to me when she was visiting two summers ago?  We had been talking about how many different religions there are, and that most people around here believed in Christianity.  And I told her that lots of people base everything they do in their lives on the Bible.  She says, "Well, Dad, it is just a book."  I said, "Huh?"  She blinked, looked at me like I was stooopid, and said, "The Bible.  It's just a book."

     She will not be punished for that (I will make sure of it) just as she would not have been punished for saying that the Bible was all that mattered in life.  But I will say that I'm proud of her.... not because she has somehow demoted the Bible--we all know there are some good moral lessons in there, and that even if nothing else, those are good lessons for the kids--but because she was/is willing to open up her mind and think for herself, not to be corralled into some cattle pen where the Christians are saved and the rest set ablaze.... she's free.  I'm free.  You're free.

Love ya.

Kev

Thanks for understanding."

Do You Have a Favorite Sports Team? GOOD!

I had a very wise friend who wasn't into sports.  Although he played ice hockey in college and I even talked him into playing rugby one season (and he was 48 and out of shape--I was exactly half his age), he didn't idolize anybody or anything that you would see on ESPN.

It was back then that I got to thinking.

I have been a life-long Washington Capitals fan.  They were given the go for the expansion a couple months before I was born, and when they started in 1974 (even though I was only a couple years old and my family members were avid Ft. Wayne Komets fans, who lost in the semi-finals the year I was born but when the Championship the next year), I was already in love with the Caps.

Thirty-eight years later, and the Caps still have no cup.


As I told some friends recently, I am only a fair-weather Washington Redskins fan.  I was madly in love with them, too, up until around 2000 when my daughter was born.  She took a lot of attention, but she wasn't the reason I stopped following the Skins.  I stopped because they kept breaking my heart in part, but mostly because football had lost two things by then: 1.  local players, 2.  team spirit (vs. individual celebrations and money moves).

Back in high school, we didn't have hockey or I guaran-damned-tee I would have played.  I did talk a friend once into playing hockey with me when there was ice outside.  We used brooms and a smashed beer can.  That was as close as I ever got to the real sport.  But who cares--I love being involved in it.  I've been to a zillion semi-pro games.  The Hampton Aces, the Hershey Bears, the Norfolk Admirals, the Syracuse Crunch, the Alaska Goldkings, and I could go on (and quite a few Caps games).  If you don't follow hockey, give it a shot.  It has elements of boxing, soccer, racing, and football in it.  Hard hits, real blood, and the teaser for me is the slippery part--the somewhat unpredictable nature of puck movement on ice.  That's exciting.

What other sport (except fighting, boxing, mma, etc.) will let you fight with another guy until blood is all over the place and teeth are flying and only put you in chair for a five-minute time-out?  Hockey is golden.  It is representative of every desire humans have (almost).  Fighting elements, competition, pain, and if you're watching the right team(s), hunger.

I got to thinking about it though.  Pro sports is a business.  They want your money... tickets, merchandise, licensing, etc.  That's how they'll pay their players to be stars.  Plus, like football, hockey rarely has locals on a team anymore.  The trading game is alive and well.  Most players are European or Canadian.  So knowing all of that, people do ask, "Why like a pro sports team, specifically an NHL team?  What does it accomplish?  They don't represent you or your town anymore (with the constant trades/moves)."  That's true, really.  And I will admit that my love for the Caps is a combination of just having always loved them (not a good excuse to love a team, being that it was a love jump-started by my folks) and having always respected the sport and the team-nature of the players... the odd relationship of a goalie with his mates; goalies are in a class of their own that only they fully understand.  I love the sport, the positions, and the team, and it's history, and now, one of the guys I grew up watching is coaching them (Dale Hunter, scrapper extraordinaire).

Here's the whole point; think about what you love in life.  Your kids, maybe your job, maybe even a politician or his party.  You root for them.  You feel good when they win--bad when they lose.  The quote is that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.  True?  I think so.  The experience of life is about feeling and experiencing.  I have insane love for a few people in my life, including my daughter, family, girlfriend and her daughter, and a few friends, but I also love a sports team.  I love when they win--hurt when they lose.  Far as I can tell, that adds to the experience of life.  The drama of having not won a cup yet pushes every year... a repeating theme.  When will we win it?  It's a cliffhanger.

