Time for the Glamourous Writing

Okay. Tomorrow starts my newest phase of insanity: NaNoWriMo, in which 60,000 people around the world each attempt to write a 50,000-word novel in 30 days. Am I ready?

Coffee pot: Check.

Plot: Sort of.

Genre: Young adult. Controversial. Teenager tested.

Oy. what was I thinking?

On your mark... Get set...

Seth, Say It Ain't So!

I’m pleased to offer up this review of The Q Guide to Broadway, a new book by one of my favorite radio personalities, Seth Rudetsky:

For those of you who don’t know (which is pretty much all of you), in addition to being a writer and librarian, I am also a nut for Broadway musicals. Sadly, I must admire them from afar, since even in-town productions are out of my price range. Which is why I’m so enamored with Rudetsky, who hosts numerous music and talk programs on Sirius Satellite Radio’s Broadway channel.

I won’t repeat Rudetsky’s entire show-biz pedigree – which you can find here – but suffice it to say that he’s pretty much a Broadway blueblood with the sort of inside access most of us can’t ever hope to achieve. What’s even better is that he offers a musician’s perspective, telling us to listen (for example) to that last note Mary Martin sings in The Sound of Music’s Do-Re-Mi, and other such heads-up alerts. As someone who fancies myself a singer – someday, maybe – I have learned a lot by listening to him. As we say here in Georgia (where we sport the second-lowest SAT scores in the nation, or something like that), it’s downright edja-cay-shun-al. But it’s also entertaining, because Rudetsky is a very funny guy.

Still, I was a little cynical when I heard he had written a book about Broadway musicals. I figured, with his inside knowledge, that it might be an insider’s book. Like, inside jokes meant for Beautiful People, which probably wouldn’t include me or anyone I know.

I’m pleased to say I couldn’t have been more wrong. The Q Guide to Broadway is an insider’s book, but only in its authorship. While I imagine even Beautiful People will find some lovely gems inside, it’s very well suited for neophytes. Rudetsky tells us the basics, even starting with the definition of “Broadway.” He shows us where to get discounted tickets, where to learn more about the shows and the stars, which CDs are essential to a good collection, and lots more. And best of all, he does it all without making the reader feel like a Pitiful Outsider. Rudetsky’s relationship with the reader is definitely more mentor-protégé than expert-idiot.

And while the “Q” in The Q Guide to Broadway stands for “queer,” it’s not just a gay guide. Of course, somebody like Fred Phelps might get the heebie jeebies reading it, but anything that gives Fred Phelps the willies deserves a thumbs-up.

That’s not to say the book is perfect. It could use one more round of proofreading, and people who aren’t familiar with Rudetsky’s lively personality could be taken aback by his effervescence (those who like Rudetsky will adjust quite nicely).

And there’s one thing more you should know. Rudetsky hurt my feelings. Yes, he did. In praising the performance of baritone Robert Weede in Most Happy Fella, Rudetsky points out that Weede sings a particularly high note on an “e” vowel. He writes: “E vowels are notoriously difficult to sing [in high ranges] because they tighten you up. That’s why so many bad singers change the word ‘me’ to ‘may.’”

Bad singers? Gee, Seth, isn’t that a bit harsh? I mean, I did that when I was learning and I still have to adjust vowels if I go above a high A. And I bet it’s no coincidence that Leonard Bernstein assigned an “ah” vowel to all the really high notes in “Glitter and Be Gay.” Bad singers? Inexperienced, maybe. Out of their range, perhaps. But bad? Doesn't "bad” mean irredeemable? What a depressing thought!

Oh, all right. I just don’t want to admit I’m a bad singer. And maybe always will be. But still…Ouch!

That weakness aside, if you’re interested in Broadway but couldn’t hope to have a clue as to what’s going on, this is a great book to get you started. If you already know a bit about Broadway and you’re planning a trip to New York, this book could definitely save you some bucks. And if you happen to be a Rudetsky fan, well, this book is a definite winner.

But … really, I’m a bad singer?

