GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #1005: A NEW PLAN (POLITICAL EDITION)

 I didn't really expect GF #1000 to make any big waves. It's good to see a couple other people talking about the need to invoke Article 5, but what are the odds of that happening? And now we have Elon Musk creating the Nationalist-Social--er, I mean, whatever the hell he's calling his third party. Which, by the way, doesn't stand a chance. But it will serve its purpose, which is stealing the midterms from the Democrats. Some asshole said that Musk will hurt the Republicans worse, and I can't believe they had the gall to say that. [I'm still waiting, by the way, for an executive order to come through to put Trump's face on Mt. Rushmore.]

If we can't get enough people together to update the Constitution, then we're going to have to change the way elections are run. Not that I expect anyone to listen to me. I think Gore Vidal's ideas are perfect in a case like this.

First and foremost, elections must be limited to four weeks. It's insane that these motherfuckers can run for office for years. The incumbent usually starts campaigning almost immediately after they're elected. That's insane to me. If you're not familiar with the issues after listening to these jagoffs lie to you for four weeks, then the problem might not be with the system. Listening to them for years, on the other hand, gives them the chance to repeat themselves so often you might think they're telling the truth.

But secondly, and this is key, we need to make it illegal for politicians to buy ad space on TV, in print or anywhere else. In exchange for this, the networks and publications will be required by law to give these politicians equal time on their platforms. This will change EVERYTHING. These pieces of shit will no longer need huge donations because advertising is where nearly all of that money goes to. Now it will be possible for ANYONE to run for office. The unhoused could afford to run. It levels the playing field, as the politicians might say. It will muscle a lot of our corporate overlords out of the business, too. What would the candidates spend that money on? I'm sure they have lots of things they'd buy, but it would be very difficult to do that with transparency. The campaign laws we have now pretend to value transparency, but they don't. I forget the comedian who said this, but these fuckers should be forced to wear their sponsors on their suits, like NASCAR racers. Even then I would doubt their entire veracity.

I'll let Vidal have the final word tonight:

"Since Watergate, no one can say that we don't know where we are or who we are or what sort of people we have chosen to govern us. Now it remains to be seen if we have the power, the will to restore to the people a country which--to tell the truth--has never belonged to the ninety-five point six percent but certainly ought to, as we begin our third--and let us hope not, terminal--century."

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #940: I MEAN, REALLY?!?!?!?!?!

 I still can't wrap my head around it. Orson Welles was offered the role in Caligula? As in, Gore Vidal's Caligula? As in, in all reality, Bob Guccione's Caligula? That guy?

I can't be the only one struggling with this. I know Vidal was surprised. He described himself as "astonished" when he learned this. He rarely uses that word, so I know it made an impression.

All right. Let's go over it again. See if we can grasp this thing.

This guy:

*This* guy:

THIS GUY:

THIS FUCKIN' GUY:

*He* was supposed to play Caligula?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! He was supposed to be this guy:

The guy they went with in the movie? This guy:

See? *That* makes sense. They made the wise choice with Malcolm McDowell. But who on earth thought Orson Welles would be great at, say, fisting a Roman soldier? Could you imagine Welles doing the Little Boots dance? And what would Welles have looked like in those excessive love scenes between Caligula and his sister?

Welles, a puritan apparently, turned it down on moral grounds. That was a good decision. There's no way I would have been able to watch him in this role. I mean, I *could*, but instead of enjoying it as a nearly Shakespearean drama, I'd be guffawing with laughter at the absurdity of it.

Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #929: NOTE TO SELF

 

This is going to be more of a note to self than a GF, but I'm putting this here for a reason.

Once upon a time I went to Washington, DC. I was a kid, so I didn't really benefit from it. Some parts looked really cool, but as a city it was kinda run down. I remember seeing the Heart of Dar . . . er, the White House from outside the gate. We were going to take a tour, but they shut down for the day for some reason I no longer recall. (I'm almost certain Reagan was in the White House at the time, but I could be misremembering. It could have been Bush I, but I don't think so.) I also went to the top of the Washington Monument, which was pretty cool. I saw the Jefferson Memorial from afar, and I wanted to see the Lincoln Memorial, but we didn't have the time. Ditto for Arlington.

