Sayonara

Andrew Sullivan, perhaps one of the most prolific bloggers of our time recently announced that after fifteen years he is retiring from this activity. In his latest post, he discussed what he would do next. “I want to read again, slowly, carefully,” he wrote. “I want to absorb a difficult book and walk around in my own thoughts with it for a while. I want to have an idea and let it slowly take shape, rather than be instantly blogged.”

When I read his comments, it reminded me that my postings on “Just Saying . . .” have dwindled more and more each of the last three years. In 2015, I’ve published two posts, twenty in 2014, thirty-one in 2013, more than sixty in 2012, and  a total of four hundred and sixty four times since my blogging activity began in 2008. The impulse to tell  the reason for the decline has been percolating over the last year, and Sullivan’s announcement has moved me past the ‘I’ll do it tomorrow” point to this posting.

First of all, I need to digress and explain my initial venture into blogging.  By 2008, I’d spent nearly six years writing most of the novel “Serenity” but I couldn’t figure out how to end the story.  I was stuck. The common malady is generally called “writer’s block.” It took four years of maintaining the practice of nearly daily blog writing before the block disappeared and I was able to finish the story.  As a humorous and coincidental aside, every time I now type the word “blogging” my Auto-correct changes the word to “bogging,” which neatly depicts the state of my writing and mind when I started blogging, i.e. “bogging” begat “blogging.”

The purpose of my blogging was to help me, a retired senior citizen, develop the practice of consistent daily writing to keep me occupied in a fruitful manner while my golf game, and various and sundry other activities, declined in what might be viewed as in an “age-related” fashion. After completing Serenity, I was able to focus more clearly on another project that, as Mr. Sullivan so aptly characterizes as ”an idea that slowly takes shape," the net result being the near-completion of another novel which is now in the final stages of editing.  As that project is slowly coming to an end, other ideas have “slowly taken shape” and I am now at work on another novel, revising my first book, and writing two screenplays based on Serenity and the new novel.

So, what I am “just saying” is that my blog posting is coming to an end.  Thanks so much for having allowed me to present my thoughts, good or bad, to you this past seven years.

Money Talks!

An extremely interesting statement appears in the New York Times this morning (January 29, 2015) in a story about the Koch brothers 900 million dollar plan to grasp control of state and federal governments in the 1916 elections. The statement “The group’s budget, disclosed by a conference attendee, reflects the rising ambition and expanded reach of the Koch operation, which has sought to distinguish itself from other outside groups by emphasizing the role of donors over consultants and political operatives.” tells all of us and, hopefully, members of the U.S. Supreme Court that money buys results. The 5-4 Citizens United decision five years ago danced around the definition of corruption and the Court reversed its own decisions as well as a legislative history of over 100 years in giving corporations and individuals the unlimited right to donate as much money as they want in exercising their, ahem, first amendment right to participate in our rapidly-evolving oligarchic-hybrid form of democracy. This hybrid has as its motto “Money talks.” This is no equal playing field, folks. The millions of us who are willing and able to contribute fifty or a hundred dollars to a favorite candidate are being left in the literal dust as the Koch-types purchase more and more politicians to advance their own objectives.

Under current law, campaign contributions are illegal if there is an explicit quid pro quo, and legal if there isn’t. But legal campaign contributions can be as bad as bribes in creating obligations, the tit-for-tat being the gateway to bribes. In the current campaign financing system, candidates receive cash and respond by serving donors’ interests. Politicians spend more than half their time talking to their funding sources, seeking money and keeping them happy. We will undoubtedly hear current Republican members of Congress campaign the next election cycle parroting what the Koch brothers want. Statements like “I voted to repeal Obamacare 42 times” will be viewed by the Kochs as an affirmation of their control over these politicians, because the pols really don’t give a damn what or how they do things so long as the money continues to flow. Unlimited spending on these politicians is a poison that has entered the bloodstream of American democracy. This process is a real threat to our democracy. If left unchecked, the country is going to go to “hell in a hand basket.”

