Arthur Answers, Part 4: How I blog

The final question in this “Ask Arthur” series is a lighter topic than the others. In a sense, it lifts the curtain for a look at what’s behind this blog.

So, Roger Green asked:

“Something more prosaic: when and where do you blog? What conditions do you need to write? (Quiet? Music? No people around? A bottle of rum?)?
”

There are many people who, like me, are curious about the spaces where creative people work—a sculptor’s studio, for example, a novelist’s office. I’m also interested in how they do what they do: Is it a full working day, or only a few hours? And, as in Roger’s question, the conditions they need to create.

However, I’d never thought about any of that as it applies to myself, probably because I don’t think of myself in the same way as those other people. So, this question actually took a bit of thought.

I can, technically, write a blog post anywhere, anytime. There have been times I was away working somewhere, had a dead spot with absolutely nothing to do, and worked on a blog post. At least it made me look busy.

However, almost all of my posts have been written on whatever computer I had at the time, though I wrote a couple quick posts on smart devices. The first-ever non-computer post was one I wrote on my old iPod Touch back in 2009. As far as I can remember, the only other post I wrote like that was in July of last year. I know it was written on my iPhone, but no one else would: As is my usual practice, if I’m away from home, I never mention that fact and refer to it only once we’re back. To me, this is more prudence rather than paranoia.

There are two reasons I write posts on a computer. First, I like to edit extensively (though it may not seem like it…), and I usually include links to other things, and that’s something that’s a lot harder to do, I think, on mobile devices. A third reason would be that I keep text copies of all my posts, and that’s more easily done on my computer, but I can always add those later.

A few times, especially before I had smart devices or access to a computer while away, I wrote posts by hand (!) and then typed them up when I got back to the computer. If I searched through the archives, I’d probably be able to work out which old posts those were, but it’s not necessarily easy: I usually re-wrote them, at least in part.

I don’t necessarily need quiet, but I can’t listen to any spoken-word things—podcasts, TV, etc.—and sometimes I even find songs annoying. For many (most?) posts I get into a sort of zone in which the rest of the world disappears. If I hear speaking or singing, it can jolt me back to the everyday world, and that annoys me because it brings me out of that zone. Actually, it happens when the dogs bark, too. However, if there are other people in the house watching TV, I do often play music to help me drown out the dialogue on the TV.

Which bings me to people: When I record a podcast, I don’t want anyone else in the house, but I can write a blog post with a whole household of people—with one major exception, of course, and that’s the next point.

The only absolutely non-negotiable thing is that no one can be behind me, watching, as I write. This is true for pretty much anything I’m doing, like working on a page layout or other graphic design, for example, but it’s strongest when I’m creating something of my own—writing (anything), recording a podcast, or editing a YouTube video. It’s also something that has always been true, even before I had a computer.

The reason for this is mainly that when I’m working on something, including blog posts, it’s never done until it’s done, and until that time I may try things—phrases, arguments, whatever—that I ultimately abandon. I don’t like anyone else to intrude into that experimental space because I need to feel free to utterly fail (as I often do—which probably explains why my “drafts” folder of unused blog posts is so full at the end of every year). I feel vulnerable in those early stages of creating, but not at all once I publish, because at that moment I’m done with it, emotionally disengaged, and ready to move on.

Having said all that, a typical blog post is made by me, sitting alone at my desk, often a dog is sleeping under it or nearby, and I tap away on my Mac’s keyboard, with no music playing, a cup of coffee (or other non-rum drink) nearby.

Now, if I could just do something about making sure all that happens on a regular schedule so I don’t have a mad dash to catch-up in December…

That concludes this year’s series of Ask Arthur posts. Thanks to Roger Green for providing the questions. While this particular series is over, I’m always willing to answer questions. In fact, over the years several blog posts have been based on questions people have asked me.

Arthur Answers, Part 3: The USA’s gun problem

Today’s question was actually the second posed by Roger Green, and mentioning that is a way of stalling. Roger’s question is about a topic I just don’t talk about.

Roger asked:

“What is the solution to the gun problem in America?
”

I could be flip and say, “If I knew that, I’d be the richest person in the world!” Or, I could say, “I have absolutely no idea.” Both are true, but both avoid the question, as I usually do: I rarely talk about it on this blog, and never on social media. Which is not to say I don’t have an opinion, because we all do—it’s just that I’ve given up trying to express it.

I don’t think a solution is actually possible without fundamental political reform in the USA, and that’s also highly improbable. Without political reform, nothing will ever change. In fact, I bet things could very well become worse.