I've never really cared to go back to Washington, but you never know what the future brings. And here's where you come in.

Now that I know which cemetery Gore Vidal is in, I'd kind of like to see it someday. So on the off chance that I wind up in Washington, and on the off chance that I forget to look Vidal up, I'm going to need someone to remind me of this GF. Please and thank you.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #867: MORE GORE

Vidal, that is.

 

The other day I found myself with an extra hour before I needed to meet up with a friend for lunch, so I went down to the Frugal Muse in Darien, my second favorite bookstore in the area. (Anderson's beats them out.) I suddenly found myself confronted with this book that you see above.

Rewind back to the late 'Nineties. I was a student at Elmhurst College (now University), and I had a job as a page at the Elmhurst Public Library. We'll get to the student part in a minute.

One day I was working in my section, which was the 800s. I'd already finished shelving my books, and there were no books at any of the nearby tables or the drop off cart. When that happened it was my duty to make sure the books are in Dewey order. We all had sheets where we would write down our progress. It was super boring work, so whenever I got the chance I would sit down and pretend to read the numbers on the lower three shelves. When I was fairly certain I was alone I would pick a book and read. That day I saw the book you see above (hardcover edition instead). I remembered, hey, didn't I read a story by him for class? I didn't recall the title (still don't), and I don't remember what happened. I do recall that it was a bit scandalous (*gasp!*) for its time. It was kind of interesting. I'll read some of the essays,

They had some really boring titles, so I only read one or two. I recall being pretty interested in the essays I did select, but I didn't really ever think about the book again, not until decades later when I was on a psych ward and found his book, Empire, and it helped me get through that rough patch of my life. It also converted me into a Vidal fan.

So of course I had to buy this book from the Muse. Only later, after I'd bragged on social media about it, did I think that maybe I should read an essay a day. So I started that yesterday.

I read the second this afternoon at one of the forest preserves. It brought me back to my time in college. The piece is called "Novelists and Critics of the 1940s." It is exactly what it sounds like and more. The thing that made me laugh is that it's a critique of critics. It's done with his usual dry wit, which was not something I was much into when I was a student working across the street at the library. But it brought me back today because it resurrected all the names of critics that I've tried to forget from my time as an English major. (I was also a Philosophy major, which explains a lot, unfortunately.)

It reminded me that once upon a time not all that long ago (jk, as the kids say; it's still happening today) people took literature waaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.  I will never get my head around the study and act of critiquing literature at an academic level, and I intensely studied it for four fucking years straight.

I'm not a complete idiot. I know that this is a necessary part of the process. And when I'm talking about critics, I don't mean someone reviewing something. I mean a legitimate deep study of something to see how it works, why it might not work and where its place is in society if it is even relevant. So yes, as with all other aspects of human life, study of literature is important. That kind of thing is just not for me, though. I'm more of a Vonnegut kind of guy in that regard. I do the work mostly for entertainment's sake, but I also think it's important to throw in some deeper meaning, too, for those who look for that. I look for that, so that's what I would want.

And I apply everything from the previous paragraph to stuff that a lot of people don't think is literature, like the kind of thing I write. Studying genre fiction might be even more important because it's easy to be deceived by such Trojan horses as werewolves or alien cultures or even the Middle Age feudal society you've got going on in the background of your Harlequin romance. A lot of those critics I talked about? They're only interested in lit-rit-chure, so they're not going to do it. It has to be someone else. Maybe . . . NOPE. Not me.

Either way, I'd want nothing to do with it, personally. If I wouldn't read it for fun, I wouldn't write it. That's been a promise of mine since I graduated said college. Back then I had to write SO. MUCH. SHIT. That I didn't want to write. At that point I'd done it all my life, and it was no longer a requirement. So I stopped.

