"Beautiful, Bawdy, Villains!"

Since young, the word villain has held a certain amount of humor as to the way it’s pronounced as opposed to spelled. I enjoy pronouncing it as spelled. “You vil-LAIN, you!”

vil-lain, n. 1 a wicked person. 2 a playful name for a mischievous person. 3 character in a play, novel, etc., whose evil motives or actions form an important element in plot. [< Old French villein < Medieval Latin villanus farm hand < Latin villa country house]

Examining etymology we see origins are likely that farm hands from country houses stole into town to pilfer things. Perhaps one was caught, and in fleeing, was recognized, and it was called out after them--“Villein!”--so the townsfolk knew who the thief was--someone from the villas. The Old French pronunciation is as the word is spelled, vil-LAIN. I figured that had to be, it seems more correct to human speech to yell/sound out AIN over IN.

In the play Hamlet there is a monologue where, because he’s failing to take action against the corrupt state of affairs, he berates himself as a “…bloody, bawdy, villain!” I like to use the phrase when addressing someone or something that has gone wrong. Like if Dick Cheney or the like are on a talk show I might yell the phrase at the TV--“Bloody, bawdy, villain!”

But I also like to use it playfully, like I did signing off to two women I was involved in a facebook ménage à trios with--“beautiful, bawdy, villains!” I wanted it to turn into a real life ménage à trios because both women are dynamic and beautiful. But just the other night I may have hurt one of them, if not both. In not thinking things through, being too impulsive, no filter rawness, I disrupted a budding relationship. I cried about it, I really do care about them, and the thought of hurting them, hurts. If I would’ve waited an hour or so on the development of what I really wanted to say, I would’ve eventually reached the correct words, instead of what I sent.

I had been messaging with them both, then created a thread with the three of us, and went back to message the one. I sent it on the chance she might have wanted it for her narrative. She is near that age where if she wanted kids, now was a good time. My imagination even went to that place. What I should’ve done is asked them at the same time if I could give the one a baby, or both, and then maybe we all make a go of it as a tribe of some sort, whatever that might look like. Then they could’ve taken the idea however they wanted, as a great laugh at least, and we could’ve continued to row gently down the stream. Instead I faltered by telling the one I loved them both, but was a little more in love with her. She read it, showed it to the other, and they both bowed out. Alas, haste is the Devil’s best friend, and not only was the wording imprecise, it was not well-considered and so the wrong message overall was sent. And quite rightly the one showed it to the other. I hope they forgive me. Maybe one day. But let this be a lesson: if you’re in a ménage à trios, on-line or in the real world, favoritism is likely death. The tragedy in this case, besides hurting people, is that I don’t think there really was any favoritism. I think I loved them both just the same, and I sent the wrong message out of fear it might’ve been what the one wanted. I’ll talk about it more because there is a lot to be said for the situation and for women and men in general. For now let’s shift gears, here is what I wrote a few days ago:

I feel so lucky--the first few weeks of 2012! Very busy. The political science is bumping along, though there is comfort in hearing people talk about the need for a convention. There’s text I could write about how the ten year struggle for it destroyed my life, but I wouldn’t bother, it’s 2012 now and every day is a gift of the heavens. Sounds over the top to say every day is a gift of the heavens, doesn’t it? But not only is it true--literally, the heavens contain the Sun--but it’s a feeling too. The “gift of the heavens” feeling, where you’re happy just to know so much of what’s going on here on Earth. In an essay by Sir Francis Bacon, “Of Truth” he quotes an unnamed poet: “It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea; a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to standing upon the vantage ground of truth, and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests in the vale below. That this sight be with compassion and not pride--certainly it is heaven on Earth to have a mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.”

The higher ground of truth is achieved through your choice to seek out, read, and contemplate the world--and maybe that’s really what we’re talking about, whether or not you read books--that a feeling of bliss can be achieved just by knowing things. If you read books, of course you are going to know more. They don’t have to be non-fiction books only--you can learn about life through fiction--some would argue you learn more through fiction--if the writer is any good (literary fiction that is, that which attempts to raise consciousness about life and living, and so teaches a better way to live). But surely, the more you read the more you know, and the more you know the higher ground of truth you stand, and thus more often to have the “every day is a gift of the heavens” type day. Knowing things is important, the trick is understanding what they mean when considered in relation to one another. That’s the job of the poet and playwright and novelist.

