Why The System Isn't Working

To put it mildly, this has been a troubling July and we are only just a few days into the month. From the news that Hillary Clinton will not face charges for her mishandling of e-mails and classified information, to the news about the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, it's been, to put it mildly, an ugly week.

Before people get tuned up about how the situations above are not related to each other, hear me out. I am not saying they are related. But there is a theme rolling through this country about how many United States citizens don't trust the government and its institutions these days. Regarding Hillary Clinton, she served as Secretary of State at the time of her deeds, she has previously served in the United States Senate and she is the Democratic nominee for the Presidency. Therefore, she is part of the government. As for the deaths of Castile and Sterling, they both came because police officers shot them. And like it or not, police officers work for a government entity, so they are part of the government, too.

And in both cases, there is a lot of outrage about how things went down, which goes back, in part, to the perceptions the people have about the government, or to put it another way, that the system isn't working. There may be different reasons why people believe this to be true, but the common theme shared is they see a broken system and are angry about it.

I will say a few things before I begin: I cannot relate to what goes on in the armed forces because I never served, I cannot relate to what happens with classified government materials because I have never held such a position, I cannot relate to what police officers go through in their daily lives because I have not been an officer, and I cannot relate to what African Americans have experienced when dealing with officers because -- and I'm not ashamed to say it -- I have benefited from white privilege.

However, none of these things mean I can't go around saying the system is broken, because I know enough information to see that it is. Nor does it mean I should demonize any of these people; instead, I should show more empathy and recognize situations for what they are, while still recognizing that some things need to change.

Starting with the whole Clinton e-mail ordeal, based on everything I have read, I do not believe that Clinton should be sent to jail. Nor do I believe that FBI director James Comey or Attorney General Lorertta Lynch need to resign. With that said, if one sits down and reads the report, it's clear that Comey believes that Clinton was careless and negligent. At the very least, it would indicate that what Clinton did should at least result in her paying a substantial fine. She may not have engaged in a true criminal activity, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable to some degree.

With that said, I have read up on, for example, Army Private Chelsea Manning enough to know that she should not be serving prison time for what she did. Fine her, yes. Bar her from certain tasks and duties, yes. But not prison. And the fact that Hillary Clinton is the one that decide to go hard after Manning with reasoning that basically boils down to "well, it could have done serious damage." That's like saying that a sober person who is responsible for a vehicle crash in which there are no injuries should be slapped with a vehicular assault charge because "well, it could have resulted in injury." And while that may not be the best analogy, I would think it at least gets the point across that Clinton and company overreacted to what Manning did.

Because Manning is an army private, she did not have the connections that a member of the elite and well connected (and that's what Clinton is and it's not up for debate) would have and she was in a position in which it was arguably easier for the government to press its case against her. And when those who are not part of the elite and well connected are, for practical purposes, having to fight the system on their own, it's no surprise they face an uphill battle, which fuels the perception that the system allows people like Clinton to get away with everything while the common person suffers.

As for what happened to Castile and Sterling, I am aware that we don't have all the details yet and that Castile and Sterling are far from being patron saints. And, once again, I will admit I have benefited from white privilege and cannot relate to the ordeals that many black citizens deal with.

With that said, I am appalled that people think there is nothing wrong with police officers assuming the worst in every case they approach. Yes, I know many police officers have lost their lives while performing their duties, but that does not mean they should treat every citizen they approach as the enemy. That may not be what police officers intend, but it's the impression they are leaving, fair or not.

Of course, we must ask ourselves if it's really the officers on the street who are to blame, or the officers who work alongside them and don't speak up. No, I am not talking about the individuals they have shot. I am talking about the people who rank above the officers and have played as much of a role in the issues that plague police departments.

I will say that I would never take a job as a police officer for this reason: I have a temper problem and don't always think straight. (Yes, this may be a surprise to some of you who read my blog, but it's true.) And while I don't know everything there is to know about being an officer, I have observed enough to know that officers need to keep a level head at all times and carefully weigh their decisions.