Even so, I have hope that change is possible, and here’s why: There’s growing public consensus that assault weapons don’t belong in the hands of anyone but the police and military. There’s also a growing consensus that if a person is too dangerous to fly, they're too dangerous to have a gun. And, most Americans support much tougher background checks of people wanting to buy guns. All these things will help, even if only a little.

But the reason not much will change is that there are extremely well financed, powerful forces blocking even the mildest common-sense reforms. Politicians are bought and do as they’re told to do by the powerful elites, and that means nothing can ever change.

People often say that the first step would be to disband the NRA. That would be nice, though utterly impossible, but that’s WAY too simplistic: It lets everyone else off the hook.

If American voters voted only for candidates that support common sense gun reform, the laws could be changed overnight. But they don’t do that, and instead keep re-electing the recipients of the NRA’s largesse, and then wonder why nothing ever changes. So, first, blame American voters who never vote for change and keep re-electing the problem.

Next, the US election system is tilted entirely in favour of the rich and powerful elites who can spend unlimited amounts of money to get their favoured candidates elected. No country can have a functioning democracy when the average person doesn’t stand a chance to effect real change because the elites prevent it. In other countries, this would lead to revolution—18th Century France and 20th Century Russia are the clearest examples of this—but in America, it leads to nothing more than impuissant rage.

So, for there to be real reform of gun laws—and all the other needed reforms—the power of the elites must be broken. That means getting “dark money” out of US politics, and outlawing “independent expenditures” on campaigns, but that’s just for starters. There should be tough new ethics laws for elected representatives to ensure they’re not for sale to the highest bidder. But MOST of all, voters have to stop voting for pretty much anyone the NRA likes—a high rating by the NRA should become a mark of shame that would ensure a politician’s defeat.

This political reform is necessary so that US citizens can then have a rational debate about what they want their gun laws to be—what's sensible, what goes too far, and on what points can most people agree? Such a debate is impossible right now because all of the political power in the USA is firmly behind no reform whatsoever, and that intransigence filters down to ordinary discussion which devolves into shouting matches and point-scoring with nothing learned or gained. This is why I never discuss it on social media, and only rarely on this blog: There’s no point.

If the USA truly wants to solve its gun problem, the first step is clear: First, it must reform its politics, and that starts with people voting for better, more responsible candidates.

I won’t be holding my breath, however.

Tomorrow’s “Ask Arthur” post will be much lighter!

Arthur Answers, Part 2: Ranking the Republican candidates

Roger Green posed today’s question on Facebook, but I decided to answer it next because it’s closely related to the first question, which I answered last Thursday.

So, Roger asked:

“…please rank all the 17 GOP candidates, including the ones who have dropped out, from barely tolerable to utterly loathsome.”

It took me awhile to work out HOW to rank them before I could even begin to do so. The problem is that I’d never consider voting for ANY of the Republican candidates, so, how on earth could I rank them in a way that didn’t in some way imply that I could?

The answer was to rate George Pataki as zero, then move into negative numbers to better show display how “utterly loathsome” they all are. So, here are the rankings and my reasoning:

0 George Pataki: I ranked Pataki as a zero because he’s the only Republican candidate who is pro-choice and supports LGBT human and civil rights. That’s enough to raise him just above the negative numbers, and makes him least loathsome. However, unless he’s changed his mind (and if he did, I haven’t heard about it), he’s like all the other Republicans and opposes marriage equality. That’s enough to keep him out of positive numbers.

-01 Lindsey Graham: His politics are certainly loathsome, but he’s not a prize prick like all the rest of the negative numbers. His politics put him in the negative list, but his non-dick status keeps him from sinking any lower.

-02 Chris Christie: This is already getting tough! I despise Christie, and think he’s a bully and an arrogant prick, however, his politics are slightly better than the next worst candidate.

-03 Jeb! (just don’t say) Bush: He’s nicer than Christie, but his politics are awful, made worse by seeming to be chosen by focus groups: I have no idea how sincerely he believes anything he says. His family ties to the Saudi royal family are also a major concern for me.

-04 Rick Perry: Well, he’s gone, so his placing doesn’t matter, but while he’s an idiot, I at least sensed that he sincerely held his weird beliefs. Authenticity ought to count for something, and his keeps him from being as lowly-ranked as his truly awful politics should require.

-05 John Kasich: Like many of the others, he comes across as insincere. Among other things, he’s nearly as rightwing as the other Republicans, and certainly no moderate, so it’s dishonest to pretend he’s not the same as his comrades. He also has been particularly nasty as governor of Ohio, waging the local version of his party’s war on women and LGBT people.

-06 Marco Rubio: The man is a moron (not the only one on this list). He’s just like Kasich in trying to pretend he’s more moderate than he truly is, but he gets ranked lower because he’s so much dumber.