Why not love a sports team?  Why not add to your experience in this world?  Why not regularly test your ability to love and hurt--to heal and cheer again?  Why not lift that psychological weight-set to strengthen yourself?  It will add passion and depth to your character, as well as growth and maturity in accepting loss.

Unlikely Measures of Success and How to Recognize Them

Think about all you go through in life.  Think about this question; what are the first three or four things you think about when you wake up in the morning (besides the bathroom)?  Right there, you have it--that's what really matters to you in this world.  It may be a love for somebody.  It may be a fear of/for somebody or a respect or an excitement over some thing (toy) or event.

This evening, I'm out cutting my grass.  The neighbor is consumed with how we blow our grass to ensure it doesn't go into the drainage ditch or into his yard.  I suppose caring about it is reasonable, but being consumed?  I don't know about you, but I've mowed grass since I was 8-years old.  I probably wouldn't even remember when I started if it weren't for the dog that bit me in the ass when I was dragging the mower home one day--I suspect he thought I was an Imperial Walker and he sought to protect the street of his homeland.  In all those years of mowing, 32 since then, I've been taught to/practiced mowing grass outwards, away from the uncut grass, in order to keep it from accumulating inward and bogging down the mower.

But he's a specialist.  He owns a business that deals with the intricacies of lawn care.  I can respect that.  Yet, in all of the lawns I have mowed where there were ditches, I have never had to worry about the grass going in and accumulating.  Some of those lawns, I took care of for years and there was never any accumulation (it was either destroyed by the push-mower or weed-eater, or pushed out of the way by the forces of the mower's blowout, wind, or water).  The mower I'm using now cuts grass so fine that it's like a powder almost.  Little, teeny, itsy-bitsies.

I didn't get defensive when he came over and lectured my gf and she volunteered to go rake out the ditch after the first time I broke his cardinal rule.  I didn't get defensive this evening when he stood at his fence line to chaperone my cutting as he has taken a liking to, and even when he said to me (which were his first words directly to me), "I'd like if you blow it away from the ditch and the fence.  I just cut here, and I blew mine away from your lawn," which wasn't even true because we watched him with a push mower, on our property, blowing it right into our yard.  I didn't get defensive last year when he suggested that trash was ending up in the ditch, as if it was coming from our place (which is rather tidy if I do say so).  We live on a MAIN road, with litter!  Didn't bother me.  I blew it off.

Do you sense where this is going?

He must be doing great!  The only question I had for him but never asked was this: "When was the last time you had a genuine smile?  About anything?"

If you are doing so well in life that your thoughts get consumed with grass fragments or the origin of plastic bottle caps or hamburger wrappers, you really should pat yourself on the back because you have arrived.  I have no question that the man knows his business, but I don't take kindly to anybody telling me how to cut my grass where I live.  I have a general problem with authority anyway, but specifically problems with those who try to impose their will upon my domain.  Yet, the more I thought about him, two feelings emerged: the first, of course, was the realization that he must be doing pretty damned well and the second was that he needed to find something to enjoy instead of policing.

When I came inside tonight, another thought occurred before I realized the topic of tonight's post.  I thought about an author who had written on the Amazon boards that she couldn't understand why her sales had dropped down to under 50 or 100 (can't remember) books per day, and the other authors and some readers were all consoling her and giving her tips.  Nothing at all wrong with that, but I sell an average of just over one book per day, and the reason I'm entirely content with that is this: two years ago on this day, I hadn't even published a book, and now my fourth one will be published in June (I've written five to completion but I'm re-working the daylight out of one).  I look FORWARD to the day when I have to complain that sales are under 50 per day, because you know what?  That's not a problem.  That will never be a problem for me.

The message I guess I'm trying to push is this; take a survey of yourself and find out what you worry about or complain about the most in a given day.  Then think about where you were ten years ago and what you were complaining or worrying about then.  If your problems are worse, then you're pretty much average in your thinking by my guess.  But if your problems are much less severe, don't be afraid to smile inside even if you won't let people on the outside know that you're doing much better (you know who you are--some people love to appear always on the brink of death in some form).  The depth and true impact of your perceived problems is the most accurate measure of your success.

Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and Race Relations in the US, in Reverse Order

My close friends not only know that I'm dead-center (fair) regarding races, but they are also dead-center with me.  They don't believe that whites should get advances from society for their skin color, or blacks should, either (or other minorities, some carrying it even to not giving women "help").  And these friends are of all races and both sexes.

In psychology statistics (which is basically a statistics class for psychology that, as a prereq., required general statistics; both courses were mind-boggling to me but I fought for my A's) we learned about how to get a fair "sample."  In other words, if I wanted to ask 100 people (a very small sample by most standards) about race relations, I needed to randomize who I asked and select from all over the country.  It would be hyper-skewed (and hyper-screwed) to sample in only the Bronx or in Amarillo.  A good sample must always be taken from a broad spectrum, and the most important word we learned was "representative."  We needed to run surveys that were truly representative of a particular audience--so much so that the survey could be repeated with equal depth in cross-sections that the results would be nearly identical on a second survey.  And a third.  And fourth.

This knowledge of surveying, and of reading, listening, and talking to friends and strangers across this great country of ours in the 47 states I've been to or through, leaves me with a working knowledge of what's real in this country.  In other words, as little as I trust any "known belief" of any kind, including my own, I do trust that I have a fairly firm grip on what people are saying across the country, which moves us into our next phase.

For what I'm about to say, some white guy could come hunt me down with his hunting rifle.  Or some black guy could have his crew chop me down in a drive-by.  Some Asian might put the Kung Fu upon me (I can handle myself, but some brothers be all Bruce Lee and I gotta go all Wolverine).  Were all of those previous three examples stereotypical?  Yes, indeedy.  And you'll see why, later.

It's time to stop tip-toeing around.  It's time to stop being slaves to social forms, including political correctness.  Most of all, we must all willfully acknowledge that whatever our race is, it is no better, and no worse, than anyone else's.  Just like a paper I wrote 12 years ago, I again call for the same action; judge each person individually, if you must judge them at all.

Let's talk about tendencies, first, and the most important part of what I'm saying but I won't keep repeating is this--there are always exceptions.  So, if I say white people are dorky, I'm not talking about all white people.  Please keep that in mind.

Black people have a reputation among whites, Hispanics, and Asians, for wanting government assistance in any way they can get it.  Now, as I stated in the paragraph above, I personally know black men and women who have never taken a "handout," and who wouldn't--it just doesn't work with their living philosophy.  But how is this reputation growing if it isn't true, in bulk?  Are a large portion of black people seeking to get something for nothing?  Stay with me for the sake of argument--I can already sense some black people getting feathers ruffled and I can't get this message across if you won't at least entertain my thoughts--even if you believe it's entirely untrue that blacks seek handouts.

First, we have to accept whatever the truth is. Are blacks disproportionately seeking handouts from governments and charities?  And if so, and they become used to the lifestyle of gain without sacrifice, would that not lead to increased crime when a "benefit" runs out, making for a disproportionate populous of black people in our prisons?  Do blacks rarely leave tips at restaurants or give to charity or do volunteer work?  Is it true?

Let's leave that on the table, strictly for the sake of argument (again, it may be absolutely untrue) and ask this: what's causing that?  Are governments feeling a sense of guilt over how black people have been treated here since the 1600s?  When I was stationed in Alaska while serving in the Air Force, I saw drunk Eskimos all over the streets, near Fairbanks.  The popular thinking was that since we had "bought" Alaska, we had essentially taken away their industries and paid them for it, giving them no motive to work, sending them into a drinking/drug lifestyle.

American Indians?  Casinos.

Were Europeans (mainly) wrong?  Should we have stayed where we were, let life develop as normal here in America, and just let (enter country here; Spain, perhaps) come over and take the land to be a dictatorship or worse?  The land was too fertile, too rich, too politically malleable and too sparsely populated not to move in and settle.  We humans are very much like pests in that way.  Breed, eat, over-populate, move, but in this case, the Europeans really were looking for a "better life."  A life where you didn't have to bow down to Kings and Nobles and all of the subservience required to survive in the various Kingdoms/Fiefdoms/Monarchies that ruled the day.  So we pay the natives in a new land free of that harsh rule, and give them reservations, but there was no plan for blacks, which we brought with us.  They didn't speak our language, or read or write.  Didn't understand basic scientific principles.  They were brought for labor. 