Nanoo, Nanoo

I have decided to do something completely insane -- yes, more insane than moving to 10 acres of mud and quitting a perfectly good job to write. I have signed up with "NaNoWriMo" -- National Novel Writing Month -- and I am going to attempt to write a 50,000 novel in 30 days. Probably a young adult novel -- Zeze has given me a very good idea for something that may not have been done a billion times yet. I may run a proposal by one of my best friends, a former children's librarian, in a few days to see what he thinks. He and Zeze are my experts on children's lit.

This organization does some good stuff in addition to their annual writing frenzy. Check out their website to see.

Why am I doing such an idiotic thing when I'm already so busy? Well, because I want to be busy writing my own stuff as well as resumes and ghostwriting. Rita Mae Brown, or somebody, says you should have 12 short-story/article/book manuscripts out there and circulating at any one time. I have 1 children's book manuscript done and 0 circulating. If I wait until I think I have time, it'll never happen. Which is the whole point behind the NaNoWriMo thing. So I'm signing on and brewing one big urn of coffee on Halloween night that hopefully will last me through Thanksgiving.

At any rate, my only entries during the month of November may be "AAAARRRGGHHHH!!!!" and "&%%$$@@*!!" Or maybe just "ZZZZZZZZZZZZ."

Senator Fardinhead is a Criminal

What follows is part fiction, part truth – it’s part of my advanced legal research midterm exam. Any resemblance to an actual person living or dead is … oh, well, you know the rest.

Wow. Old Senator Richard “I think we should pave the entire state of New Mexico” Fardinhead – yeah, that guy – is at it again. He has introduced an EPA rule that would instantly lower the level of volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) in the air – that’s the stuff that causes global warming, folks – by eliminating one particular substance from the VOC definition – something called HFE-7300, which is manufactured by 3M Company.

This is a bee-yoo-tee-ful plan, dear readers, because the Republicrats would get two bangs for their buck. First, the rule would make VOC limits less restrictive for businesses which, as we all know, is pretty much the purpose of the current Republicrat leadership. Second, if this thing is passed, the Republicrats will be able to crank out numbers purporting to show that they have actually lowered VOCs and therefore saved Mother Earth from the dangers of global warming (which they are now almost willing to concede is real).

Only, of course, they’ll be comparing apples with oranges: the “before” list will include HFE-7300, and the “after” list won’t.

Now ain’t that a happy occurrence for an election year? Just another example of how politicians operate in Washington.

Oh, Really?

Venerable Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia stated, during a debate with ACLU president Nadine Strossen, that he doesn’t think federal judges should take on politically controversial issues. "On controversial issues on stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it either through representatives or a constitutional amendment," he said.

Then, talking out of the other side of his mouth, he pointed out that because race is clearly protected under the Constitution, universities shouldn’t be allowed to use race as a determining factor in admissions.

Uh, isn’t race a politically charged issue?

Scalia, of course, is everybody’s favorite “strict constructionist,” meaning that he thinks the Constitution should be interpreted based only on its actual wording and the intent of the original writers. So that’s how he would answer my “uh” question: when it’s really in the Constitution, then it doesn’t matter whether it’s politically charged or not.

But Scalia underestimates the complexity, and the clarity, of the English language. As Strossen apparently pointed out (sorry, I’m too lazy to watch the video), Scalia’s approach would have prevented the Court from outlawing segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That, by the way, was a unanimous decision.

My favorite quote from the debate, though, is this, aimed at the Court’s more progressive rulings in past years: "Someday, you're going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach." Someday?

I got to see Scalia speak in a Q&A setting when I was in law school. He’s a very congenial guy, and very entertaining as a speaker. Too bad he’s such a … well, I can’t think of any wholesome words for it.

Good news and bad news...

Wow. The good news is I have lots and lots of writing to keep me busy. The bad news is, it’s not writing for this blog. So my apologies for skipping out on you. I’ve been completely overwhelmed! Somehow I need to refine my routine. It’s getting there, but I’ve got a ways to go ….

In a few days I will be posting something on this blog that will be utter nonsense – it’s part of the midterm exam I’m giving to my advanced legal research class. I will include a line to that effect, and I will probably use fictitious names just to be safe, but be forewarned!

