The Heart of the Graystone

The Heart of the Graystone, the book I started in 2004 is now published and available to the general public!!

Wow! I never thought this day would come.

There are several ways to order this book on-line.

First, through the Virtual Book Worm website here:
http://www.virtualbookworm.com/bookstore/product/The_Heart_of_the_Graystone.html

Or, through Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=The+Heart+of+the+Graystone&x=16&y=16

Or, finally from the Barnes and Noble site:
http://productsearch.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?store=BOOK&WRD=The+Heart+of+the+Graystone

Thanks to all those who helped make it possible. I love you all.
Wa-hooo!!

Book Even Closer

Today I finalized all the corrections to the manuscript. The proof is now off to the printer. When the prints run and I get my website set up, The Heart of the Graystone will be available to general public.

Another two or three weeks perhaps? Hopefully.
I almost can't believe it.
Maybe I shouldn't (says my inner pessimist).
We'll see (says my inner Zen master).

Yeah, we'll see.

Book Update

Just a quick note to those who still may occasionally visit this virtual ghost-town of a blog...

I have submitted my manuscript of The Heart of the Graystone to POD publisher 'virtualbookworm' and as of today, 4 March 2010, the book was accepted and I should be in print in a few months. Perhaps by summer. We'll see. Whatever the case, my book is on the way.

Yeah!

Hey folks, I'm back. If only for a moment. I was thinking of starting blogging again. It's been a while, I know. But we'll see if I have the motivation to start again. Hopefully talk to y'all soon.

Apologies, One and All

I think it would be refreshing if someone actually had the balls to either stand up and support someone who says something contraversial (see: the catholic priest spouting off about Hillary's sense of white entitlement to the Democratic nomination) or at the very least, not publicly denouncing said contraversey. As in, "I didn't say it, so why the hell are you bothering me about it? Talk to the priest." Instead, we get the standard, coddling response, obviously penned by Obama's campaign staffers, distancing himself from the priest.

But unfortunately (for me anyway) today's candidates are just a collection of wimpy saps who don't say what they really think, but just go along with the standard, safe road in order to get elected.

I wonder how far Harry Truman would get in today's slow pitch league of politics, before the media fed him to the dogs. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even get nominated, let alone elected.

Oh well. I guess I'll just have to stay on my steady diet of bland, white bread politics.

The Jena 6

Okay, here we go.

In the small town of Jena, Louisiana, six black males were formally charged with battery for beating up a white student. And African-American leaders such as the Rev. Al Sharpton are calling the prosecution of these young men (high school age) as racist. "You cannot have justice meted out based on who you are rather than what you did," said Sharpton.

Hmmm. Let's see. Did they not beat the crap out of fellow student? Isn't this "what they did?" One of the black students was already convicted (as an adult) of the crime, though the conviction was thrown out on appeal. It sounds to me like Sharpton is not listening to his own words. Should they not be held accountable for the actions?

Still, this case does not exist in a vaccuum. Because a few months before the beating of the white student, several white male students hung nooses from a tree (on school grounds I believe), apparently to intimidate black students. This seems the most likely explanation to me. However, the local authorities refused to prosecute the white students for the noose hanging. Reed Walters, the district attorney who is prosecuting the black teens, said he couldn't charge the white noose hangers because he couldn't find a Louisiana law under which they could be charged.

I am no fool, I am sure there is still plenty of racism in Louisiana. I'm also sure that race is playing at least some role here, but the particulars escape me because I am not omnicient. To be fair though, under the strictest interpretation of state law, it appears (I'm no lawyer) that the DA has acted appropriately.

The situation is becoming a flash point for civil rights activists and concerned citizens, as many groups of protesters have made their way to Jena to speak their mind on what they perceive as an injustice, as is their constitutional right.

In my opinion, people should be held accountable, UNDER THE LAW, for their actions--regardless of race. If these students did indeed beat up another student, it is only right and just to hold them accountable for, as Sharpton said, "what they did." If the students who hung the noose broke any law (I think perhaps they might be tried by the Federal prosecutor for denying the civil rights of the students they tried to intimidate, but again I'm no lawyer) then they too should pay for those actions.

I understand why people on both sides of the issue are upset. The African-American community wants to point out the racism they perceive, so that justice will be served. Fair enough. The prosecutors want to point out that a crime was committed and they are just doing their job. Also a fair point. I have no problem with either of these points of view.