I think back to the case of Tamir Rice, who died after he was shot by police officer Timothy Loehmann, who was an officer that, at a previous job, had been recommended by the police chief that he be discharged, but choose to resign -- or to put it another way, he quit before he could be fired. I do not know what happened in between the time he held that previous job and what happened in Cleveland, but I have reason to believe that Loehmann suffered from a mental issue that would prevent him from properly doing his job. In other words, I don't think Loehmann should have been a police officer.

So how did Loehmann get the job with the Cleveland Police Department? I don't know that, either. But I've heard plenty of stories about the difficulty various cities have with finding officers. These stories range from the pay not being enough, to qualified candidates seeking employment outside of law enforcement, to city council members who pressure police chiefs to quickly fill a vacancy rather than take time to evalute applicants. And while I realize there is a lot of additional work that comes for other officers when a position is vacant, the worst thing you can do is hire the first person you see for the job.

But there's more to it than just what the officers themselves are doing. We have a system that is built from the top down in which the federal government is funneling money to departments for various types of equipment, all in the name of making sure officers are prepared, just in case. This leads to the militarization of the police, a practice that is going to do more to make citizens wary of the police than thinking of the officers as part of the community.

We have the example of Ferguson, in which the city was dependent on collecting fines to fund its budget, fines mostly paid by poor citizens. That most of these citizens were black did not help Ferguson's case. And, worst of all, the elite and well connected of Ferguson were using those connections to ensure they didn't have to pay fines for tickets, all while the poor, black citizens of Ferguson weren't even allowed to pay installments on fines due and got tacked with more fines on top of what they owed.

Then there was one example that did a lot more to illustrate the problems in Ferguson than people may have realized: An officer was told he could not play basketball with the kids, and by the way, the basketball nets have been taken down because we can't afford them. Not only do the poor, black citizens see the basketball nets disappear, but they are given the impression that the police are not part of the community; they are above the community.

So why should anyone be surprised that Black Lives Matter came about? And why should anyone who wants to proclaim "all lives matter" or "police lives matter" get met with a roll of the eyes or worse? It's clear that many African American citizens are seeing a system that isn't working and they are upset. Any variant of "lives matter" does nothing but give more reasons for the African American citizens to be upset.

With that said, while I recognize that racism remains a major problem in this country, it's not the only one and, needless to say, it isn't number one. Problem number one is the elite and well connected, who never suffer the bad effects of the bulk of policies that are implemented in this country, who seldom can relate to the struggles of the average citizen and who, while some may have good intentions and want to do the right thing, are mostly paying lip service to the average citizen while hobnobbing with their fellow elite and well connected members and continuing to advance bad policies.

That is not to say we should ignore racism -- we need to confront it, difficult as it may be. But we must remember that, as we address racism, we address other issues alongside it. And that means holding the elite and well connected accountable. For those who strongly oppose racism, I ask you to remember that the elite and well connected have done as much to fuel racism for their advantage as much as the hardline racists do. Because the elite and well connected use it not to advance what you believe is important, but to distract everyone else from the other problems that exists.

But regardless of where anyone stands on the issues, we all need to be honest: The system is broken and it is doing nothing to help the common citizen. And the elite and well connected are the ones most responsible. We can no longer ignore this and we need to stop pretending that if we don't let them run the show, they'll leave and we'll be screwed.

That does not mean we go at with an "off with their heads" approach. Instead, we need to find people who truly empathize with the situations the common citizen faces. There have been those in the elite and well connected who, while not perfect, at least showed empathy for the plight of the average citizen. Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner were among those Congressmen after the Civil War who truly empathized with the freed slaves and realized that their work was not done just because slavery was abolished. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that he couldn't just implement programs; he needed to communicate well with voters impacted by the Great Depression to make sure they knew he had empathy for them. Ronald Reagan understood the importance of empathy, particularly when people were still feeling the sting over the Vietnam War, Watergate and were worried about the Iranian hostage situation.

The two candidates who represent the major parties for the Presidency are nothing like FDR and Reagan. I've already gone over the Democratic candidate, a candidate who has admitted she's not that good at communicating with the average voter, and that's a problem that signals to me she is going to be more like Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter. And then there's the GOP candidate, who only reminds me of this Benjamin Franklin quote: "Here comes the orator! With his flood of words and his drop of reason."