For now, lots of thoughts have been going on in my head about my daughter’s 14th birthday (today), and music (since concert season has kicked in) and what a jerk Bush is and all the usual stuff.

One big shock in particular – when quit my job, I figured I’d continue my health insurance, which I’m allowed to do through a US law known as COBRA. The catch is you have to pay full price for it. I figured yeah, a few hundred, it’s probably worth it. I got the bill: $1100. PER MONTH. Geez! So now I’m not quite sure what to do. Makes me wish I lived in some other country. We are so ass-backwards in this country….
Ok, I'm aiming for a blog entry tomorrow. Even if it's just to say "hi."

Lame duck librarian

Quack. Quack-quack-quack.

That’s the sound of a lame-duck librarian. That’s MY sound. Two days ago I gave notice at my “day” job because – happily – I now have too much writing work to be both a writer and a librarian. It’s a sad commentary on society that I can make more money writing resumes than I can as a librarian, but there it is.

My boss actually tried to get me a raise before he accepted my resignation. Not surprisingly, the owner (yes, owner – this is a proprietary school) said no.

So I turned in my almost-one-month notice. My last day is September 15.

If I was looking for a warm and fuzzy response from the owner, it certainly hasn’t arrived yet. Just hours after I turned in my resignation, the computer folks deleted every file from my computer. It’s a standard, though secret, protocol here – although I’m not sure what evil it was designed to prevent. Fine by me. They just erased the stuff I was working on for the Dean, that’s all.

Actually, I was tipped off in advance by someone other than the computer guy, so I knew to make my own back-up before I gave notice. But I complained anyway and they restored all my files. Ha!

Meanwhile, my boss is looking to hire back my predecessor to take my place. I’m pretty happy with that idea because people don’t like her as much as they like me (Ok, so I’m petty. So fire me.).

Of course, I’ll be working just as hard, if not harder, than I am right now. My bread-and-butter is writing resumes, which can be draining and not as much fun as, say, writing for a personal blog. I am also expecting to panic at least once a day, whenever half an hour goes by without a new order – and then flog myself because I’m an irresponsible hack writer quitting a secure job just to be an Artiste.

Still, this quote from Erma Bombeck resonates for me:

“There are people who put their dreams in a little box and say, ‘Yes, I've got dreams, of course I've got dreams.’ Then they put the box away and bring it out once in awhile to look in it, and yep, they're still there.”

All right, so what if I am just a hack writer pretending to be an artist? Yesterday I was a librarian pretending to be a writer. It’s a start.

The Mysterious Plague of the Captive Tongues

On the heels of Mel Gibson’s virulent anti-Semitic remarks – which, of course, he really didn’t mean at all – come two more reports of prominent people saying terrible things that are – they swear! – totally out of character for them.

The first bit of verbal poison comes from the distinguished lips of Andrew Young, former ambassador, Atlanta mayor, and civil rights leader. In a discussion about Wal-Mart and its tendency to steamroll small businesses, Young said this:

"Well, I think they should; they ran the 'mom and pop' stores out of my neighborhood…But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us — selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores."

Young, of course, now retracts those statements and says they’re totally out of character.

Hmmm. Could it be . . . Satan?

The second incident involves Tramm Hudson, a Republican candidate for state office in Florida. In February, Hudson was speaking at a Christian Coalition event and reminiscing about his days as an Army commander. In describing his infantry unit, he said:

“A large number were black….I grew up in Alabama. I understand, uh, I know from experience, that blacks are not the greatest swimmers or may not even know how to swim."

The Devil must have gotten hold of another one, because Hudson was equally remorseful: “I want you to know that it was out of character for me and those who know me know that to be a fact.”

Uh huh.

The fact is, these guys are saying what they mean. No more, no less. Anyone willing to believe otherwise, please contact me. I have a car to sell you that was only driven on Sundays by a sweet little old lady.

Honest, I really mean it!

Über-Subversive Librarians!