But I also believe that sometimes it is better if we leave race out of the issue. That may or may not be the best course of action on this particular issue, but crying racism whenever there is a black-on-white or white-on-black crime often clouds the issue unnecessarily. Sometimes a crime is just a crime. And sometimes a heinous, racist act or statement is protected under the first amendment. We have to take the good with the bad, if we wish to continue to live in a free society with the open exchange of ideas.

But keeping in mind the recent degradation and systematic violation of civil rights by the Bush administration, that "free" society may already gone.

God help us--every one--regardless of race.

The Blindspot of Fundamentalism

I am a Christian. But what is that exactly (one may ask)? I find it almost impossible to believe that it has anything whatsoever with going to church. Or subscribing to the notions leveled by the so-called "fundamentalist" movement, that seems to have been hijacked by, or hoodwinked into believing that, the Republican party is "better" for them than the Democrats. I do agree with at least one plank of the Republican platform (pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever you like to call it) but one plank does not a holy edifice build. On the other hand, I agree with more than a few planks in the Democratic platform (less hawkish, more social benefits, etc.), yet their pro-abortion stance poisons their well, and the putrification that inevitably follows stinks things up so much for me that I can't stand those rather tasty h'our doevres they serve at their otherwise lively soirees. Politically, that leaves me out in the cold, lost and searching for some pie-in-the-sky third party that will never get elected in numbers large enough to make any real difference. So in my self-imposed political exile, I must turn to other matters of greater import, and I must also frankly admit that I am going to attack the "bible-believing" Christians who seem, pardon the expression, hell-bent, on driving our country into the ground (incidently, from which it came) by their ardent support for the Republican party.

As a Christian, I am internally driven to shun the bad, and do good, consequences be damned, because if I don't do these things, then I'll be damned. Let me make my point about the Blindspot of Fundamentalism by looking at a flaw in their perception of a single, simple commandment. The bible clearly states that "bearing false witness" is a sin. Most folks perceive that this a prohibition on telling any un-truth. I beg to differ. And let me tell you why.

Bearing false witness must have consequences of ill fortune for those who are wronged by said witness. For example, lying in court or to the police about a crime to protect yourself or others from just punishment or to cause unjust harm to another. Does the fundamentalist Christian really believe that if their wife asks them "Does this dress make me look fat?" and that if they answer "No, honey" (untruthfully), that they have commited a mortal sin, worthy of death? Unfortunaly, I believe many of them do, which I find lamentable. Because, while the answer was a lie, the intention works to create harmony and union, instead of bitterness and division. Aren't those some of Christ's central messages? Peace? Love? Brotherhood? Harmony?

Now the fundamentalist may argue that I am arguing semantics, that a lie is a lie, and they are all sin. Once again, I disagree, and here's why. Jesus told many dozens of parables in the Bible, to illustrate points, to teach, to edify and ultimately, to glorify God and expand harmony, peace, love and brotherhood on the planet. Yet what is a parable? If we take on the fundamentalist viewpoint, it is a lie. Those stories he told didn't actually happen, he made them up, to serve the greater good. So didn't he, in the strictess interpretation that "bible-beliving" Christian so enthusiastically spout from pulpits all across the country, just commit a sin? Jesus? A sinner? May it never be!!

Book Update: The Probability of Diamonds

"Even the most exquisite of diamonds does not shine in the dark." -M.K. Brown

Perhaps my previous post was a bit premature. While it was indeed true that I was offered a book deal for The Heart of the Graystone, I have decided to decline the offer. I should have done my homework BEFORE I submitted to this particular "publishing company".

I thought something was fishy when I received a notice of acceptance less than two weeks after submitting my manuscript, so I did some research, read all the literature on the company's website and compared it to the sample contract, and after a short period of soul-searching (a very short period, as it turns out) I felt it was in my best interests NOT to accept the company's offer.

I don't like being overly critical, especially in print, even though most of you know I do enjoy a good debate. So if anyone would like to see for themselves why I chose to pass up the (admittedly legitimate) offer to have my work published, just check out this link: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/104/ripoff0104646.htm

Thanks for all your encouragement anyway.

The road is long, with many a winding turn...we'll get there. We'll get there. (From: He Ain't Heavy, He's my Brother)

Book Update: The Cautious Triumph of Possibility

Well folks, it's official: today I received an offer to have my novel The Heart of the Graystone published. I received a contract and an offer of a (miniscule) advance from a small independant publisher. The funny thing is, I am not all that excited about it.