If you want to do it, feel free. It's just not my thing.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #768: PALIMPSEST

 

There's been an odd confluence of Gore Vidal going on with me right now. I've gotten into three conversations about him this week, so I thought maybe now would be a good time to bring this up.

You may recall that when I went to the psych ward the previous occupant of my room had left behind several books, and I'd picked up Empire by Gore Vidal. I was hooked immediately and went on to get the rest of his Narratives of the Empire series, and that sent me off looking for the rest of his work.

After having read quite a bit, I think Vidal is a fascinating author, and I very much enjoy his style. When I saw that he'd written an autobiography, I knew I had to get it. But when it comes to older books these days, I'm loath to get them the new way. It's so easy to go on Amazon or some such site to get them, and there's none of the thrill of the hunt. So a while back I decided I was going to find Palimpsest the old fashioned way: by hanging out in bookstores.

After a couple of years of searching, my efforts were finally rewarded last Thursday. I found it at the Half Price Books in Bloomingdale on Army Trail. And yes, I did feel that rush of success after a long search. I'd forgotten what that was like. It reminded me of the lengths I used to go to in getting rare movies back in the VHS era. Anyone else do that? Remember going through catalogs looking for your prize? Those weren't professionally printed back then. They were fucking mimeographed. Do you remember that shit?

The universe further rewarded me by putting another book next to Palimpsest.

I didn't know that his memoirs continued into another book, so now I have that one, too. To quote Denny Crane from Boston Legal, "Already my penis feels bigger."

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #501: MY GOODREADS REVIEW OF GORE VIDAL'S JULIAN

Emperor Julian, who called churches "charnel houses."

 Sorry. Busy night. I've run out of time to talk about something of greater length. So instead of business as usual, here is my Goodreads review of JULIAN by Gore Vidal.

Wow. Where to start? I guess I'll begin here. I'm an atheist, but gun to my head? I'd rather worship Mithras than the Christian God. Almost every single problem in the world can be traced back to Constantine's conversion to Christianity and his insistence on making it the official religion of the Roman Empire. And Vidal has a few theories about the history of Jesus Christ, especially after he was crucified, and how Christianity, in its efforts to control human behavior, has stolen from the various religions it sought to destroy. Case in point, very few Christians today wonder about that Christmas tree they put up every year. I wonder how many of them know it's because Christianity stole it from the Wiccans they plowed under with their powerful god machine.

Julian, Constantine's nephew, was the last non-Christian emperor of Rome, and he fought to keep the Christians (he called them Galileans, which I think I'm going to adopt in my speech) from destroying the gods he loved and cherished. I see a lot of comparisons to Marcus Aurelius in this book, which is good because I was thinking the same thing. While Julian might have been somewhat gullible (ie. his delight in the mentorship of Maximus), I think his heart was in the right place. He didn't outlaw Christ worship, but he did his best to discourage it. Like Genghis Khan after him, he allowed others the right to worship whatever god they wish. But he didn't want a state religion.

Nor did the Founding Fathers of America, but we can see how that worked out. Nothing ever really changes when it comes to the acquisition of power among politicians and oligarchs. There are a lot of things I could see in the book reflecting what is going on even now in today's world. Not just the era in which Vidal wrote this, but in Julian's world and our own right now. Because the garbage we're suffering now is not new. Even in Julian's time it was not new. It's been business as usual for about 2000 years. At least.

If only Julian had been successful! Even now there are scumbags bent on trying to eliminate the separation of church and state in my country. These are the same scumbags who declare how sacred the Second Amendment is in one breath and belittle the religious part of the First Amendment with the next. Money is not the coin of the realm. It is power, and the way to get power is to be so hypocritical that it challenges the very essence of the word. It's kind of like William Shatner. He's such a prolific sellout that he has transcended the very idea of selling out.