-07 Rand Paul: This man seems like he’s from another planet or dimension. Terrible positions on issues, yes, but every once in awhile he does the right thing—but, even a stopped clock is also right twice a day…

-08 Carly Fiorina: Not just another moron, she’s also lied about her past, and her tenure as a CEO was so awful that it ought to forever bar her from elected office. Worse, though, she’s been selling utter lies about Planned Parenthood and, when confronted with that fact, merely doubled down. She is awful, but she might pave the way for a better female candidate in the future—maybe 30-50 years from now.

-09 Jim Gilmore: I admit it: I had to look him up because I couldn’t remember who he was. Then I found out I’d almost forgotten to blog about his entry in the race—he’s that forgettable! He’s been pretty rabidly anti-gay in the past, and probably still is, and—wait, who am I talking about again? I’ve forgotten…

-10 Piyush “Bobby” Jindal: He’s another quitter, and I have NO idea why he ever entered the race in the first place. I don’t know if he’s really a sexist, misogynistic, homophobic doubchebag, or if he was just playing one for the TV cameras. Either way, a truly despicable person.

-11 Donald Trump: The ONLY reason The Hair is this high on the list is because he’s not a homophobic bigot and far-right religious extremist like all the remaining candidates. And that is The Hair’s ONLY redeeming quality.

-12 Scott Walker: Another quitter, Walker is vile for so many reasons. He’s rabidly anti-worker, he’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries, and he’s also racist, sexist and homophobic. However, he didn’t usually play the god card all the time unlike all the remaining, lower-ranked candidates on the list. Sure he IS a religious extremist, but he didn’t say so at every opportunity.

-13 Ben Carson: The remaining candidates could have been ranked equal, but that would have violated the spirit of the question. So, Benny gets ahead of the others only because he can be a nicer guy than the rest. He’s thick as a brick, without even the slightest understanding of what the US Constitution says or means, and he’s sexist and homophobic, but at least he’d not a total douchebag.

-14 Mike Huckabee: The Huckster doesn’t have a single redeeming quality, except one: He can come across as the nicest, smoothest used car salesman/TV preacher imaginable. Still, he’s vile, his politics are despicable, and for some reason he’s decided to go full arsehole in the campaign. He’s also a bigot.

-15 Rick Santorum: Utterly without any redeeming qualities, except that he couldn’t win election as anything. He’s vile, disgusting, and detestable, his politics are utterly despicable, and he’s a bigot.

-16 Rafael “Ted” Cruz: The single most disgusting Republican of my adult life, the Canadian-born Cruz gets the bottom-most ranking because he’s a bottom feeder, someone who would destroy the entire country in order to score some silly small political “point”. He’s vile, disgusting, and detestable, his politics are utterly despicable, and, of course, he’s an arch-bigot. He also gets the bottom of this sewer because he’s so dangerous: A confirmed theocrat, he’d appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade and marriage equality—and those are the nice things! Nope—Cruz is the most utterly loathsome candidate on a list with nothing but loathsome people on it.

Much of this post is tongue in cheek, but much of it also shares my sincerely-held beliefs about these candidates. I’d never vote for any of them for any office, but at least we’ll never hear again from most of them. That’s a definite positive for us all.

Arthur Answers, Part 1: Prez and Veep candidates

It’s time to start answering the questions posed in this month’s Ask Arthur series. Today’s question comes from Roger Green, who asks:

“Simple questions: who will be the Republican nominee for President in 2016? Who will be the VP candidate? And if Hillary's the Democrats' pick, who will be HER veep pick?”

First things first, and about the first part: No one has ANY idea who the Republican nominee will be, and anyone who expresses certainty is spreading bovine excrement, and nothing more. Maybe they’re promoting an agenda, maybe they’re exhibiting wishful thinking, who knows, but no one has the slightest idea: It’s all a guess.

So, my own guess, based on current polling, observation and a hunch, is that it will be Donald Trump with Ted Cruz as his running mate.

I say that because both are hated by the Republican establishment, and both have fanatical supporters among the Republican Party’s base, the extremists who will actually select the presidential nominee. Cruz is the only major Republican figure who has never criticised Trump, no matter how crazy or extreme Trump’s statements have been. When asked about Trump’s “exclude all Muslims” pledge, Cruz said, “I do not believe the world needs my voice added to that chorus of critics.”

This is not to ignore Cruz’s own racism, but rather to underscore that both he and Trump are sort of anti-Republican Republicans, both have appeal to the party’s base, and partly because they’re anti-establishment. The fact that the party establishment hates them both only strengthens their support among the party’s base—as, by the way, the Republican establishment and the mainstream newsmedia condemning Trump’s racist bigotry will only help him with his party’s base—but that’s another subject entirely.