A couple of mishy-mashy things of note today:

First, a big cheer for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has ordered that records be released in a dispute between some Connecticut librarians and the FBI. The dispute ensued when the FBI issued a National Security Letter (NSL) ordering the librarians to disclose information about computer usage by patrons during a 45-minute period. The librarians protested and the FBI put a gag order on them that wouldn’t even allow them to disclose that the NSL had been issued. It’s a long story but the ACLU filed a lawsuit alleging that the whole nasty matter infringed on the librarians’ right to openly debate the renewal of the US Patriot Act.

Librarians are the coolest!

Second, closing on our house has been postponed AGAIN. I have no idea for how long because our mortgage guy isn’t returning our calls. This is what you have to put up with when your credit sucks, as mine does (mostly, but not completely, for reasons within my control). So, dear readers, if you have the option, protect your credit. And if you don’t, know that you can live through it although it’s damned inconvenient.

Oh, What You Said!

But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot.

Oh, really? OK, I know everybody is on the Mel Gibson bandwagon. But it’s sort of a fun and interesting bandwagon, so I want to get on it, too. Just for a minute.

First of all, I do think it’s admirable that MG wants to meet with Jewish leaders to try to heal the ginormous rift he’s created. But it would be a lot more admirable if he just admitted he was anti-Semitic, instead of denying it. Denying a fact doesn’t make it false. I could go all kinds of directions with that statement but I won’t bother – except to mention that Mel Gibson is partnering with Disney on a miniseries about the Holocaust, which is sort of like Madalyn Murray O’Hair making a movie about the Resurrection.

Still, the most interesting part of the whole Mel debacle isn’t that he made anti-Semitic remarks to the arresting officer (‘cause let’s face it, that’s not such a big surprise). No, the best part of the story is what he said after they took him down to headquarters.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not making excuses for him. But someday – if this poor asshole ever gets sober – he’s going to be telling his story at a 12-step meeting: “Well, let me just put it to you this way. It’s really not a good idea to call a female cop Sugar Tits after you’re arrested.” I don’t know about you, but I’d sure laugh.

What a jerk. But I still hope he gets his ass straightened out. It’s gonna be a long road.

C minus 2, and counting

C is for closing, as in real estate. We have been living in a plumbing-less, air-conditionless travel trailer amidst 10 acres of mud for two years. We have been trying to build or buy a house. We have had many obstacles. Many. Some self-imposed and some just the luck of the draw.

Now, it appears, we are two days away from closing on a house. A real house with A/C and a real, live bathroom. With 10 acres of pasture, instead of mud, for the horses. It’s fabulous, it’s too good to be true, and I am afraid to get excited about it – but we are so close that I almost can’t help myself. We’ve had it inspected, the appraisal has been done, and it’s beginning to look like it just might happen.

It has a laundry room. Shall I shower first, or do laundry? Perhaps I’ll just soak my feet in the washing machine for a few hours. Ahhhhhh.

With any luck at all, my next post will be from home. Home.

A Bush and a Battery

No, not George Bush. The subject today is car stereos. As in, installing them. All right, I could have bought one from a retailer and had it installed, but I have no money and I do have a Harvard degree. It’s a lot cheaper to order it online and install it myself. After all, I’m reasonably bright. I can read a map. I can follow a simple set of instructions, right? I don’t even have to uninstall the old one because it got stolen. That certainly simplifies things.

So my new stereo arrived yesterday. Here’s what I’m supposed to do first: "To avoid shorts in the electrical system, be sure to disconnect the negative battery cable before beginning installation." Are they talking about the car battery? Ok. Well, it might take me a half hour or so to figure out how to open the hood. That is where the battery lives, right? I can handle that.

But then there’s this: "Speakers connected to this unit must be high-power with minimum rating of 50 W and impedance of 4 to 8 ohms. Connecting speakers with output and/or impedance values other than those noted here may result in the speakers catching fire, emitting smoke, or becoming damaged." Huh. That doesn’t sound good.

Which brings me to the bush. There’s a diagram called "Installation with the rubber bush." Maybe I could get one at a porn shop – but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they mean. And I’m sure not about to ask anybody for one.

Hey, Doc, my love, perhaps you have some free time this week?

