Forbidden Boolean String

According to this article in the LA Times, the internet makes it easier to become a terrorist. Easier than what? I ask, but deduce from the open-ended question they mean easier than without. The logic in that is shoddy, but we'll ignore such a discrepancy in order to have the discussion move past the poor rhetoric it displays.

Another objective flaw in the article is its attention solely to Islamic radicals.

From charismatic clerics who spout hate online, to thousands of extremist websites, chat rooms and social networking pages that raise money and spread radical propaganda, the Internet has become a crucial front in the ever-shifting war on terrorism.

to

[F]iery Internet imans who use English to preach jihad and, in some cases, to help funnel recruits to Al Qaeda and other radical causes.

I've encountered plenty of radical hate-mongering from far more than Islamic voices. I think the easy way to rationally discuss this sort of thing is by just killing everyone who's viewpoint is different than . . . hmmm, that doesn't work because then . . . we'd all have to . . . end up shooting . . . each other.

Okay, to rationally discuss this topic, instead of pointing fingers at just one religious sect of wingnuts, how about point our fingers at all spectrum of wingnuts.

Hmmmm, that really doesn't work either, sing who defines who the wingnuts are?

"Decent society" I guess. Although I've seen damn little proof such a place exists.

And so I tried something. I used Google to help my terrorist indoctrination. But alas! Google failed me. I shan't be able to join my hoped for radical group since, apparently, they don't exist:

· • ·

Talkin Shop: Writing Superstitions

It's funny what sort of story ideas capture my imagination and what sort drive me to the page immediately.

In the midst of something like the latter. No story idea, just those characters/place/event. Playing reporter and following them around. Gets deep and twisted and complicated and so-very-human so quickly, doesn't it?

Going back to an old adage/superstition. Don't talk about the contents of the story until the first draft is done. A couple got away from me by talking about them.

But those are occupational hazards. • y a w n •

Now if you wanna talk shop . . . you know how to reach me.


· • ·

Authorial Intention

The purpose for this blog is two-fold:

1: to provide a space for the ideas I have that make it to the page is some sort of rational coherence.

2: to provide an archive of (some) my university papers, without any further editing than they received prior to being turned in.

This latter point is a cringe-inducing thought. As a writer, I wonder about putting forth work in any kind of public venue, let alone that with which I haven't edited for public consumption. But, being that these are the versions of papers that were graded and deemed to be worthy of the high marks which I received for them, they must be worth something. Of course, a reader could finish one and wonder how in the hell did he receive an A for this!? That teacher must be crazy. And to that I say, let's see your work and we'll analyze the rubric against which your instructors measured that work.

These university papers will be posted with information about what draft was handed in (I may be holding a blade to my own throat with that ideal); the grade for each was an A unless otherwise indicated.

As for the former idea, well, that's where the philippic of this comes it. Sometimes I write things that would best be heard as my barbaric YAWP atop a soap box (or milk crate) in a subway station of your choosing. That station then, quite likely, would be one that you were not personally in at the time of the YAWPing.

Schools; Departments:
Columbia College Chicago; Fiction Department (Fall 2007-Spring 2008)
University of North Carolina—Wilmington; Creative Writing (Fall 2008-Spring 2009), English (Fall 2009-current).


· • ·