Regardless of where you stand on the issues, it's time to start demanding candidates who truly empathize with the average American, not just those who play to the lowest common denominator or those who can't shake the impression they are above everyone else. And that means speaking out more against the elite and well connected. It can start by making them pay attention to how their policies and approaches are only hurting the little guy.

"Very" And Other Words To Avoid In Writing

As I browsed Twitter this morning, I ran across somebody sharing an article about 15 Words You Need to Eliminate From Your Vocabulary to Sound Smarter, written by Jennie Haskamp.

The article makes valid points about the way we can improve our writing. I wanted to bring up a couple of the selections because I think we writers need to recognize them as the ones I suspect we often use in our first drafts. In fact, a couple of them are words I used more than I would like.

Very: It's not the first word Haskamp mentioned, but I mention it first because this is the one adverb writers should stop using. Only exception: Dialogue. "Very" is the one word in which I would say that there is no reason to use it other than dialogue. You can get your point across in other ways.

That: Here's a word I've tossed often into my first drafts, but upon review, realized I could eliminate and the sentence is fine. It's a good way to reduce your word count without taking away from your story.

Went: We use this word often in conversation. So I think it's OK to use it in dialogue because it's how people talk. But when we described action, we should be specific. He walked to school. She drove to the store. He boarded the bus on his way to work. She entered the movie theater. All examples of how we can write action without using "went" as we may do when we talk.

Really: Dialogue only. "Oh, really?" That's something people say all the time. Otherwise, it's a variant of very.

Literally: The list of instances to use this word would be short. Besides, why bother writing "I literally couldn't get out of bed" when you get the same point across by writing "I tried to get out of bed, but couldn't move a muscle."

Stuff and things: Either describe what they are or don't mention them. If it's "stuff," it probably isn't important to the story.

Irregardless: Let's review this one. The prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" each have a negative connotation. I suspect people use this word because they are thinking about the words that have the "ir-" prefix. Irresponsible. Irrational. Irrelevant. Those words are associated with negative or undesirable traits, so people may think "ir-" has to go in front of "regardless" if they use it in reference to the negative or undesirable. However, think of the words that have the "-less" suffix. Careless sounds like a bad thing, but flawless does not. As for the "ir-" prefix, what about "irresistible"? You use that to describe something you love, right? So it's possible for a word to have a prefix or suffix with a negative connotation, but describe a positive trait. All you have to remember when you describe something as "not" or "without," you only need one such prefix or one such suffix to describe it.

I'll throw in another one I try to avoid: Ended up. That was a word pairing I used often in early drafts of my self-published book Small Town Sports Beat. When I reviewed early drafts, I saw many instance in which I wrote "ended up." I rewrote most instances to eliminate that phrase and the sentences were fine. Since then, I've worked to cut down my usage of the phrase.

What are some of the words you think should be avoided when writing? What words do you find yourself using frequently in your writing that you believe you should reduce?

Sometimes It's About Addition, Not Subtraction

I've often read and heard advice from writers that one of the most important things to remember is "don't be afraid to kill your darlings."

That, of course, refers to a writer needing to cut anything that doesn't add to the story or doesn't advance the plot or narrative.

I may be running into a different situation, though, as I complete the first draft of my second novel.

The first draft of my planned first novel checked in at more than 71,000 words. I had a lot of ideas and multiple characters I wanted to cover. So my time writing was spent pouring all those ideas out onto the computer screen and I may have tried to do too much.

But as I entered my second novel, I had a better idea of where I wanted the plot to go and the arcs my characters would follow. I introduced new characters and concepts, but had a better idea about how they would fit in.

I've already written 17 of the 26 planned scenes for the second novel, but I'm at 24,000 words. That puts me on a pace to write less than 40,000 words -- far from the idea length for a novel.

Obviously, I'll need to finish the first draft before going to the next steps, but one I will have to keep in mind is where it's OK to add or expand the story.