But Julian failed. He fell victim to the classics, hubris and greed. And as history teaches (and as such, I don't consider this a spoiler), Julian died under mysterious circumstances during a skirmish while heading back to Roman territory after an attempt to overthrow Persia. I did a little research after finishing this book, and no one seems to know who really killed Julian. Vidal has a theory, though, and this I do consider a spoiler. When the identity of the killer is revealed, it's actually pretty gut wrenching. The reasoning behind the killing is even more horrifying. And how the killer feels about his victim is even more astonishing.

Yeah, I know. This is more of a rant than a book review. If that's what you're looking for, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It's like it was tailor-made specifically for me. I highly recommend it.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #429: AN UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY

 I'm sure you recall my obsession with Gore Vidal's Empire books upon my escape from the psych ward. I found myself in a Half Price Books in Orland Park on Sunday, and I picked up a couple more Vidal historical novels. (And a crime novel he wrote under a pen name before he was Gore Vidal. But that's a story for another day.)

To borrow from Dan Carlin, I'm not a historian. I'm a fan of history. One of the things I truly enjoy about this series is that Vidal didn't rely on history class notes. He went out in search of the Truth (before the age of the internet, no less!) and wrote these books from that perspective. That got him into some trouble. For example, his theory that Hamilton accused Burr of fucking his own daughter. Or Lincoln's plan that, upon abolishing slavery in the US, he would send all former slaves to Grenada. Ending racism by deporting all former slaves, thus making US a white only country, is a very bizarre plan, but it was also a very real plan.

I wonder if I would have been upset by these "revisionist" theories if I hadn't learned distrust in what I was told as a teenager. Because I bought everything I learned in history class up until Mr. Tourney's class, where I was introduced to 1984 and the concept of doublespeak.

Try an experiment. Try sitting through ten minutes of Fox News sometime. My grandmother watches it religiously, and I pay attention when I'm with her. The biggest boogeyman these nutjobs have right now is something called Critical Race Theory. They are appalled that propaganda is being taught in schools.

And they're right. Just not the way they think. First off, CRT is not taught to children but to college students. But never mind that for now because I have a problem with the propaganda being taught to children as young as 5 years old.

If you know me, then you know my go-to move, which is a pop quiz, hotshot. Who discovered America? A lot of people will say Columbus. Those who are smarter than the average bear will mention the Vikings who got there long before that Italian asshole. But that's wrong, too. It's hard to discover a land where people had already been living for thousands of years.

And if you dare to suggest that Columbus was a slaver and a rapist and a murderer, then God's mercy on you. Why is that idea so difficult for most Americans to digest? It's because they were indoctrinated at an early age. Gotta get 'em when they're young and impressionable, as the cigarette companies used to say. It's a very powerful form of brainwashing. It's so sugar-coated that it makes me want to hurl. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Most people find it hard to believe that the Founding Fathers who said that all men are created equal, didn't actually mean that, but they did. Who counts as those "men?" You gotta be white, male and a landowner. I'm sure if they would have thought about it, those men would also have to be heterosexual. Hell, by their standards most of us wouldn't be able to vote, either. Renting an apartment? Stay at home, non-landowner.

I believe that we're in this mess because of this propaganda that we were all--ALL--exposed to as children. It never occurs to most that what they learned in school might actually be a nefarious plot to force your allegiance to your country. But those godless Commies in China? They need to stop their propaganda and teach their kids the truth!

It's a fucking mess. It really is. Land of the Free really is the biggest lie we were ever taught in school. Because it never has and probably never will be. I'm all for teaching CRT to children. Otherwise this problem is going to continue ad infinitum.

This is a shirt I actually own. It's in my house somewhere.

MY THOUGHTS ON GORE VIDAL'S CALIGULA BY WILLIAM HOWARD

 

*sigh* I really wanted to say nothing about this book. I didn't post a review on Amazon, and I certainly won't put one on Goodreads. This book is not to be encouraged. To give you an idea, William Howard is a penname. The actual author is William Johnston. Not to be confused with William Johnstone, mind you. This Johnston was mostly known for writing novelizations of TV shows, especially Get Smart. It ranged from Dr. Kildare to Happy Days, so yeah, I wouldn't want my actual name on this book, either. And it's not for the reason you might think.