Many slaves were sold to American plantation owners as willing workers--sold by black business men in Africa (Google it, find a respected source to read from, if necessary).  Black slaves were just like white slaves then; the "indentured servant" market was humming along, globally.  From Russia to the Middle East, China to South America, everybody who needed labor help was interested in finding and buying slaves of any color.

But with the exception of the harsher treatment of the Far East, no slave really wanted to come to America, because rumors were already surfacing about the harsh treatment there, vs., say, England or Holland (minus one Spice Islands event) or even other countries within Africa.

Try to imagine being a slave at this time; your family is starving due to lack of food--your government has not come through to help you and to aid with new crops and crop technology to feed its people--and here were many countries who wanted you to work for them; that guarantees that they'll feed you and give you water, at least, because they need you for work.  Even more, it almost guarantees that they'll look after your health--you are, again, an investment to them.  Nothing more than a farmhand, to be sure, who was owned like property or cattle, but fed and watered farmhands that were mostly free to breed.  Not all came willingly, but some came because they had no choice.  It was either death from their captors in Africa for refusing to go/breaking away, or death from malnutrition.  That made slavery the only hope.  Slavery wouldn't be such a big deal if slaves had been treated with respect.  Almost worldwide, they were not.  And America was no exception. In fact, compared to other parts of the world, we were pretty brutal.

The point of that was to indicate that not only was slavery applicable to any "poor" people of any race, but that slavery has been going on since mankind's beginnings, and only with our world-wide connections and commonality in morals have we seen a global decrease of this type of servitude that was motivated by fear.  But has it really changed?  How about the servants that work in American mansions (mainly Hispanic now)?  Are they not slaves that simply don't get beaten?  Aren't they motivated by threats of dismissal or turning over illegals to authorities rather than the whips or solitary confinement for a while?   Let's agree one one thing; whites were harsh on slaves.  That shows a very ugly side of human nature.  However, if a modern-day white person has a pure heart--a truly non-racist heart in any way--I can not and would not expect him to feel guilt over what somebody in his family tree had done 400 years ago.  Yet, even though living whites didn't commit these acts, there is some sense of injustice, isn't there?

The blacks took the beatings, lived in substandard living conditions (some down-right nasty conditions) and had their freedom taken away from them when they had done nothing wrong.  It feels like something didn't get "evened out," doesn't it?  Does this describe why our governments are so likely to give blacks assistance when they ask for it?  Or why we have an NAACP but can have no NAAWP?  And even though today's blacks didn't suffer that type of brutality of being slaves, doesn't it feel like the country owes them something to try to make amends?

Until then, I'll say it, black people.  I'm sorry.  I'm so sorry for what your people went through.  I have tried to imagine being a slave owner, and I can't.  I can imagine having farmhands working for me, but my basic philosophy, which I would never stray from, would require me to treat them just as well as my children, and allow them to come and go as they please.  When you have a love and respect for people, you don't discriminate.  I can't make it right, black people; I'm just one partially white guy mixed in with some American Indian.  All I can do is say that I am sorry for the way your ancestors were allowed to be treated in this great country--a country who shed as much blood as was necessary to get the ball rolling toward fairness and equality.  And even though that comforts me some, I still don't feel satisfied.  You didn't deserve that treatment.  I think we should all apologize on behalf of the behavior our ancestors displayed when dealing with slaves (always exceptions, including whites working for the Underground Railroad and many other examples of white kindness).  There's that.

And I won't call you African American, as I see that as an insult to you.  You are Americans, and you are just as important as any other American.  I now see the acknowledgement of this from black people from various walks of life; a realization that this is your country--that you do have a say in where it's going--that it is your style of living that we defend on a regular basis with our military actions.