Just saying . .  .

News on Serenity

Interview with writer Tom Bleakley, Novel Winner for SERENITY

January 18, 2015 wildsoundreview Interviewbook winner, festival, novel festival, novelist, review, serenity, tom bleakley, wildsound, writing

Watch the Novel Reading from SERENITY (Chapter 3) from the Writing Festival:

Performed by Alissa DeGrazia

http://www.wildsoundfestival.com/serenity.html

Interview with Writer Tom Bleakley:

Matthew: What is your novel about? 

Tom: Serenity is a legal thriller, a fictionalized version of a real case. The story revolves around an unfaithful husband headed toward divorce who is prescribed a drug notorious for causing the side effect of unremembered bizarre behavior, including homicide. The husband kills his wife., but claims to remember nothing about the incident The book asks, “Who is to blame?” Is it the husband who kills to preserve his fancy life style, or the avaricious drug company that attempts to hide news of the drug’s terrible effects to keep the billions of dollars of sales from crashing? The husband is tried for murder and he claims that the drug caused him to kill. A jury decides his guilt or innocence — or does it?

Matthew: Why should people read this novel?

Tom: The main reason is to inform the public about risks of prescription drugs in a manner that is interesting and intellectually stimulating. While the work can be described as fiction, great care has been taken to present a story line that closely adheres to an ongoing event occurring with a currently marketed drugs. As a reviewing journalist for a Detroit newspaper wrote “Serenity . . . should be used as a framework for major changes in our pharmaceutical industry and it’s government oversight. I think it should be on every concerned U.S. citizen’s Top 10 reading lists.” 

Matthew: How long have you been writing stories? 

Tom: I have been writing in one mode or another since high school

Matthew: What movie have you seen the most in your life?

Tom: “What about Bob?” Anything by Bill Murray. He makes me laugh.

Matthew: What artists would you love to work with? 

Tom: Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper.

Matthew: How many stories have you written? 

Tom: A trial lawyer is, in effect, a story teller. During my legal career, I’ve tried more than seventy major lawsuits against the pharmaceutical industry. If this answer is to be limited to the writing of fiction, I have written eighteen short stores or novels. 

Matthew: Ideally, where would you like to be in 5 years? 

Tom: I love writing and I want to be sitting at my desk writing for three-four hours every day. 

Matthew: Describe your process; do you have a set routine, method for writing? 

Tom: I write early in the morning., generally from 4 A.M. to 8 A.M. I have attempted to write Elmore Leonard-style (without an outline) but find that a carefully developed outline both motivates me and takes me down interesting and, sometimes, unexpected pathways.

Matthew: Apart from writing, what else are you passionate about? 

Tom: My eight grandchildren, music (I play the tuba in several concert bands, trombone, euphonium, piano, guitar and banjo), reading, and a love/hate relationship with the game of golf. I’ve exercised nearly every day for more than sixty years.

Matthew: What influenced you to enter the WILDsound Festival? 

Tom: Putting oneself ‘out there’ to be judged/assessed by others is an excellent way to hold oneself accountable for the quality of writing.

Matthew: Any advice or tips you’d like to pass on to other writers? 

Tom: Develop the habit of writing on a daily basis. 

I Need Some Help on This.

In mid-September 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. In the ensuing economic collapse, the greedy underbelly of our American banking system was exposed for what it was, a tremendous crap-shoot involving credit-default swaps and their ilk purchased by the investments of unknowing regular bank customers. Successful swaps guaranteed banks and their wealthy owner-investors millions upon millions dollars of minimally taxed profits with none of the gains passed on to those whose money was used for those purchases.  On the other hand, massive losses resulting from ill-advised and shady deals using bank customers money were covered by tax dollars bailouts paid by average Joe Citizens, i.e., the economic equivalent of the rectal hydration tactics employed by the CIA (as recently reported), administered to us not just once, but twice.

The above is all background information for my plea for your help for the following reasons. The bipartisan funding bill that just passed Congress sets aside the protections established to separate regular banking activities from risky speculation to prevent the 2008 scenario from recurring. In other words, once the bill is signed, banks will be free to use your money (and mine) to gamble recklessly again.

What follows is a form letter I am sending to the banks where I keep my accounts.

Dear Bank,

It is my understanding that the recent funding bill passed by Congress includes a rider allowing the banking industry to mingle activities of regular banking activities with risky speculation efforts such as using regular bank investments in the purchase of credit default swaps. As a result, as a regular banking customer of yours, I have several questions for you; Are you going to use monies obtained from normal banking procedures for the purpose of engaging in such risky financial ventures? If you do engage in risky speculative efforts with my money, are you planning on sharing any profits realized from those investments with me?  If you lose money on any risky speculative ventures, do you expect the American taxpayers to restore any lost funds to you with tax money? I would like responses to these questions as promptly as possible so that I may restructure my current financial assets in a manner that protects me and my family from a situation similar to the 2008 crash of the economy.                           

                                                                        Very truly yours,

                                                                        A Bank Customer

So this is what I need help on; I think that if the banks of America receive only one such letter, it will be laughed off as simply coming from a miserable old crank. However, if we all band together and submit one million or more such letters, the banks may take the hint that the public is not as stupid as they think we are. So help me and help yourself. Write letters to every bank you do any kind of normal banking business with and request information on their intentions with your money. Feel free to use the form letter above.

Just saying . . .

The Bushes are Back

Heaven help us all. The Bush family dynasty is rearing its ugly head again in the form of Jeb Bush ranting against President Obama’s handling of the Ebola situation, an obvious first salvo in a run for the presidency. Hasn’t this family killed enough Americans (more than five thousand at last count) in trumped-up unnecessary wars to sufficiently tarnish whatever grand proclamations any member of that silver spoon-clan has to say about anything?  Hasn’t this family killed enough foreign citizens (more than 200,000 in Iraq alone) to lose any credibility about how to handle a potential crisis?  Wait, you might say. Is it fair to extrapolate the demagoguery and shortcomings of Georgie Junior to the younger and more intelligent Jeb who can actually speak in full sentences, unlike his older brother?  We have daily reminders of Junior’s handiwork in the holdings of the Supreme Court’s far-right activist justices who have equated money with speech in deciding that elections will go to the highest bidder.  The theme "Money Talks, Everyone Else Walks" is the current electoral trend compliments of Junior-appointed justices Roberts and Alioto. The Bush family message (and its legacy) has been received. The government of the United States is for sale to the highest unnamed bidders.  I predict we will have the opportunity to witness a first-class pandering of Tea Party types by Jeb-Boy as he systematically moves far enough to the right by demonstrating his hatred of all things Obama, the only way that he can possibly be considered a serious candidate.

The Bushes have done enough damage to our country already. Let’s not go there again. Enough is enough.

Just saying . . .

Marijuana Kills Brain Cells in Teenagers

A carefully done peer-reviewed study has demonstrated unequivocally that pot smoking in teenagers can result in a significant decline in IQ that appears to be permanent. The neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain highlights the importance of prevention and policy efforts targeting adolescents. The authors of this study say "Prevention and policy efforts should focus on delivering to the public the message that cannabis use during adolescence can have harmful effects on neuropsychological functioning, delaying the onset of cannabis use at least until adulthood, and encouraging cessation of cannabis use particularly for those who began using cannabis in adolescence."

Their findings suggest that regular cannabis use before age 18 years of age  predicts impairment. In the  study, the most persistent adolescent-onset cannabis users evidenced an average 8-point IQ decline from childhood to adulthood. Cannabis use in adolescence causes brain changes that result in neuropsychological impairment. "Several lines of evidence support this possibility (24⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓⇓–31, 33, 34). First, puberty is a period of critical brain development, characterized by neuronal maturation and rearrangement processes (e.g., myelination, synaptic pruning, dendritic plasticity) and the maturation of neurotransmitter systems (e.g., the endogenous cannabinoid system), making the pubertal brain vulnerable to toxic insult (33). Second, cannabis administration in animals is associated with structural and functional brain differences, particularly in hippocampal regions, with structural differences dependent on age and duration of exposure to cannabinoids (33). Third, studies of human adolescents have shown structural and functional brain differences associated with cannabis use (26, 29, 35). The association between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline was still apparent after controlling for years of education. However, the toxic effects of cannabis on the brain may result in impaired neuropsychological functioning, poor academic performance, and subsequent school dropout, which then results in further neuropsychological decline.

"Our finding of neuropsychological difficulties among adolescent-onset former persistent cannabis users who quit or reduced their use for 1 year or more suggests that neuropsychological functioning is not fully restored in this time.

"Increasing efforts should be directed toward delaying the onset of cannabis use by young people, particularly given the recent trend of younger ages of cannabis-use initiation in the United States and evidence that fewer adolescents believe that cannabis use is associated with serious health risk (42). Quitting, however, may have beneficial effects, preventing additional impairment for adolescent-onset users."

         Madeline H. Meier, Avshalom Caspi, Antony Ambler, HonaLee Harrington, Renate Houts, Richard S. E. Keefe, Kay McDonald, Aimee Ward, Richie Poulton, and Terrie E. Moffitt

Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife

PNAS 2012 109 (40) E2657–E2664; published ahead of print August 27, 2012.

Just saying . . .

Big Deal! So What?

The FBI has released a study which clearly documents the rise in sporadic mass killins in the United States since the turn of the century. The NYTimes notes “The bureau’s new survey across the past 13 years concludes that horrific shootings like those in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., are occurring with greater frequency.  The average annual number of shooting sprees with multiple casualties was 6.4 from 2000 to 2006. That jumped to 16.4 a year from 2007 to 2013, according to the study of 160 incidents of gun mayhem since 2000. (In 2000, The Times examined 100 spree killings, all those that the paper’s staff could find going back 50 years.) The F.B.I. report makes the shooters’ terrible effectiveness clear: 486 people were killed — 366 of them in the past seven years — and 557 others were wounded, many of them gravely incapacitated for years afterward.”

My reaction to all of this is ‘big deal.’ Only 486 people dead? So what?  I’ll tell you the number of dead that really gets my attention; 16,651.  This is the number of people that died in 2010 from physician-prescribed opioid analgesics, pain-relieving drugs containing narcotics (Percocet, Oxycontin, etc.). Let me do the simple math for comparison. 486 dead over seven years is an average of 69.42 people for year killed in mass shooting sprees. I will be generous and round the number off to 70. Now let’s look at the other example by way of comparison. If the annual rate of deaths over the past seven years from narcotic prescription drugs stayed the same, 116,657 people have died, a number that really gets my attention.

Now that I, perhaps, have your attention as well, the number of gun deaths each year is in excess of 31,000. This number is the total of annual deaths from all guns including those guns that are carried legally throughout the United States, some into churches and bars and college classes and Starbucks and wherever else a gun–toter may fancy. Let me do some quick math again about that number, a number that really does get my attention; 31,000 times 7 equals 217,000 people dead over the last seven years. 486 is only 0.02% of those 217,000 people.

Big deal? So what? The ‘big deal and so what’ to me is that the NRA and its gullible-as-hell minions scream (and spend millions of dollars lobbying and buying off our hapless politicians) to protect the specious right to bear arms. The ‘big deal and so what’ to me is that doctors and Big Pharma scream about unfair lawsuits and restrictions on their right to kill people for profit.

Just saying . . .