Bush doing something illegal? Naaaaah...

Well, here’s a big surprise. CNN reports that an American Bar Association task force says it’s unconstitutional for President Bush to use legislative “signing statements” to carve out exemptions from the law. I confess that I had not heard about this particular category of White House illegality, so I did a little checking around.

Presidents have always issued statements (although nowhere near as many as Bush). They’re just comments with no force of law, right? So what’s the big deal?

Well, the big deal is that Justice Scalia actually cited to one of Bush’s statements in a recent dissent. The case was Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court was called on to determine whether federal courts could hear a terrorism detainee’s case. See, when Bush signed the Detainee Treatment Act, he had added a legislative statement saying that federal courts would have no jurisdiction in such cases – in other words, there would be no remedy in court if someone was wrongly detained.

The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that it had jurisdiction, and also finding that the military tribunal violated American and international law. So far so good. But in his dissent, Scalia – joined by two other justices – chided the majority for failing to consider Bush’s statement that the courts have no jurisdiction.

Wait a minute… Did I read right? Scalia is saying that the amount of power the President has depends in part on how much power the President says he has, regardless of the law? Uh, can you say Kim-Jong-il?

That any Supreme Court justice – much less three of them – would allow the Executive Branch to decide the extent of its power leaves me with a decidedly creepy feeling.

The ABA report, by the way, was put together by a list of highly regarded legal bigwigs including judges. It’s not official until (or unless) the ABA approves it at its annual meeting in August. But it makes for some interesting reading even if it’s finally voted down.

By the way, for an exhaustive website on Bush’s signing statements, complete with links, click here.

Bye Bye Ralphie

I honestly believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values. What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time. Ralph Reed

The Georgia primaries were held yesterday, with one noteably bright result. Everybody’s favorite baby-faced wingnut, Ralph Reed, was defeated in the GOP contest for lieutenant governor. Guess lying about his opponent didn’t work for him as well as he had hoped.

I’m afraid I was no help, though. My plan was to vote Republican for the first time ever, just so I could vote against Ralph Reed. Perhaps the thought of voting Republican was too much for me. I forgot to vote. Not something I’m very proud of!

Karma, Good and Bad

Just got back from a law librarian convention (heady stuff!) and a retreat for a choral group I'm in. Generally good karma all around. Then, I went to work, and my car got broken into again. They got my radio last time. This time there was just one thing missing: the rainbow sticker I was going to put on my car. Go figure.

Caroline's Been Violated

Ok, I finally got a car after being without one for almost a year. I drove her from the dealer to the parking garage at work, and then headed for St. Louis to spend a few wild and crazy days with those wild and crazy law librarians (some of whom are definitely wilder and crazier than others).

Meanwhile, some little punks were having a wild and crazy night of their own in Atlanta. They broke into several cars, including my poor Caroline. She's now missing the driver's side window, and the dash has been ripped out and the (pretty good) stereo stolen. I didn't even get to drive her home yet!

I won't say what I've been thinking about the creeps who did this. I'm too much of a lady, as you can see by my picture. Ast the same time, I'm also laughing -- my bad car karma is just too ridiculous!

Stay tuned for updates.

Sigh.

A big plug for Bark/Bite

Bark/Bite has a great post that includes links to some of his "gayest" posts. It provides a terrific sampler that demonstrates just what makes his blog so good. Check it out!

Carolina Caravan, Party Time, and Granny

Last week, I put a dollar into a machine to get some Rolaids and three rolls popped out. And that's when I knew my luck was finally changing. And I was right. I have a car!!!!!! My very own, I-don't-have-to-share-it-with-anybody-else-except-maybe-the-passengers car!!!!! I have been without a car since October!!!!!

My new beloved is a slightly banged up '93 Dodge Caravan whom I've dubbed Caroline. All right, she's a gas guzzler but she was cheap and she's mine, all mine.

Doc got a car, too -- a '99 Honda CRV. That one we had to finance. I had hoped to avoid that, but oh, well. Zeze is happy with both of them. Now, if we can just keep them clean!