The other dozen candidates still in the race are either completely unknown (Pataki, Gilmore, Kasich), have personal problems (Rubio, Christie, Fiorina) or are absolute nutjobs (Santorum, Huckabee, Carson), or have an utterly incompetent campaign—Jeb! (just don’t say) Bush. None of the other candidates look likely to be able to stop Trump.

In addition to being anti-establishment, the successful candidate will have to appeal to the frothing base of the Republican Party—with its seething racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, paranoia, and religious extremism. To be nominated, a candidate will have to appeal to a majority of those attitudes; the only one Trump doesn’t, er, trumpet, is homophobia, but he’s at least made a stab at all the rest; Cruz has hit all of them (his main problem with Republican voters is that he’s Hispanic).

And, one final word: When I talk about Republican voters above, I’ve tried to be clear that I’m talking about the party’s base, which is far more extremist than the majority of voters who call themselves Republican. However, the base ALWAYS votes in primaries, and this year will almost certainly decide who the nominee is, unless more rational Republicans participate in the selection process, and I’ve seen no evidence yet that they will. However, if—and that’s a colossally HUGE if—somewhat more rational Republican voters do participate, that could change everything. At the moment, I just don’t see that happening.

As for the Democrats, I should say first that I still expect Hillary to be the nominee. If she is, she’ll need to select someone who has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Administration in order to solidify her identity as a separate person.

So, first, she could pick one of her rivals.

Picking Bernie Sanders could, theoretically, unite the party, but, as I’ve said many times, Bernie’s support is mainly outside the Democratic Party, people who will walk away from the party if the nominee isn’t 110% pure (in their eyes). I don’t know that picking Sanders would help her, since the Bernie supporters who hate Hillary would still do so and probably go support Jill Stein instead. It would also be a huge target for the Republican spin machine and all its billions in Super Pac expenditures.

Hillary could pick Martin O’Malley, who will also have been tested by voters, but since he’s always a distant third, it’s hard to see what he could add. I think that’s a non-starter. On the other hand, he also provides less of a target when the Republican spin machine is gunning for Clinton.

Another possibility is Elizabeth Warren, but aside from the fact that she’s shown zero interest in such a thing, she offers nothing apart from the enthusiasm of her fans. Also, two women would scare the hell out of the rightwing, maybe enough to get them out to vote to help Trump win. Some—moderates, Democrats—would see this as ideological balance, with the progressive Warren balancing the more conservative Clinton—that is NOT how it would be spun, even by the mainstream newsmedia.

My guess—and this is nothing more than a guess—is that she will pick someone none of us have thought of, perhaps someone we may not even have heard of before the whispers start. I also feel that her choice will be an Hispanic man. Hispanics are an increasingly important part of the Democratic base—helped, if we’re honest, by the Republican Party’s racism and xenophobia toward Hispanics. This could be a choice to energise the Democratic base—which is larger than the Republican base—as well as moderate independents, many of whom are also Hispanic.

Now, if Bernie wins the nomination, I have absolutely no idea who he’d pick—no guess, no hunch. However, it would have to be someone more conservative and younger than he is if he’s to appeal the general electorate. However, would that sort of choice piss of his own base of support enough to drive them away from voting Democratic? I don’t know the answer to that, either.

So, the short answer to Roger’s question is that I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. But, like them, I have my opinions, which I may very well end up changing before too much more time has passed.

It's not too late to ask a question! Just leave a comment on this post.

It’s that time again

It’s time again for my year-ending “Ask Arthur” series of posts, which I’ve been doing every December since 2012. It’s a chance for people to ask me nearly anything, and I can try to answer the questions.

This idea is, of course, stolen from inspired by Roger Green’s “Ask Roger Anything” (“ARA”) posts, though he does his more often than I do. But, like him, I try to answer whatever I’m asked.

I have no particular topics that are “off limits”, but I’ll say so if there’s something I can’t answer for whatever reason. So far, though, I’ve never had a question that I wouldn’t answer.

Past questions have been about me, life in New Zealand, being an expat, what I think about various topics, and so on. Many different things.

So, to ask questions you can leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are okay). You can also email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom de question?). And, you can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page (I think that you may be able to send me a private message through the page, though no one has ever done that, so I’m not sure).

So, over to you: Ask your question whatever way works best for you, and I’ll do my best to answer it.

Previously:
What do you want to know? (December 2012)
Ask Arthur (July 2013) The only time I’ve done one of these outside December
Ask Arthur – Again (December 2013)
Ask Arthur Again, again (December 2014)
Ask Arthur yet again (July 2015)