This is not a white country that you occupy pockets of.  It is your country, and it belongs to you just as much as it belongs to any American; that is the solemn vow of the constitution and amendments and other legislature that has clarified such things.  This is your America.  You're not sitting in coach; you're flying the damned plane with the white, Asian, and Hispanic co-pilots.  It is your America, and you are driving her, and you are influencing her across the spectrum of cultural impact.  Why do I love this?  Because I get extremely nervous when groups of people occupy my country that do not care for her because they feel they have no stake in her outcome.  I see black people acknowledging, more every day, that they aren't along for a ride--they are sharing the control room.

I could go on and on writing about global/American race relations.  I really wanted to do some comparisons as to what the average lifestyle is now for a black American vs. the average lifestyle of a black African, ranging from medical benefits to educational opportunities.  And we haven't even begun to dig in to what's wrong with "white America" as a whole, and the behaviors of white people in general.  That's going to have to be for another post because it's hyper-late and I still have to do my take on Zimmerman/Martin.

First, as I always say, we have to wait for the facts.  Second, I agree that black young men are watched more closely than any other group, and I think that is profiling.  But here's where some won't agree with me.  I agree with profiling.  Think about this for a minute.  If you find seven human heads in a freezer, what picture pops into your mind regarding the perpetrator?  If you see a low-rider with lights under the body that has just been stolen and is pumping Latino music, who's face pops up?  If you find out there has been a liquor store robbery near a heavily-black-populated neighborhood, who are you looking for?  It's just a fact that some races/age-groups are more likely to commit certain types of crimes.  We can't get around that.  Israel uses profiling at their airports to identify those that have a higher likelihood of having criminal intent, and it has worked like a charm.  No planes flown into buildings.  No hijacks.

I honestly think most black people, and Hispanics, would be more on-board with profiling if they didn't believe that there was a larger mechanism at work to protect whites.  I can tell you with certainty that although arrests and convictions are still off balance in favor of whites, true justice is making a very strong push toward just being true justice.  You can help this happen by video-taping (cell-phone video is fine, even if you have to "hide" your phone during traffic stops) and getting any racial mistreatment on video and on YouTube or to media outlets.  Get every unfair dealing out there for the public to see.  The fairness will follow; I guarantee it.  Shouldn't take long--we just need to get that evidence out to the public.  And we need more incentive for black people to go on and continue their education after high school.  The people that make real waves in this country--that spring real change--they aren't white people.  They are the educated.

Some say that whites have had easier access to college entrance, yet grades coming from high school seem to tell a story.  No school wants to turn away a black person who comes to their doorstep with straight-"A"s.  That school will gain from having that student.  And education leads to true freedom and power.  The general culture of black people in the past was, "F the white man.  We can't win, anyway, so we'll survive how we have to."  Don't let that be your mantra.  You control your destiny, and to the extent you decide to control your destiny, you control this country and the world.

Anyway, as I've said, we need all the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case,  We need all the evidence in ANY case.   Yes, it took the cry of black people to get the special investigations going, but they are going.  At first, everybody was so sure that Zimmerman had just chased this innocent boy down and shot him in the chest in cold blood.  But now, details start rolling out.

You have to keep in mind that in any case where a client (or defendant-to-be) secures an attorney, his attorney is going to tell him to shut up, about everything.  So who is deciding the case until we get into a court of law?  The media.  And how does the media make money?  Selling commercials.  And how are those earnings maximized?  Having the most viewers watching during those commercials.  So what is the media gonna do?  They are going to take whatever information they have and they are going to try to create the most controversial news story they can possibly create.

When people heard that Zimmerman had been attacked, they all stepped back a little.  Then the media stepped in and said, "Wait, we don't see any bumps or bleeding."  Aha!  The drama is back on!  For a second there, people started tuning out, saying, "Ok, there was a fight, so they'll never convict him."  See how they work?  Then, the media cited the police reports stating blood from the nose and back of Zimmerman's head as well as showing enhanced imagery of him at the police station, showing obvious contusions/cuts/lumps on the back of his head.  But wait; now the media has to do a save job because, again, people may assume that there was a fight, so no case will be brought forward.  So what do they do?  They do a voice analysis showing that an "expert" agrees that the cries for help are very unlikely to be Zimmerman's.  GAME BACK ON!  Now, that was my explanation of how the media is trying to USE you to make money--use you as a lured-in observer such that they can run commercials in front of you and get paid for it.  But it has nothing to do with what I believe.