In other words, there are times when it may be reasonable to add more to a book. Perhaps it's digging deeper into a character's mindset, more description for a setting or expanding upon a minor character. I think writers can do most of these things without bogging down the reader with too much information.

With that said, I don't know yet how long I'll go with the scenes I have yet to write. So it's possible I'll have a suitable length for a novel when the first draft.

But we should remember that deleting something from a draft may not always be the answer. Sometimes you need to add more to make the story better.

Smallville ComicCon And Other Notes

Last weekend I attended the Smallville ComicCon in Hutchinson, Kan. It was my first time attending a ComicCon and, because this was a smaller convention, I thought it was a good way to experience a ComicCon for the first time. Plus, it helped that it was just 40 miles away from where I live.

Among the guests at the ComicCon were Marv Wolfman, a longtime comic book writer who had two sessions: one about the characters he's created and stories he's written and another about his writing tips. Most of the information he presented is information you hear from the majority of writers, but it was still interesting to hear his thoughts, particularly when he used his own characters as examples. His explanations about relationships between characters was a good reminder about what makes writing work.

Another guest was actress Helen Slater, whose best-known role in the world of comics may be playing the title character of the 1980s film Supergirl. It was fun to hear Slater's thoughts about playing that role and how, at the same time the film was released, DC Comics issued a comic book in which Supergirl died (a story written by Wolfman, in fact). She also shared her own experiences when she was asked to write a Supergirl story when the character was brought back many years later.

I also joined a session in which two authors, James Young and Susanne Lambdin, shared their own advice about writing. They each had 10 tips and bounced their thoughts off one another about what makes for good writing. Young had good advice about not worrying about whether somebody has done your idea before, but each writer has an original spin about that idea. Lambdin had good advice about not being overly descriptive with characters and setting, because it can drown the reader in information. Of course, no one piece of advice may apply in every case, but it's good to listen to what other writers have experienced and learn from them when you go about your writing.

In the meantime, I have started writing the planned second book in my Six Pack series and am up to more than 16,000 words. My goal is to complete an individual scene each day. I'll admit I haven't quite accomplished that, but I'm still on track to finishing the first draft by the start of July. I have 26 scenes and 12 are finished. I've designated each scene as its own chapter, but that will change as the book evolves. I want to focus on getting those scenes out on the comptuer screen in the first draft, then get things organized with the second draft.

As for the first book, I've held off on queries for the time being because the next Pit2Pub Twitter pitch party will be July 13 and I'm planning to participate. I'm excited about Pit2Pub; all I need to do is figure out the best pitches to use to promote my book.

Dear America: Enough

I have had a couple of days to think more about what happened in Orlando this past weekend and where the conversation really needs to be going.

The past few days have been predictable. We have seen people on both sides of issues regarding Muslims, guns, LGBT rights, mental health treatment and other topics, and the overwhelming majority of them want to roll out one factor only, one size fits all, see how easy that is, and other narrow-minded approaches to what happened without understanding the big picture.

I have just one thing to say to everyone in America doing that: Enough.

On Orlando And American Rhetoric

The mass shooting at The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla. -- an establishment which mainly caters to gay people -- left me numb. 50 people dead, many more injured. My initial reaction was that I was at a loss for words.

Then I read what Charles Pierce had to say about what we lose with every mass shooting. He put things into perspective and made me realize what I should really be upset about: that there is a kind of virulent hate out there that is reflected in what our politicians do.

Politicians send out their thoughts and prayers, yet how many of them want to trumpet legislation that only serves to fuel the flames that spread such hate? Their thoughts and prayers ring hollow when their primary concern remains getting re-elected to the offices they hold or, if they are leaving office, ensuring the person who represents their party gets elected. And all of this is done to cater to special interest groups who have personal agendas and don't want the larger issues discussed.

Meanwhile, we voters go about our business of tossing around memes that sound good to us, while leaving posts on Facebook and Twitter and only concerning ourselves with how many people respond favorably to them. We keep clinging to easy answers because that's what we really want.