I must say that my initial reaction is one of skeptisism (or is it pessimism?). Years of self-doubt, piled up inside me like so much refuse in a land fill, refususes to allow me to think anything but: "It's too good to be true, and this company, like so many other organizations and people and animals I have had to deal with in my life, is going to end up screwing me," (if you'll pardon the expression).

There is a famous Groucho Marx/Woody Allen joke that goes: I'd never want to belong to any club that would have me as a member. For Woody, it was the key joke in his romantic life in Annie Hall, and I have the sinking feeling it may be the key joke in my all-too-real life (the Greek chorus representing powers and principalities laugh mockingly in the background, for they seem to be once again winning a battle against this Lilipute of a man).

I'm the kind of person who has tons of self-confidence in things with which I am well versed, but when it has come to venturing out and breaking new ground in my life, I've always been a bit timid. Is this normal? I'd like to think I'm not that different from other folks in this area of life, but having only lived this one life, (that I am aware of) I can't say for sure.

Anyway, I'll be spending the next few days in deep thought and contemplation on my decision, and reading all the fine print in the contract, hoping I'm bright enough to decipher the legalese and detect any financial landmines that so many disreputable companies seem apt to plant deep in the jungle of their offer.

Maybe it would be better if I looked at the bright side. In a few years I may be fabulously wealthy, famous, and rubbing elbows with other great pop figures of our time...like William Hung and Kato Kalen. You just never know.

The Judas Connundrum

Is Judas in heaven?

He sinned a terrible sin. But one that Jesus knew he would commit well before Judas ever had to face it himself. And Jesus accepted it, did nothing to prevent it, because he knew it was a necessary part of what must happen for him to make his sacrifice for us all. Shouldn't that include forgiveness for Judas' sin of betrayal as well?

What about Judas' suicide? Some say this is an unpardonable sin, because once it is committed there is no chance for the sinner to repent from it. But Jesus himself said that there was only one unpardobable sin: grieving the Holy Spirit. And as the day of Pentecost had not yet occured, (the day the Holy Spirit descended into the world), how could Judas have grieved that which had not yet come into the world?

Today, we assume the Holy Spirit is among us, so now if a Christian commits suicide, one could very well make the case that suicide is an unpardonable sin. But is the act itself "grieving" the Holy Spirit? This is a line in the bible I've always struggled with understanding. I've heard many explanations as to what it means exactly, though I'm afraid none of these explanations seem to make much sense to me. The closest I've come to understanding this sin is this: We accept the Holy Spirit into our lives, but do not listen to it. But even if we do listen to it, are we not still just human? Still sinners? Perhaps grieving the Holy Spirit is a sin of degree, a kind of bean counter's sin, that some angel must keep track of in order to mete out the treasures of heaven to those who grieved the Holy Spirit the LEAST amount of times. But it is still "unpardonable." In the strictest sense, this could mean that ANYONE who sins after the Holy Spirit has taken up rescidence in their heart, will NEVER see the glory of Heaven.

That's heavy. Because if it's true, Heaven will be sparsely populated indeed. Based on this theory, and in my guestimation, there might only be one human there: Jesus himself. Is that why he came? To be alone in heaven with his father?

I don't think so.

So here's what I've come to conclude:
1. Judas was forgiven both his sin of betrayal and his sin of suicide. After all, his suicide was a mark and result of his repentance from the first sin.

2. That grieving the Holy Spirit may mean something completely different than the explanations I've heard, or the one that I believe it means. Unless of course, we are all condemned to everlasting seperation from God (often known as hell). This I don't buy. So basically, this is still a profound mystery to me.

3. Suicide is not necessarily an unpardonable sin. If one takes one's own life in selfish despair, or wanton disregard for one's soul, or to escape some worldly troubles, then perhaps it is unpardonable (how should I know? I'm not God). On the other hand, if it is done to spare others from troubles, to relieve the suffering of others, or done as a rash act of contrition, then perhaps God can forgive it, if we have led an otherwise Godly life. After all, since Jesus knew well beforehand that he was going to die at the hands of the Romans, but did nothing to prevent it, could this not be viewed as a sort of suicide? I know that sounds terribly blasphemous, I don't mean it to, but it's a fact I find difficult to ignore.

In the end, none of us can possibly know EXACTLY how God will judge us or our actions. All we can do is our best. Unfortunately, as flawed human beings, born in to the sinful flesh, our best will never be good enough for God.

That's why I believe he'll do more to forgive us (most of) our sins, otherwise He'll be very lonely in eternity.