Cowboy Confessional

Cowboy Confessional
Writer, songwriter, political provocateur
Email This Post Email This Post

Venezuelian Vertigo

January 31st, 2007

One can hardly blame the people of Venezuela for being confused on matters political and realpolitik parlance. After all, they have had 26 different constitutions in their history, which averages a new constitution every 7-8 years. That’s enough to make Karl Marx’s head implode.

The collective inanity of Venezuela’s decision today to legislate a garrison state is amplified by the bizarre chatter from their front line. To wit:

  • * Their National Assembly President and Chief Moron said “Long live the sovereign people! … Long live socialism!” The indisputable notion that socialism is contradictory to individual sovereignty demonstrates the failing of the Venezuelan education system (or perhaps its success) in that a grown adult would utter such nonsense.
  • * Placards in the square read “Socialism is democracy”. Certainly a democracy can enact socialism (which shows the complete depravity that is democracy), but socialism is not inherently democratic. Ask anyone buried in a Soviet gulag.
  • * The Vice Moron, Jorge Rodriguez, was nearly accurate in stating “We want to impose the dictatorship of a true democracy.” Given that “democracy” is frothy talk for organized mob rule, complete with requisite tyranny of the majority, then this particularly dim bulb was half right.

There is hope, however small it may be. Luis Gonzalez, a humble high school teacher said “We’re headed toward a dictatorship, disguised as a democracy.” If past socialist dictatorships provide insight into future ones, we can expect Gonzalez to conveniently disappear any day now.

Email This Post Email This Post

Federal Fiscal Priorities

January 25th, 2007

IBM recently unleashed unto an unsuspecting public a new tool that allows anyone to upload data sets, and then allow the world to visualize and comment on the meaning of the data. Many Eyes has the perverse provision of allowing people to view data in ways the media and other informational gatekeepers do not like or allow.

For example, someone uploaded the U.S. Federal budget numbers for the last few decades, and the initial graphs merely showed the budget rising faster than Ted Kennedy’s blood alcohol level.

But the sweet part of Many Eyes is the ease that anyone can change the view. There was a little button at the bottom of the default budget graph that said “percentage”, and changed the graph to show year-over-year what percentage of the budget was spent on what. Click the little graph and notice that (1) war spending has remained relatively the same, but (2) Social Security and Medicare have blasted the dome on Capital Hill.

The Internet has unleashed many troubles upon the people. Now IBM is unleashing clarity of information. Woe be us.

Email This Post Email This Post

State of Delusion

January 23rd, 2007

Some random observations from tonight’s Presidential State of the Union pep talk:

Balanced seating: Bush says one national priority is to balance the budget, and the new House Speaker Nancy “Smiling Eyes” Pelosi leaps to her feet along with the rest of Congress.  When Bush adds “without raising taxes”, her nipped and tucked ass stays firmly planted.  This does not bode well for your wallet.

Bruce Willis’ feminine side: Notice how Hillary Clinton wore a self indulgent smirk throughout the entire speech (except when Bush was talking about Islamofascists killing Americans, when she looked like she was falling asleep)?  That smirk will kill her campaign by itself.  Nobody outside of Hollywood can stand that much smugness.

Drinking it all in: Ted Kennedy looks snockered …. again.

Liable and slander: When Bush said Congress should enact medical liability reform (i.e., keep gold digging lawyers out of doctor’s pockets), not a single video taped Democrat Congress Critter clapped.  I guess we know who owns them.

Torture: John McCain looked like the the Viet Cong were once again shoving bamboo splints under his fingernails.  But Bush’s speaking style makes everyone wear that expression.

Up Chuck: Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa nearly wet his pants when Bush hyped ethanol to reduce middle-east oil consumption.  At long last Iowa has a goal in life and pork to feed upon.

Email This Post Email This Post

Publishing’s Gates of Hell

January 17th, 2007

Ron Seybold, former newspaperman, great writer, and the first editor insane enough to pay me for my prose, came to the San Francisco Bay Area.  Ron and I caught up on our suspect life and times.  Among other nefarious activities, Ron Seybold is conducting writer’s workshops back in Austin, Texas.

We invested some of our visitation hours discussing the publishing business and how for writers it is Hell’s Own Gauntlet.  Publishing has become such an unforgivable mess that on the surface it appears to be a government program, though this might be a slight to the government.