* * *

It's party time for us wild and crazy law librarians -- the annual meeting of the American Association of Law Librarians. And you haven't lived until you've partied with law librarians. Especially in St. Louis. Yowza! I'm at the airport waiting to get on the plane, and I can hardly contain myself. Actually I really am a little excited but it's mostly because my best friend James will be there and because the AALL convention is a great place to get lots of pretty decent free stuff from all the vendors.

* * *

And Granny? Well, Granny is one loyal reader -- she actually responded to my post even after my long and unexcused absence -- and I invite you to visit her (see my links). She's quite a lady, and not just because she reads my blog. Thank you, Granny!!

And Two Steps Backwards....

Nothing like bad news to get me motivated to start writing again. Within hours of each other, two state high courts ruled against their LGBT citizens. First, New York's high court ruled that its state constitution permits the prohibition of same-sex marriages. In the second, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the voter-approved anti-gay amendment did not illegally include two separate issues. Translated, that means that wills and trusts are now fair game for challenges even where same-sex couples have taken legal steps to leave property to each other. Why? Because the amendment doesn't just prohibit gay marriage. It also states, "no union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage."

In my home state of Georgia, we can now expect some hateful family member to challenge a will or custody agreement, arguing that such a document confers "benefits of marriage" and therefore cannot be upheld by any state court. The argument will be raised, and soon. And probably by the same bastards who just got done claiming that the amendment passed the single-issue test.

If there's any good news here -- and there ain't much -- it's that at least Republicans are now derailed from raising same-sex marriage as a campaign issue this November.

Sigh. Big, big sigh.

More on Doc Meyers, and on Abstinence

Bless her heart. She may have been bugging Kraft lately about its support of the "homosexual lifestyle," but Marcella Meyers, M.D., M.P.H., has been doing this activism thing for quite a while.

Way back in the 1970s, she got nervous when the schools tried to teach her kids about contraception. So she started something called the Southwest Parent Committee in Chicago. In 1990, with Meyers as project director, SPC was a subcontractor for a troubled abstinence-only educational program in that city.

1998 and 2003, Meyers appeared on WGN Radio (Chicago) pushing her abstinence-only agenda.

In 2001 she submitted a proposed resolution – twice – to the American College of Preventive Medicine asking that organization to “go on record as approving [the] Abstinence Education Programs for young people.” On account of the after-effects of the Sexual Revolution, you see.

The ACPM declined to adopt the resolution, saying that “evidence supporting the effectiveness of such abstinence programs was lacking. Several committee members commented that any abstinence education program should be part of a more comprehensive sexual education curriculum.”

For whatever reason, Dr. Meyers has now turned her attention to us gay folk and our evil ways. Lucky us.

So, anyway, why am I picking on Dr. M? Well, mostly it's because I got bored. And when reference librarians get bored, they research stuff.

But I also got curious -- why would someone who's a scientist -- a public-health scientist -- take a political stand that's, well, unscientific and unhealthy? Not just about the gay stuff, but about a critical health issue like sex education?

Which leads me straight to my soap box for today.

Abstinence-only education does not save lives any more than it saves souls. Indeed, one study found that compared to other kids, students in abstinence-only programs were:

• less likely to feel comfortable asking questions of parents or other trusted adults about sex;

• less likely to understand how decisions about sex can change their future;

• less likely to understand how alcohol and drugs can influence decisions about sex;

• less likely to have skills to resist pressure to have sex; and

• less knowledgeable about the consequences of having a baby as a teenager.

Look, I’m not wild about the idea of my daughter having sex either. Frankly, I'm hoping she'll put off dating until she's around 42. Or maybe 50.

And believe it or not, I do preach abstinence. I don’t want her to be sexually active until she’s married, and I've told her so. Hey, I can be just as provincial as anybody.

At the same time, though, if she decides to ignore my advice, I’m sure not willing to sacrifice the life of my daughter – or anybody else’s kid – just because I’m a little squeamish about sex.

Of course, it does take all kinds, and this is America. I admire the doctor's activist spirit. I really do. It's just too damn bad her brand of activism is fatal.

See also this New York Times article for an overview on the results of abstinence-only education.