The other night I went down to LA, to the Kaballah Center. A friend joined the group a year or two ago, went to Israel with them last summer, and talks about it when we catch up over the phone. I’d heard of it for years, it’s centered on Jewish mysticism. They have a few speakers who know their stuff, and they all groove on good ideas. It’s kind of like its own church, everyone generally smiling, feeling good. I was there for the talk they were having about 2012. Here are notes I jotted down:

Wisdom as tool

Breaking free from slavery

War of thoughts/ideas

Law of solidarity--every person an agent in the unfolding

Awake core mass for change

Afterwards I spoke with the woman rabbi who gave it. She was a dynamic speaker, high and low notes throughout the hour--very shiny hair I remember thinking at one point. She talked about things I had considered at one time or another and I agreed with her take--pretty much what any fair-minded, rational person would. In the main, the message was about how what we think and how we act as humans affects the unfolding of reality. This is one of my favorite ideas of all time, so I wanted to share with the rabbi a story I heard about, and confirmed with a little research at the library. It’s a story about the Hopi which underlines the idea.

The Hopi elders had a prophecy passed along for thousands of years: that when the “gourd of ashes” was dropped on mother Earth, the elders living at that time were to go to the “house of glass” on the eastern shore, and warn the leaders of the world that if they did not become peaceable and blend with the land, they would cause a catastrophe. Then, in the 1940s, the elders took the atom bomb dropped on Japan to be the “gourd of ashes” and they headed to the United Nations building to warn the world’s leaders. Their prophecy instructed them to attempt to deliver the message three times. In research I found a short op-ed from the 1953 Wall Street Journal which basically made fun of these Hopi elders trying to address the General Assembly.

The important message of the prophecy is that if humanity didn’t do something, it would cause something: human thoughts/actions affect how things unfold in reality. I wrote down a link for the Article V Convention stuff and gave it to the rabbi, letting her know her message of the Law of Solidarity, and how each individual is an agent in the unfolding, and the goal is to wake a core of the mass for change.

I've decided not to do another Shakespeare book, and am going for another novel. Rider, Horse & Dog is the storehouse for the raw material. I'm also working on a new play, as I was sent an invite from a New York theatre for their latest competition. We'll see. Anyway, there is more to say about the two women, and even the actress. For now I must go prepare for a conference call with the politically engaged.

Slaying a Dragon

There were a dozen conventions leading up to the 1787 Federal Convention at Philadelphia which drafted the Constitution. From there the people of the thirteen states had to then be persuaded to embrace it. The final argument of the Federalists, No. 85, explains that if Congress ever becomes so corrupt it no longer expresses the will of the people--if corruption becomes institutionalized at the federal level--the displeasure of the states, registered by a numeric count of applications, forces Congress to issue the call for a convention. Everyone alive at that time knew what one was for--to address concerns in a non-binding deliberative assembly so that when it was time to vote for change everyone had an understanding of issues. Ratifying conventions were held in each state to see what everyone thought, and then there was more voting. So how could our nation have survived all these conventions which took place at our founding, but now somehow, the same process is a huge question mark fraught with fear? We today, after fifty-plus years of military/industrial nonsense have forgotten what a convention is and why 3/4 ratification is overly sufficient to block divisive issues from becoming law. Fear that a convention will propose the most corporatist, draconian, and/or fundamentalist ideas is one thing, but to fear 38 states agreeing to them is not only irrational, but illogical as well: 75% means the idea must have overwhelming and broad support, that whether conservative or liberal it must win support of all one side, plus half the other. In other words it’s mathematically impossible for a divisive issue to be ratified. To put it another way, if you fear a convention it’s because you irrationally/illogically believe issues like abortion and marriage are so easily agreed to they could achieve 75% overall consent. 

On the other hand, there are issues that are easily agreed to: Electoral Reform in general, creating standards for transparency in the voting process, and removing money from politics, in particular. Electoral Reform always scores 80-90% approval. Removing money from politics has been an on the lips of Americans for over a century, and guess what we’ve never had in that century? A convention. 

Congress refuses to issue the call even though applications have been submitted by the hundreds. A new legal challenge is about to prove once again that Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and issue the call. So where does that leave you and me? All it means is what Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, and Eisenhower have said in so many words: It doesn’t matter what the Congress or Court thinks, only what We The People think. As soon as we galvanize a tipping-point around the idea that there is nothing to fear and everything to gain from a convention, Congress will do what it’s always done: play dumb, then manufacture consent for what the people want (this time we don’t want a new amendment, we want a convention to consider a number of them--some concerned with how Congress operates).

Our trick now is to gather political groups and individuals from across the land and political spectrum to join in the call for the Article V Convention. Government here in the USA has been overtaken by corporate and foreign interests, legislation is now written by those who fund campaigns--banking interests, big business. Now is the time to hit the reset button on governance with a convention. How? Within the political environment of a convention discussion is removed from another corrupt, tired two-party affair, to that of how 38 states might alter and abolish the status quo. Whether or not any idea can indeed garner the approval of 75%, the constitutional process of a convention is a three-part national discussion that in and of itself alters and abolishes the status quo. In other words, all we need to do is build the pressure upon Congress to issue the call and once that goal is accomplished we are immediately, literally overnight, delivered from the hell of politics as usual.