Before we go any further, it is worth noting that we really know nothing reliably about the real life Caligula. The only contemporary extant account of him was written by an enemy, so it's altogether possible that Caligula got a raw deal, that this guy just had a vendetta against him. Still unlikely but certainly possible.

That in mind, let's talk about being offensive. Many of you know how much I delight in being offensive, but I hope, aside from the childish tee-hee moments, that you don't think I go for the lowest common denominator. I put a lot of effort into being offensive. The delight of being offensive is getting creative with it.

Plain old offense is really fucking easy. White guys who use the n-word offend me. Child rapists offend me. The former president of this country deeply offended me. See how easy that is? I never want to go that route. I want giant space cocks destroying humanity. I want . . . well, you know. If you're reading this, chances are you've at least read one of my books. You get it.

I've loved the movie, CALIGULA, for many years. Much to my delight I got to watch the Forced Viewing crew sit through the X-rated version to do a podcast, and that version is really the only version you need. Forget the R-rated version. It doesn't go far enough. While the depravities of the movie are creative and glorious and shocking, even decades after it was unleashed, it doesn't go as far as the book, and that's a good thing.

The book goes too far. It crosses the line. In theory this book is based on Gore Vidal's screenplay, not the movie, but I have my doubts. Ever read a Vidal sex scene? It's as vanilla and brief as possible. Vidal might as well have been making scientific observations about the act. I find it hard to believe that he wrote these insane fuck scenes. And I have no objection to fuck scenes. God knows I've written many, and I've been paid by porn magazines for my fiction, both hetero and gay. I have no problem with any of that.

In the movie, yes, Caligula is in love with his sister, and they enjoy sex a lot. That's borderline for me. But it's nothing I haven't experienced before. As much as Robert A. Heinlein is remembered for great SF, he is not quite so remembered as a huge fan of incest and nudism. In one of his books he has his main character go back in time to fuck his own mom. For example. I give this brother-sister thing a pass because they're adults. It's gross, yes, but it's not William Howard-gross.

Because in the book he depicts their first mating as children. With great detail. And it describes how Caligula seduced another sister when he was 16 and she was 12, I think? Only to be surprised by his other younger sister, maybe 9, joining the act. That's pretty fucking disgusting.

Remember Tiberius's harem in the movie? His "little fishies"? They were very young, but not as young as they were in the book. These kids are barely into double-digits, age-wise. And then there's a horrible story about something Tiberius did with a newborn infant. Let's just say the word "pacifier" and leave it at that.

When I read these scenes I thought I should just stop reading even though the paperback cost me thirty bucks. But when I was very young and the Big Bang was only a few years old, I promised myself that I would finish any book I started no matter how bad it got. I got through it.

Some of the other sex scenes are great, like when Caligula meets Caesonia (played wonderfully by the ever-sexy Helen Mirren). Their sex scenes are delightful, even when they get the Greek actor involved. A lot of the movie glosses over Caligula being bisexual, and I found his sex scenes with men, in particular his Gaul servant, interesting. The ones involving slaves from Africa were very weird, but it seems that Caligula doesn't mind being a bottom to them even after they've fucked and whipped his sisters in an imitation of the Rape of the Sabine Women. (Howard calls it "a marvelous game for the children.")

But I found it disappointing that it left out a lot of the movie. The scene I'm thinking of mostly is the wedding of Proculus. In the movie and book Caligula exercises his right of prima nocta with the bride. In the book he does the same to Proculus. In the movie Caligula shoves his fist into a vat of lard and proceeds to fistfuck Proculus, which I think it much more depraved.

