Tag Archives: election politics

Is 15 Minutes Enough?

I created a website.

Everyone (that’s with a capital “E”) said that I should do it in order to increase sales of my books. For a while I fought the idea. Somehow it seemed so patently egotistical.

But Vistaprint offered a free trial (and we all know how those work out!) for a month, as well as step-by-step guidance in constructing the pages. It was a “sign” that it was time.

So I embarked on the task of establishing a site. It was easier than I’d thought. Vistaprint did a good job of breaking down the task and directing the neophyte. I have to admit, I had a good time doing it.

When I’d finished, I sat back and admired my work (doing stuff like this does tend to be a bit egotistical). And being able to take a breather now, I tried to dissect my motives. Why had I gone to all this trouble?

Why, to increase book sales, I slyly answered myself.

Humph! I replied. Why, when you take into account the cost of maintaining the site, you’ll have to sell about a hundred books a year to make up what you’ve spent. C’mon. Why did you do this?

Urged on by my carping superego, I delved deeper into my motives.

Perhaps it was egotistical. Maybe I was trying to extend my fifteen minutes to half an hour. Like wearing a red ball gown to a dance where all others my age were wearing pastels (how many of you get the reference?), or sitting in the front row of the classroom to catch the eye of the handsome young professor.

Then I considered the pains I’d taken to link the site to this blog. I want people to read my postings, and not just (I hope) for reasons of vanity. Some of the ideas I write about are important, and could generate discussion. If readers look at me for that reason, I feel I’ve accomplished something.

Which brings us, as these musings often do, to politics.

Why are our current crop of candidates expending their energy and money trying to get elected?

I believe you have to have a pretty strong sense of self in order to run for office. Otherwise, the arguments against what you believe in and negative advertising would be devastating. So is it simply self-aggrandizement that spurs on our would-be leaders?

I hope not. We don’t need people who only want to preen and posture in the spotlight. We need those who have the smarts to understand what’s going on and make decisions that will solve, not worsen, the problems.

Like climate change. And drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And the problem of national debt. And poverty, access to quality health care, international relations.

We can’t afford battling egos. We also can’t afford a plutocracy in which money, controlling communication, decides elections. I know we’ve seen the “dumbing down” of America, but I can’t help believe that can be reversed.

We need leaders who won’t talk down to the electorate, who will make the decisions that need to be made and explain the reasons for those choices. As a teacher I learned that youngsters can rise to levels of expectations. They can finish the school year with a better handle on the world than they started with.

But in order to do that, you can’t just “strut and fret your hour upon the stage.”

You have to lead.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Come Together

Now that one of the political conventions is over, it’s time to take a half-time cleansing breath. How to evaluate this?

I would like to focus on Romney’s speech on Thursday night. There were no surprises. He stuck to the party line. But he did speak eloquently about parts of his life. His description of his parents’ marriage was lovely. He mentioned that his father left a rose on his mother’s bedside table every morning. It was obvious that they loved each other, and its influence on him was apparent. Yet he is perfectly willing to deny that relationship to others simply because they are of the same sex.

He promised to uphold the institution of marriage. I agree that the promise of two people to love and support each other for the rest of their lives is beautiful as well as socially important. It forms the nucleus of the family, a safe haven to which one can escape when things get too crazy out there. What I can’t agree with is the artificial differentiation between a union of two people of the opposite sex, and the joining of two people of the same sex.

Love is a rare phenomenon, and the willingness to commit to a lifetime  coming together even more so. If you truly believe in marriage, then you believe in it for everyone. No such blending of two lives can cheapen the concept.

Both Mr. Romney and his running mate reiterated their desire to make America great again. A laudable aspiration. I also want to see America resume its leadership role in the world. We have a lot to offer. But I don’t think we can hope to be great until we grow up and get rid of this adolescent tendency to gather in cliques and exclude anyone who is different. Whom one is attracted to is hardwired, as much a part of an individual as skin color or congenital disability. It’s as wrong to deny a person access to any institution on the basis of the latter as it is to force him into second-class citizenship because of the former.

Part of Mr. Romney’s speech recounted his childhood as a Mormon in Michigan. Although he pointedly told us that he didn’t feel like an outsider, because his friends were more concerned with that sports teams he followed, not the church he attended, I can’t accept that he didn’t feel some exclusion. As someone who grew up in that atmosphere, Mr. Romney must have some empathy for others who have been excluded.

I remain an optimist. I truly believe that we, as a nation and as a world, will come through this period of flux and transition to a brighter future. I won’t see it, but I can envision it. Now is the time to start shaping that future.

Now is the time to grow up.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Editing Flip-flop

There is a debate raging in one of the chats I follow. The question is, if you self-publish, do you need a professional editor?

My answer is a resounding, Yes.

When I was writing my novel, Whispers in the Night (notice I say my novel, because it’s my first and only), I didn’t have an editor. I had friends. My friends were very talented, all authors in their own right, members of the Coral Springs Writers Group. We met weekly and presented our pages to each other. Our submissions were carefully read by the others who searched out all the errors—the misspellings, dropped punctuation, repeated words. They also critiqued for lack of characterization, passages that didn’t move the plot, etc. They were great.

But they only saw a few pages at a time, and, I admit, I didn’t always show them the rewrites. Also, they didn’t see the work as a whole. This limited the effectiveness of their editing. I left Florida before I finished the work. Up north I was lucky to have my friend Jhena Plourde, who further edited the work in progress. And she was wonderful in picking up on the typos, inconsistencies and bloopers.

After the novel was published, I reread it. At that point I realized that what I needed was someone who would have grabbed me by the literary lapels and shaken me hard. “This part is crap,” the person could have said, “get rid of it or revise it. And flesh out this character or kill her off.”

In other words, I needed an editor.

My friends were a fine resource, but by not showing them the finished novel, I didn’t allow them that latitude.

I realize that I changed my mind, and the minds of my characters, several times in the writing of the book. I revised chapters, refocused the conflict, altered the course of the story arc. Some might say I flip-flopped.

Which brings us, not too surprisingly, to the political scene.

Some candidates have been accused of the same sort of alteration in their opinions. I have no quarrel with that. I feel that human beings are allowed to change their minds, even are required to do so, when presented with new evidence or unforeseen circumstances. Our opinions evolve as our minds grow. If they don’t, we become ossified.

Most of us don’t have the same mind set we had ten or twenty years ago. That’s natural, even necessary. Alterations in lifestyle can change a swinger into a cautious parent or a driver with a lead foot into a speed-limit conservative after the third ticket.

The difference, as I see it, between politicians’ situation and mine is that I can point out why I changed. I can specify what necessitated the alterations. I would like the men we are considering as our leaders to do the same thing.

What prompted a change of heart? Where was the point at which they realized their previous ideas were wrong? I crave facts.

I understand that it is often difficult to explain personal beliefs or circumstances to strangers. When I detail the reasons for the difference in my point of view, I am usually speaking to friends. Candidates have to speak to three hundred million strangers. That’s a lot more difficult.

But these are people who want to be our leaders. We have a right to know what prompted their ideas, on abortion, health care insurance, gun control, because these are areas that will impact our lives.

I edit my work to make it better. My focus is on my readers as I try to craft the best possible story.

Is that what our candidates are doing? Are they crafting the best possible story? Is that why they’re editing?

Or have they truly had a change of heart?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized