Just a few words for those few who care about my novel (other than me, of course). As of close of writing today, I've reached 378 pages. Since my goal was to finish the book in February, it's safe to say that won't be accomplished unless the predicted snowfall is enough to close my office tomorrow and for me to be inspired for the remaining hours that my four or five chapters will entail. More likely is that I'll finish by mid-March. The first draft will be done before Opening Day. I'm just closing up a few remaining threads at this point. The climactic moments have occurred; we're in denouement at this point.
In other comments: Maureen and I were happy to see that Zach Braff won an Independent Spirit Award for "Garden State" this weekend. Aside from sounding like Kermit the Frog onstage, he seemed to handle the accolades well. But he didn't win for "Best First Screenplay." Oh well, better luck next time on that one ;-)
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
Chapter 32.4: Make Sure She Swallows
Ok, that’s a crass headline – yes, it’s about “that” type of swallowing. So, if frank discussion of incredible lawsuits offends you, go find a Michael Jackson Web site. (Nota Bene: This entry is about a story that annoys me, and it’s possible I’ll end up re-editing the piece later.)
One of the more bizarre lawsuits I’ve ever heard of is being waged in our court system, and now it has made the papers. A man and his ex-girlfriend are in a child support battle over a child who was conceived after oral sex. The surprise pregnancy occurred because she allegedly saved his semen that he’d ejaculated into her mouth.
That’s right. He blew his load in her mouth and she saved it to impregnate herself. Then she sued him for child support. He alleges that they never had penal/vaginal intercourse during their four-month relationship, and he didn’t know about the child for two years; she said he did know. If I’m reading correctly, both these people are doctors – at least they both work in the medical field according to the story I read. (Look it up if you want, but I’m not going to post a link to it. It’s on the wires, appearing in papers on 2/25/05)
In a differently edited version of the same Associated Press story, the woman reportedly claimed that the pain the man felt wasn’t bad enough to warrant a lawsuit and her actions weren’t “truly extreme and outrageous” as he apparently claimed. The circuit court in Illinois where this happened agreed with her and dismissed the case back in 2003. An Illinois appellate court, however, recently ruled for the man. The story also quoted the woman’s attorney as saying “There’s a 5-year old child here ... Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.”
I am continually amazed at the depravity in this world. How could a person conceive of the scheme of saving a man’s ejaculate in order to get herself pregnant? Moreover, how could a court rule that such an action constituted a “gift,” as the appellate court reportedly determined? I’ve written enough about nonprofit organizations to know this isn’t your typical charitable donation.
If a court is going to allow such ridiculous terms into this context (the terms “gift” and "donor"), then doesn’t the donor have a right to a receipt if this “gift” is to be valued at more than $250? She’s claiming child support of about $800 per month. I think he should have been allowed to know ahead of time that she was going to use his “gift” in this manner. Using her argument, he should have had a right to knowingly choose to donate a major gift. She should have said something before her mouth was full. Did he purchase naming rights for this major donation? If any “gift” is given in good faith to be used in an expected manner – in this case, spit or swallow – how can the recipient hold the donor responsible for the unanticipated third alternative? If someone gave a person a car, should the gift giver be held responsible when the recipient decides to smash it through a store and kill innocent people? If she had placed it in her hair and caused her hair style to get all crazed, would he have been responsible for paying her bill at the hair stylist?
The irony in my mind is that her lawyer actually said something intelligent. There is a living child here. But the lawyer’s question begs another: Imagine how the child feels when he learns his mother deceived his unknowing father into causing the child to be. “Oops” just doesn’t cut it.
This is the opposite of abortion. It might actually be worse, except for the important distinction that a child is alive. Still, this sounds like an insidious attempt to dishonor life. If what the woman is alleged to have done is true – and she wasn’t denying it from what I’ve read – then the man was not intending to get her pregnant. She was clearly not raped and the sex was reportedly consensual. But it’s difficult to call this an unintended pregnancy because she wanted it to happen. I have a lot of sympathy for a woman who made a mistake and who didn’t want to get pregnant. That must be a horribly difficult situation for a woman, and I'm not sure men can fully understand it. But to actually take the ejaculate out of her mouth and put it somewhere that enables it to remain viable takes ... well, that takes balls.
One of the more bizarre lawsuits I’ve ever heard of is being waged in our court system, and now it has made the papers. A man and his ex-girlfriend are in a child support battle over a child who was conceived after oral sex. The surprise pregnancy occurred because she allegedly saved his semen that he’d ejaculated into her mouth.
That’s right. He blew his load in her mouth and she saved it to impregnate herself. Then she sued him for child support. He alleges that they never had penal/vaginal intercourse during their four-month relationship, and he didn’t know about the child for two years; she said he did know. If I’m reading correctly, both these people are doctors – at least they both work in the medical field according to the story I read. (Look it up if you want, but I’m not going to post a link to it. It’s on the wires, appearing in papers on 2/25/05)
In a differently edited version of the same Associated Press story, the woman reportedly claimed that the pain the man felt wasn’t bad enough to warrant a lawsuit and her actions weren’t “truly extreme and outrageous” as he apparently claimed. The circuit court in Illinois where this happened agreed with her and dismissed the case back in 2003. An Illinois appellate court, however, recently ruled for the man. The story also quoted the woman’s attorney as saying “There’s a 5-year old child here ... Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth.”
I am continually amazed at the depravity in this world. How could a person conceive of the scheme of saving a man’s ejaculate in order to get herself pregnant? Moreover, how could a court rule that such an action constituted a “gift,” as the appellate court reportedly determined? I’ve written enough about nonprofit organizations to know this isn’t your typical charitable donation.
If a court is going to allow such ridiculous terms into this context (the terms “gift” and "donor"), then doesn’t the donor have a right to a receipt if this “gift” is to be valued at more than $250? She’s claiming child support of about $800 per month. I think he should have been allowed to know ahead of time that she was going to use his “gift” in this manner. Using her argument, he should have had a right to knowingly choose to donate a major gift. She should have said something before her mouth was full. Did he purchase naming rights for this major donation? If any “gift” is given in good faith to be used in an expected manner – in this case, spit or swallow – how can the recipient hold the donor responsible for the unanticipated third alternative? If someone gave a person a car, should the gift giver be held responsible when the recipient decides to smash it through a store and kill innocent people? If she had placed it in her hair and caused her hair style to get all crazed, would he have been responsible for paying her bill at the hair stylist?
The irony in my mind is that her lawyer actually said something intelligent. There is a living child here. But the lawyer’s question begs another: Imagine how the child feels when he learns his mother deceived his unknowing father into causing the child to be. “Oops” just doesn’t cut it.
This is the opposite of abortion. It might actually be worse, except for the important distinction that a child is alive. Still, this sounds like an insidious attempt to dishonor life. If what the woman is alleged to have done is true – and she wasn’t denying it from what I’ve read – then the man was not intending to get her pregnant. She was clearly not raped and the sex was reportedly consensual. But it’s difficult to call this an unintended pregnancy because she wanted it to happen. I have a lot of sympathy for a woman who made a mistake and who didn’t want to get pregnant. That must be a horribly difficult situation for a woman, and I'm not sure men can fully understand it. But to actually take the ejaculate out of her mouth and put it somewhere that enables it to remain viable takes ... well, that takes balls.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Chapter 32.3: Lights Out for Peter Jennings?
I just saw Peter Jennings’ special report -- UFOs: Seeing Is Believing. What I saw and what I believe is that advertisers don’t care about UFOs. For the first 25 minutes or so of the show I was starting to believe that ABC was going to show the entire program without commercial interruption. Other than a few “house ads” about other ABC shows and a lot of car commercials, many of the commercials were the type of late night crap – shoe stretchers, special spatulas, and one-size-fits all leftovers holders – that made Ron Popeil famous.
The truth out there is that ABC must have had nothing better to do than to air this show. They couldn’t have made much money on it, and they clearly spent a lot. The production quality was excellent. The animation of people’s stories looked like reality; if they didn’t have the “animation” disclaimer on the bottom of the screen, it would have been difficult to distinguish whether or not it was real. In fact, it would have been distracting because the viewer would have looked at the level of detail in the rain-drenched car window and not focused attention on the words being spoken.
I’m not a “UFOlogist” nor have I seen a flying saucer, but as someone who’s watched his share of Discovery Channel, History Channel, Sci Fi Channel, and The Learning Channel programs on the topic, I actually heard some stories that I’d not caught before. Sure, there was the obligatory Roswell item and the discussion of abductions and the psychological trauma they’ve apparently experienced. The interviews with top-notch scientists such as Neil Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium lent a PBS feel of credibility to the report – beyond just having one of the top network anchors actually putting his reputation on the line with what many people consider ridiculous. I was impressed by the debunking of the Project Blue Book PR ploy conducted by the Air Force in the 50s and 60s, particularly the report on the civilian scientific investigator who apparently left the project “a believer.” Yet, an irrefutable answer remains to be told.
Of course there was no new evidence to prove the existence of extraterrestrials or flying saucers. Jennings offered possibilities and showed evidence of hucksters making a buck. They interviewed a man they called the only full-time investigator of UFOs in the country – a guy in Seattle – who works from a small desk surrounded by the tape recordings he’s made of the upset people who call him. They never explained how he could afford to do such work full time, because there clearly is no money in the work. Perhaps some people would pay for an investigation, but when the best answer one’s going to hear is “the results were inconclusive” how much business can one generate?
I applaud Jennings for trying. He went and promoted it on The Daily Show the night before. It’s obvious from that appearance who and where he believed his audience was, and I don’t think the advertising supported his premise. Intelligent, credible witnesses have claimed to see these objects. Intelligent, skeptical people were his target audience. Instead, the ad sales people for ABC could come up with little more than the equivalent of Ronco devices.
The truth out there is that ABC must have had nothing better to do than to air this show. They couldn’t have made much money on it, and they clearly spent a lot. The production quality was excellent. The animation of people’s stories looked like reality; if they didn’t have the “animation” disclaimer on the bottom of the screen, it would have been difficult to distinguish whether or not it was real. In fact, it would have been distracting because the viewer would have looked at the level of detail in the rain-drenched car window and not focused attention on the words being spoken.
I’m not a “UFOlogist” nor have I seen a flying saucer, but as someone who’s watched his share of Discovery Channel, History Channel, Sci Fi Channel, and The Learning Channel programs on the topic, I actually heard some stories that I’d not caught before. Sure, there was the obligatory Roswell item and the discussion of abductions and the psychological trauma they’ve apparently experienced. The interviews with top-notch scientists such as Neil Tyson of the Hayden Planetarium lent a PBS feel of credibility to the report – beyond just having one of the top network anchors actually putting his reputation on the line with what many people consider ridiculous. I was impressed by the debunking of the Project Blue Book PR ploy conducted by the Air Force in the 50s and 60s, particularly the report on the civilian scientific investigator who apparently left the project “a believer.” Yet, an irrefutable answer remains to be told.
Of course there was no new evidence to prove the existence of extraterrestrials or flying saucers. Jennings offered possibilities and showed evidence of hucksters making a buck. They interviewed a man they called the only full-time investigator of UFOs in the country – a guy in Seattle – who works from a small desk surrounded by the tape recordings he’s made of the upset people who call him. They never explained how he could afford to do such work full time, because there clearly is no money in the work. Perhaps some people would pay for an investigation, but when the best answer one’s going to hear is “the results were inconclusive” how much business can one generate?
I applaud Jennings for trying. He went and promoted it on The Daily Show the night before. It’s obvious from that appearance who and where he believed his audience was, and I don’t think the advertising supported his premise. Intelligent, credible witnesses have claimed to see these objects. Intelligent, skeptical people were his target audience. Instead, the ad sales people for ABC could come up with little more than the equivalent of Ronco devices.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Chapter 32.1: Job Well Done
Yesterday I participated in a career couseling event at my alma mater. It's been 15 years since I graduated, and the school has changed a lot. New buildings, new rules, but from what I could tell it still attracted intelligent, active students.
I was energized by their questions, and listening to them ask questions about life in the "real world" made me long for when I was back in school.
I sat on a panel of other liberal arts majors. Hopefully, I gave them a perspective they valued. I know I was happy to offer my perspectives. As someone who hasn't been an instant success (and whether I'm a success now is debateable), I think I had something of value to say. I've driven a school bus, I've bartended, and I've pursued my dreams. What I lack in financial reward, hopefully I've gained in experience and stories.
To those kids preparing to hit the streets, I say good luck. I hope my 60 minutes of participation in your future help.
I was energized by their questions, and listening to them ask questions about life in the "real world" made me long for when I was back in school.
I sat on a panel of other liberal arts majors. Hopefully, I gave them a perspective they valued. I know I was happy to offer my perspectives. As someone who hasn't been an instant success (and whether I'm a success now is debateable), I think I had something of value to say. I've driven a school bus, I've bartended, and I've pursued my dreams. What I lack in financial reward, hopefully I've gained in experience and stories.
To those kids preparing to hit the streets, I say good luck. I hope my 60 minutes of participation in your future help.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Chapter 32: More Please
I'm stuck at 360. That's the number of pages I've written so far in my novel. Ideally, it'll be about where the finished product lands, but there's more to write still. I'm in the midst of the climactic chapter, and I'm stuck -- not for what to do next, but looking for time to write. The past week has been non-stop work or freelance (ok, so I watched West Wing on Wednesday too, but I transcribed an hour of interviews too).
Friday night, Maureen and I will watch a play in Hoboken: "You're a good man, Charlie Brown." A friend of ours is playing Lucy. I'm sure she'll be great, even if it is opening night. I hear Arthur Miller's very sick, so perhaps this is the way to recognize his greatness and his contributions to America. Better still would be a play of his. Alas, we're living in a crucible already, do we really need to watch one on stage?
Saturday, I'll be at Lafayette College, sitting on a panel about what liberal arts majors can do other than teach. I suspect that it will seem obvious to college students that a liberal arts major can write, but perhaps not. I'm very much looking forward to the panel and the day, but honestly, I'd rather be working on my novel. I want to hit 370 this weekend, or more. The end is near.
Friday night, Maureen and I will watch a play in Hoboken: "You're a good man, Charlie Brown." A friend of ours is playing Lucy. I'm sure she'll be great, even if it is opening night. I hear Arthur Miller's very sick, so perhaps this is the way to recognize his greatness and his contributions to America. Better still would be a play of his. Alas, we're living in a crucible already, do we really need to watch one on stage?
Saturday, I'll be at Lafayette College, sitting on a panel about what liberal arts majors can do other than teach. I suspect that it will seem obvious to college students that a liberal arts major can write, but perhaps not. I'm very much looking forward to the panel and the day, but honestly, I'd rather be working on my novel. I want to hit 370 this weekend, or more. The end is near.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Chapter 31.9: Death of a Champion
Max Schmeling died at age 99. I skimmed through the obituary in the New York Times and soon found myself reading it. I had no idea that this man was such a champion, not merely of boxing but of life.
His friendship with Joe Louis and his quiet dedication to human rights in Nazi-era Germany should be applauded by more people. His defiance of the Nazi power elite to save his marriage and his business partners is remarkable, given the ruthlessness with which the Nazis reportedly ran things. I have never been a devotee of boxing, but I will need to read up on this man.
His friendship with Joe Louis and his quiet dedication to human rights in Nazi-era Germany should be applauded by more people. His defiance of the Nazi power elite to save his marriage and his business partners is remarkable, given the ruthlessness with which the Nazis reportedly ran things. I have never been a devotee of boxing, but I will need to read up on this man.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Chapter 31.8: Honor Your Father
People wonder why our nation is falling behind in education? Well, look at the story in the New York Times about how schools in the south are ignoring the theory of evolution. We all know this is not an isolated event.
Yet, how can it be a science class when the topic of creationism is given more validity than a scientifically supported theory? (And make no mistake of it – creationism or ‘intelligent design’ is at least as "theoretical" as evolution.) By the end of the article, the report noted that some people also doubt the Big Bang, which is also well supported scientifically.
Without a better understanding of the importance of the scientific method, our nation will founder, as a basic method of education and learning gets passed over for reasons that defy logic. This problem will likely get worse in math as well, where the beauty of numbers is often not enough for students to sustain their love without the practicality of strong science classes where they can apply the mathematical and scientific theories.
For those who argue, ‘well prove it to me if you’re so smart,’ I say you should ask your teachers to do it. Find a God-fearing, evolution-believing teacher. They are clearly out there. And have that person teach you so you understand. That is what teachers do.
Why is it that some people don’t recognize that God can be in the details? Evolution is a more intelligent design. It allows for diversity and progress, it enables competition and growth. To me, evolution is better proof that a Supreme Being exists than the concept of Adam and Eve. (So tell me, creationist teacher, who did their children wed?). Minimizing science as though it’s a way to respect God is ignorance.
Honor your father – learn about science.
Yet, how can it be a science class when the topic of creationism is given more validity than a scientifically supported theory? (And make no mistake of it – creationism or ‘intelligent design’ is at least as "theoretical" as evolution.) By the end of the article, the report noted that some people also doubt the Big Bang, which is also well supported scientifically.
Without a better understanding of the importance of the scientific method, our nation will founder, as a basic method of education and learning gets passed over for reasons that defy logic. This problem will likely get worse in math as well, where the beauty of numbers is often not enough for students to sustain their love without the practicality of strong science classes where they can apply the mathematical and scientific theories.
For those who argue, ‘well prove it to me if you’re so smart,’ I say you should ask your teachers to do it. Find a God-fearing, evolution-believing teacher. They are clearly out there. And have that person teach you so you understand. That is what teachers do.
Why is it that some people don’t recognize that God can be in the details? Evolution is a more intelligent design. It allows for diversity and progress, it enables competition and growth. To me, evolution is better proof that a Supreme Being exists than the concept of Adam and Eve. (So tell me, creationist teacher, who did their children wed?). Minimizing science as though it’s a way to respect God is ignorance.
Honor your father – learn about science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)