The Rule of Law is that there are laws and they are to be obeyed. Of law, there is the letter of it (how it’s written/what it states) and the spirit of it (why it states what it does). Those unfamiliar with the Article V Convention and the numerous Supreme Court decisions directly related to it or an aspect of it (such as election of delegates), must first ask themselves if they’re clear on the distinction between subjective opinion and objective law. If at present you believe the Article V Convention can be limited in any way, you are applying a subjective standard that doesn’t exist and was never meant to. To limit a convention to one or more subjects, or to believe applications need be submitted within a “reasonable” time period, means you have not read the letter of this law nor understand the spirit of it. The letter of Article V is that upon the application of 2/3 of the states, with no other terms or conditions and without debate, the Congress “shall” issue the call. The spirit of Article V is that any generation can alter/abolish the status quo of a two-party system at any time the desire is strong enough. There are no limits, terms or conditions on the applications, except that one has been cast, and hundreds have already been cast. Nor are there any limitations on the convention once convoked. Hopefully, you will come to realize the Article V Convention is untouchable: as soon as one attempts to put a single limitation upon it, where does one stop? Where you think it should stop? Where I think it should stop? Where Newt Gingrich thinks it should stop? You cannot apply subjective criteria to an objective law which has no terms or conditions, unique in all the world. That’s what we should all understand finally, that there is nothing like the American constitution in all the history of civilization. The idea of a “runaway convention” is a myth and such fears are unfounded based on reason and logic. The Article V Convention is an assembly of the states to discover if indeed there is anything that 3/4 might agree to. Simply working to discover what might garner such approval in and of itself will put the hurt on the two-party corporatist state of affairs, and the system we’ve all come to loathe.

Late Notes

Wanna hear a facebook story? A childhood friend who had gone on to some success in the music world (a hit rock album in the 90s), over the past two years or so, put up his late tracks/videos of his band. I’d been meaning to listen and comment to his latest stuff, finally got around to it, and suggested he get a young singer to belt out his tunes, while he focused on songwriting and his own rad guitar playing. He defriended me. I actually woke up today thinking about maybe commenting again, letting him know it was just a thought, wishing him all the best this year. But the comment was gone and so was he. I wish he would’ve had some retort or something I could have worked off, redirected, but instead, silence. Still wish him the best, hope I hear his guitar over the radio, and he sells many records.

I’m very involved in trying to figure out how to crack the political science nut. We’re so close with NYCGA. Why the admin/mods of PAER are so covetous of the OWS brand, I can only guess, we could really be using it right now, just as a working group. Arizona is casting a new application for a convention. I hope I’m wrong and this isn’t just another UFPJ scenario, like back in 2004. Time will tell.

Was finally able to get all excerpts for the next novel together. Pieces large and small were strewn over a number of different files, so today I created one titled NovelSequel and dumped ‘em all in there. It’s going to be a sequel to the first novel, but will write it as a stand-alone piece, like if someone finds it on a coffee-house bookshelf they won’t have to have read the first one.

Also have been able to read a few plays, I still have a burning to write them too, though the novel is starting to bang pretty loud, so don't know. But while sorting through files for the novel, also created one for all my scripts/plays and fragments.

In the meantime, I can’t believe where I’ve landed. I’m living in the most perfect place for a guy like me. I put my bed up on cinder-blocks so when I go to sleep/wake up I’m looking right down on the Santa Barbara Channel and Santa Cruz Island across the way. The last few days have been glassy heaven. Today it started out that way and then for a time I saw a fog bank move in. Beautiful.

Such extraordinary times we live. I love you and am wishing you the best.

Late Notes/First Notes 2012

Life is wild, so magical, all the same old stuff keeps happening: I reach a place of change, get afraid, depressed, and lose hope. Like Montaigne said, I’ve suffered many horrific tragedies that took place in mind and nowhere else.

I thought I was moving to this place in Montecito, up the street from where I’d been the last ten years; then things fell through (because I talked politics), and miserable wondering where I was going to land, found a place on the Mesa. I had half my stuff loaded, showed up after the holidays and had a falling out with the landlord. There were red flags leading up to it, caused the falling out on purpose. Threw stuff in storage, freaked, no cool place to land. Then got a call. Turns out this place is not only better than the Mesa, it rivals the place of the last ten years. For me, perched on a hill in Summerland, my window the Santa Barbara Channel, I wonder if I could be happier. This new place has space for my table too, to make colorfields. Life is wild, can’t wait to finish painting, new carpet, all that.

The political science is active, still working with the NYCGA. Like I figured, based on past experience, they’re balking at dropping the squirt gun and picking up the fire hose. I think some people like the idea of working for a convention more than actually having one.