When the book gets to my kind of depravity, it hits on all cylinders. For example, Caligula declares war on Britain and the Germans. They get to the British Channel only to realize that he forgot to order boats. Instead they gathered a bunch of seashells as proof of their conquest. They then bribe a bunch of Gauls, change their hair color and teach them some German so they can pretend to be prisoners of war, thus proving Caligula to be the conquering hero of Rome! And he has them executed even though they're just acting! When he gets home, there is a delightful passage that's almost a throwaway moment. I picked it up, though. Here it is: "The common people of Rome turned out to the last man, woman and child. They wouldn't miss a parade for anything, particularly these days, when Caligula allowed so few of them. Several babies were born near the roadside, and a number of children wandered off and were eaten by wild dogs." Our modern minds couldn't conceive of something like that!

I didn't pick up a few things from the movie that were in the book, or if I did I didn't remember or was too drunk. One thing is ridiculously funny to me. What was the last straw for the senators to decide to assassinate their emperor? Was it that Caligula loved to charge them with treason just so he could seize their estates? Nope. Was it when he made his horse a senator? Nope. Was it even when he forced the senators' wives and daughters, and sometimes even the senators themselves, to prostitute themselves in the imperial brothel? Not even that.

It was when Caligula declared that the next day Rome would convert to Isis worship. Holy fuck, I know religion is stupid, but even this shocks my atheist's heart.

The other thing that got by me was how much the common people of Rome loved Caligula. I figured they were just terrified of him, but as it turns out it was the senators who feared him. Caligula gave the people what they wanted: bread and circuses. They got to watch bears attack lions at the Circus Maximus. Or maybe even tigers versus gladiators. And certainly gladiator against gladiator in death matches. Upon the birth of his daughter, Caligula gave every Roman citizen a gold piece. How could they not love him?

I know this is an awful thing to think, but maybe our senators don't fear the people they, in theory, serve enough. Would they be so quick to shoot down a $15 minimum wage if they feared for their lives? Would Ted Cruz have gleefully left a frozen and dying Texas for Cancun if he thought for a second that the people could rise up against him? It makes one think about the beatings that used to take place in the early days of Congress. Of the duels. Now that all of that is gone, do they have a reason to even respect their people?

Probably not.

Just a Caligula-ish thought.

Ultimately, even though this book disgusted me nearly from page one, I'm glad I stuck with it. I had a few new things to think about that I hadn't noticed before. It's just weird thinking that the guy who wrote this book also wrote novelizations for shows like The Munsters, The Brady Bunch and even F-Troop.

Caligula got this line from Tiberius, but yeah.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #333: MY GOODREADS REVIEW OF COREY TAYLOR'S AMERICA 51

 [What follows is my recent Goodreads review of Corey Taylor's book, AMERICA 51. If you don't know who he is, he is the lead singer of Stone Sour, Slipknot and his new solo project, CMFT. I'm a fan of his music, and I really wish he'd write more books, too. He's written about how the Seven Deadly Sins are character flaws, and there is nothing deadly or sinful about them. He's written about things that piss him off (which is my favorite of his books so far, as I'm 99.9% sure I'll never get that wiffle ball bat to the face). He's written about reconciling his atheism with his belief in the paranormal. This one is his political book about America. In short, buy his book.]

Another excellent book by Corey Taylor. It's shocking how much I identify with him after reading all of his books. I love his bands, but this is where he really shines. When he gets too old to tour (sorry, Rolling Stones) he should write books. He'll probably be a lot more mellow by then, but you never know.

I puzzled over the title for a while. I thought it was a reference to the 50 states with a +1. I heard in an interview, though, that it's a reference to Area 51. Very interesting.

It seems yet again, he and I agree on almost everything. I have heard the phrase "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" often. I used to say that described me perfectly. I'm a middle of the road guy. But the right turned into bootlicking sycophants and turned on their own beliefs in order to support their guy while he committed horrible acts against people who aren't white, who weren't male, who were immigrants, I mean, name it and this scoundrel has done it. The right has pushed me a bit more to the left than I used to be. I'm pretty sure if Trump had gotten that second election, I would have been pushed so far that the left that Bernie Sanders would look left and be utterly shocked to see anyone there.