The problem for writers, especially for the unestablished variety, is that the publishing business is littered with gatekeepers whose mission is to keep you from being published.  Since there are inherent risks and costs for a publisher to print a few thousand books, evolution has dictated that the industry grow a number of natural defenses … and some unnatural like literary agents.

The first gatekeeper is the agent.  Over time, publishers have moved the cost of slush pile reading onto the backs of agents.  This may be a business necessity as the cost of hiring a room full of nearly amateur editors to read every hack writers manuscript is not inconsiderable.  By ignoring unsolicited manuscripts, publishers have created an industry of freelance junior editors who accept all the risk.

But this causes a problem.  Whereas a writer could in years past target a publisher who printed books similar to what a writer had penned — and thus have some assurance of a sympathetic potential buyer — writers must now play hit-or-miss with agents (unless you are extremely savvy and can backtrack similar books through their submission genealogy back to the original agent).  An agent will reject a book if they simply do not have contacts within a simpatico publisher.

Strike one.

If you are lucky enough to find a sober agent who also rubs elbows (or other anatomical apparatus) with an appropriate publisher, then you face the internal gatekeepers, who are varied and vicious.  Editors will second guess your prose.  Market evaluators will second guess sales volumes.  Senior editors will second guess their three martini lunches and between rounds reject your opus because they dislike the color of your hair.  And unless you can wow them with your ability to market the book on their behalf, they may walk away at any point thereafter.

Strike two.

Under the nearly incalculable odds that you find an agent with multiple functioning brain cells who’s is in bed with a publisher willing to risk stockholder profits on your manuscript, then you face the dreaded channel.  Gatekeepers stand guard between the printing presses and Barns and Noble’s shelves.  Distributors must agree to carry and stockpile your book, risking carrying and holding costs before introducing your tome to retailers. 

Strike three.

Retailers can of course reject anything distributors dump on their desks.  The large chains have their own market insights, and routinely reject carrying books because they believe the market for them is weak.  You may have whelped the next “War and Peace”, but if 90% of the retailer’s in-store traffic comes from those hungering for the next Harry Potter or Ann Coulter work, then you can be pushed aside simply for expediency and quarterly sales volume and profit sake.  And whatever you do, do not allow the image of Harry and Ann linger in the same regions of your mind … it ain’t that pretty at all.

Strike four (so much for that metaphor).

Finally comes the media, without whom few people may ever hear about your work (and herein is why every writer should learn the art of creating buzz through traditional and Internet mediums as they may well have to create their own demand). From political experience and working with reporters of all spots and stripes, I can attest that what appears in print or on the web is largely a reflection of their biases and preconceived notions about what the world needs to know.  You lay prostrate before the media, spun 180 degrees for added discomfort.

Strike five.  We’re all out.

If this seems like an insurmountable hill for a new writer, it may well be.  These gatekeepers were accidentally designed to keep millions and millions of incapable and incompetent prose pimps from wasting the time, money, and three martini lunches of the publishers, and the bottom line of book retailers who run on feather thin margins.  I can only explain the unintelligible effluvium found on bookstore shelves as a sign that the system does not always work, or does not work well.

Keep writing anyway.  You are not writing because it will make you rich (odds are you will starve to death as a writer).  You write because you have to.  So damn the gatekeepers.  Mount your word processor, tip your pen lance-like, and charge headlong toward the gatekeepers as if they were so many windmills.

Email This Post Email This Post

Intellectual spitoons

January 11th, 2007

News broke a while back that a young, southern trailer cookie, who had strutted her way into both the Miss America title and the wet dreams of middle aged men, had been seen doing many unAmerican-beauty-queen things, such as dope and other women.

Who cares?

But a cheesy cheesecake story has never deterred the media or those well versed at feeding such frenzies.  Inquiring Minds slurped at the dreck from the ego that Trumps all others when in a moment of publicity driving pique, he admonished and forgave the indulgent crumpet.

Who cares?

Competition, especially at these incredibly low levels in the human genome, is fierce.  It is therefore not surprising that a statement on the inequity of our national moral compass being set my the multi-married bloviation machine was made by a morbidly obese lesbian.

Who cares?

Yet, despite this story deserving complete public apathy, it continues to escalate involving cross-allegations, entire broadcast networks, and abusing the patience of anyone with more than two functioning brain cell.  I fear for a society that is so attracted to the inane, spoken by the mundane, and broadcast by the insane.

« Previous Entries




Copyright 2006 - 2008 -- Guy Smith -- All Rights Reserved