Here's what I believe based solely on the evidence so far; my opinion may, and probably will, change as new evidence comes out.

1.  Zimmerman pursued Trayvon for some distance.  Even if he stopped at the suggestion of the 911 operator, it was too much.  You don't pursue anybody for looking suspicious (a subjective term, anyway) unless you are wearing a badge, period.  It's three simple words; observe and report.

2.  It sounded a lot like Zimmerman said, "Fucking coons."  That shows me that he not only had at least semi-racist views, but that he was comfortable enough or charged-up enough to use them to a 911 operator.  However, for those that believe he was out for blood that day, you have to ask yourselves this; if Zimmerman wanted to kill that day, would he have used those words on a phone call to 911, knowing the likelihood that those tapes would play a role in his potential arrest/prosecution?  I think not.  I honestly think he didn't know he was going to get in a tangle with anybody.

3.  I believe Zimmerman followed Trayvon for some time, then stopped.  I believe that Trayvon, then, didn't appreciate being followed and approached Zimmerman.  Words were exchanged.  Reportedly, Trayvon said, "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman said, "What are you doing around here?"

4.  Now it's time to put our thinking caps on.  We pretty much know Zimmerman has some racist tendencies, even though he had black friends and mentored a black child as a "Big Brother" on some weekends, even after funding stopped for the program.  His wife did the same with another black child.  So, I see his racist, "Fucking coons," not applying to all blacks--I see it as his racial slur toward those he suspects are breaking in/stealing things (keeping in mind that the neighborhood could verify a rash of break-ins and trouble that year).  So I think it's safe to assume that Zimmerman didn't hate black people, but he did hate criminals, and would have used any racial slur against one ("Fucking spicks," "Fucking white trash," "Fucking coons," or "Fucking chinks.")

5.  Zimmerman was known for calling 911 over and over and over for suspicious people.  He did seem genuinely concerned about his neighborhood.  However, my background in psychology is screaming from my gut that he had authority fantasies.  He wanted to be a cop, but couldn't be.  So he appointed himself neighborhood cop.  That brought on the pursuit of Trayvon.  Trayvon's reaction was, "Who the eff does this dude think he is?"  Now, from there, Trayvon may have felt threatened and attacked Zimmerman, or may have felt "singled-out" and/or picked on and just got mad and attacked.  Alternatively, Zimmerman could have told him not to move and tried to pin him to the ground knowing the cops where coming (this would explain the screams for help if, in fact, they were Trayvon's who would have only know he was being held down, at gunpoint, possibly, by a stranger).  Trayvon's adrenaline kicked in, he broke free, attacked Zimmerman, got a few good punches and head-slams in and him, and Zimmerman fired.  Keep in mind that he fired a single shot.  A man on a mission to kill--a man with hatred in his heart, empties a clip.  Just keep it in mind.

6.  Based strictly on what we know so far, I think there was a horrible misunderstanding.  However, that misunderstanding would never have materialized if Zimmerman hadn't done the initial pursuit, and therefore, based on current evidence, I would be leaning toward involuntary manslaughter.  My 2.

Anyway, let's all get it together, people.  It's time to get TRUTH out there regarding race relations.  If you know a corrupt official of any type, or co-worker, or anybody that deals with policy creation or manipulation, report them (record them if you have to; just check the internet for "one-party," "two-party" states; e.g. a single party state requires that only one of the people involved know [e.g. you, the recording party] that the recording is happening in order for it to be admissible in a court of law or legal dispute, so you can hide the recorder).  Even if you can't get it admitted in court (if necessary for your goal), you can get it out to social media sites and news agencies.

If we aren't dealing with truth, we won't have any fast solutions.  Talk about how you feel and just try to talk about it in a respectful way to other races and to your own race.  We are all Americans, and we can be a team--a unit--but we all have to believe that that's worth fighting for, and I believe it is.

Thank you for reading this.