I've not traveled outside of the US much, but I did go to Ireland once. I was advised even back then, in the year 2000, to tell people I'm Canadian. I knew the brash American abroad stereotype, mostly because stereotypes have some basis in truth. Taylor, too, makes this suggestion to world travelers of the American persuasion. I understand the little white lie. I chose not to take this advice because I wanted to show not all of us are self-entitled scumbags. In my tour group in Ireland, we were mostly made up of a few Americans and a lot of Australians. I hung out with the Australians, and at first, because I was considerably younger than them, they were guarded. They got to like me pretty quickly, and during a historical reenactment of Strongbow's life, I wound up marrying one. I thought I'd surprise her one day by sending a happy anniversary card to her, but I lost her address. The few Irish people we hung out with liked me, too. It turned out that our tour guide was actually Chief O'Brien's sister-in-law. O'Brien is one of my favorite Star Trek characters.

Then there's the Sauce Man story. I gotta say, I have done some stupid things in my life and accidentally hurt someone else. Not physically. Emotionally. That story broke my heart. It brought back all the shame I've felt over the years for my own behavior.

What surprised and pleased me is discovering that Corey Taylor, like myself, loves history. He even uses the same quote I do: "I'm not a historian. I'm a fan of history." It was so uncanny that I had to wonder if someone else said it, and I picked up the phrase subconsciously. And that maybe Taylor did, too. I looked around and there it is! I'll wager Taylor is a fan of Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, just like I am. Although in the chapter titled "Mother, Jugs, Speed, Sacco, and Vanzetti," he does not actually discuss Sacco and Vanzetti. I was kinda disappointed by that. I get that it's a joke, but still. However, he did say he'd be surprised if anyone not from Ohio knew who Salmon P. Chase was without looking him up, and guess what! I *do* know about Chase! I primarily know about him through Gore Vidal's Lincoln. I researched him quite a bit after I finished the book, pleased to find that Vidal was true to history as we know it. I was also sad to see how Chase's daughter Kate turned out in real life.

If I ever meet Taylor--and it's possible, as I tend to meet artists I enjoy--I would love to have a discussion with him about my theory that Alexander Hamilton had it coming, and that Aaron Burr is really the best of all the Founding Fathers. I'm also working on another theory: that Benedict Arnold's treason is actually very understandable. Wrong, definitely, but understandable. I'd like Taylor's thoughts on that.

I've been thinking about that because I like to put myself in other people's shoes when I discover I'm angry or annoyed with them. I try to see their side of things, and I can almost always succeed at that. The only one I can't fit into is Trump. His reasoning is so alien to me that I can't imagine what it's like to be so greedy that you'll let other people die just to line your pockets. But more or less, it helps me understand other people.

That's what the message of this book is really about. Understanding others so that you can learn to get along and make America the place it says it is. Like Taylor, I love this country, and to see greed and hatred and racism and all the other -isms tear us apart like this? Especially on Insurrection Day? I wonder if this is what the Romans felt as Nero did his little dance and fiddle.

Speaking of Insurrection Day, early in the book Taylor suggests that the lunacy isn't as bad as we think because it's usually extremes on both sides of the political spectrum, and they are always loud and belligerent. I used to think that was true, that the real America were scattered about in the middle, or they leaned one way or the other. They weren't extremes. They were normal.

I don't believe this anymore. Every day people are now at each others throats. Neighbors in my own town clash at each other, and they vandalize Trump and Biden signs depending on where they got their "news." But the clincher was on Insurrection Day. Those were regular Americans charging the Capitol. They were rabid and vicious and people died because of them. The very people who complained about BLM protests destroying property proceeded to destroy property in Washington, DC. You know who I didn't see at the Capitol that day? I didn't see Sean Hannity. I didn't see Tucker Carlson. I didn't even see Trump, and it was his own insurrection!