I have written previously that most issues are complex in nature and to boil any incident down to a single factor overlooks the bigger picture. What Pierce wrote about is the perfect example of what happens when everyone wants to look at every issue as "one or the other" rather than realize there's often more to it than that.

If we really want America to be better than what we think of it as, we need to stop with the endless rhetoric, the echo chambers and the short sightedness that plague the direction we often take America. We need to have open, honest discussion and not just toss memes around. And we need to recognize that we have a lot more to do than just toss up thoughts and prayers, as good as our intentions may be -- and to especially remind every politician that thoughts and prayers may be a nice gesture, but they don't ever lead to real solutions.

My Presidential Election Thoughts

I have previously written about why Presidential candidates such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have gained a following. We're nearing the end of the primary/caucus period of the Presidential election and the process of selecting Congressional members, governors and state officers will get underway.

As far as where I stand on these things, I'll summarize my thoughts on the Presidential election.

* While I understand the frustration that Donald Trump supporters feel, I am not going to vote for Trump for any reason. Trump is an orator who may say the right things at times, but they get drowned out in silly or vulgar rhetoric. While I am glad that Trump's candidacy has exposed the bulk of Republican candidates for being out of touch with voters, Trump's oratory methods aren't going to work once he gets into office. A good President understands not only how to win a Presidential election, but can hone political skills to get the United States population to back his or her ideas, even among some of those who did not for that person. Trump has certainly energized his supporters but he's not showing himself to be someone who will get the population in general unified behind his ideas... ideas which are all over the place and seem to be based on whatever strikes him at given moments.

* I remain lukewarm to Hillary Clinton and am highly unlikely to back her, either. My issues with Clinton is that her foreign policy is too hawkish and she seems uninterested in trying to advance new ideas. She's not doing an effective job communicating her vision and seems unwilling to challenge the status quo. I have my doubts she would be an effective President, not because I don't think she's qualified, but because she isn't a very good politician. If we look at past Presidents who were considered to be ineffective, those Presidents had experience in government and understood how processes worked, but they were unable to get the majority of people unified because those Presidents were ineffective communicators. And an ineffective communicator doesn't make for a good politician. The perfect example of this is Herbert Hoover. Hoover is inaccurately portrayed as a President who didn't attempt anything -- he did try some things, even though they didn't work as he may have expected. Also, he had experience in government. His problem was that he couldn't communicate his vision to voters well when he needed to the most. Compare that to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was strong in communicating to voters and gained large support, even if the effectiveness of his policies is debatable.

* I have been more interested in the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. I don't agree with them on every point they make and I do find some of their ideas to be unworkable. However, I have found Sanders more effective in empathizing with the plight of the common voter and to point to areas that, at the very least, merit a lengthy discussion as to why those areas are the way they are and how they got to that point. Simply ignoring those areas and portraying them as "we have always done it this way" isn't going to help matters. As for Johnson, I think he understands enough about the issues that America is facing that he will steer discussion in the direction it needs to go. I think Johnson is the most effective politician among the candidates I've discussed, even if he's not drawing the most attention. And while I don't believe it's possible to eliminate the income tax and corporate tax, I believe Johnson would get to the heart of the matter regarding the tax code, which is far too complex and confuses many people. A simplified tax code would work better and I think Johnson would get things going in the right direction. At this point, I lean toward Johnson, although I would consider backing Sanders if he does win the Democrat nomination.

* One thing American voters need to remember is that no President is ever going to get every single thing he or she wants. That's how it should be. It may see like certain Presidents always got their way, but if you go back and look and their tenures, they didn't. This is why I'm not going to reject somebody because I don't agree with everything he or she says. What I'm looking for is somebody whose overall vision I can get behind, even if not everything is sound.

* With that said, I'm not going to drum up support for whoever I eventually back in the upcoming election by attacking the supporters of another candidate. Nor am I going to support somebody just to keep somebody else out of office. Both are losing strategies because they do nothing to sway voters who haven't decided who they want to back, while further energizing the voters who have made up their minds. By all means, attack the candidate you don't like, but if you focus too much on the candidate's supporters or simply back one person to keep another out of office, you are more likely to wind up with a bad taste in your mouth after the November election.