You know who I did see there? Jordan Klepper. I'm not a big fan of his comedy, but it took balls to do what he did there. He walked up to these psychos and asked them questions that they probably didn't want to hear much less answer.

So no, I think this poison has worked like Trickle Down Economics didn't work. The hate trickled down from the higher ups, and it infected the regular people of America. My own grandmother would go crazy whenever I said something negative about Emperor Palp . . . er, Trump.

Speaking of Trickle Down Economics, there is a great chapter about Reagan. I couldn't stand the guy, but I had to give him some credit for being at least presidential. I agree with Taylor that he understood people more than many other presidents. Now if only actors would stop being so political!

That's a joke, by the way. I don't understand why people constantly say, "You're an actor. What do you know about politics?" The very same thing could be turned back on them. "What? You work at 7-Eleven? What do you know about politics?" To be fair, actors have been pretty political for a very long time in this country. John Wilkes Booth, anyone?

There are a couple of points I disagree with. Taylor's take on the death penalty. He's for it and thinks it will make a difference in crime rate if we brought it back to all 50 states. I'm not entirely against the death penalty, but the horrifying fact is that we've sent too many prisoners to their deaths only to find out that some of them were actually innocent. There is a great and terrifying Naked Gun joke on this very subject. Taylor suggests extending the death penalty to sex offenders and violent criminals. The argument could certainly be made for sex offenders to die, especially child rapists. I'm more inclined to lock them up for life because that's not just their crime, it's their behavior. They will certainly do it again, even with chemical castration. It's not about sex with them. It's about power. If they can't use their own equipment, they'll find a broomstick. So I'm on the fence if they should get life sentences or the death penalty. Maybe it would depend on the severity of the crime. But violent criminals? How do we define that? I've done some violent things in my life, so should I be sent to the needle? And there are some murderers who probably wouldn't do it again. They had a bad day, and they flipped out and killed someone. A life sentence in such a case sounds fine to me. But in the case of, say, John Wayne Gacy, whom my state sent to the needle in the 'Nineties? 100%, that guy should have been killed. But we've killed too many innocents. The death penalty is broken. Until we can fix it, I think it should be off the table.

The other issue is guns. I don't like guns, personally. If someone broke into my house, a cop would be here in less than two minutes. The only reason I'd have a gun, ever, is to kill someone. Or maybe myself. I don't think I'd do the latter. I already tried to off myself once, and I don't think I'll ever do it again.

But then I think about the lonely parts of America. Farmland. Miles and miles of it stretching as far as the eye can see and more. If you live in a place like that, and Iowa (Taylor's home state) is mostly filled with places like that, that clouds the issue a bit. So is Illinois, my home state, once you get away from the Chicago suburbs. In a place like this, it might take a police officer a half an hour or more to get to you. It makes perfect sense to have a gun in such cases. A friend of mine who lives on the border between Illinois and Wisconsin, definitely a middle-of-nowhere place, had to defend himself against literal thieves in the night. He had a gun and was able to scare them away. So I see both sides to the argument. Taylor seems to also know that we do need stronger gun control laws. Are you going to hunt deer with an AR-15? And guns really need to be kept out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Certain mental issues should prevent people who suffer from them from owning a gun. That probably won't win me many points with a lot of my father's side of the family, but there you go. And just to point it out, I have fired guns. It does give you a thrill to do it, especially if you hit the target. Especially if that target is Tannerite. But I was firing guns in Nevada, where gun registration is more of a suggestion. You don't have to, but if you get into an altercation involving your gun, it would smooth out the investigative process. It boggles the mind.

And I've been writing this for waaaaaay too long. I really need to go out and get something to eat. Suffice it to say, Taylor's an excellent author, and I thoroughly enjoyed this book.

A REVIEW OF GORE VIDAL'S BURR

 [Here's the second Goodreads review I'm reposting. I've been doing this too long, so I'm going to post and get out and do the stuff I really need to do for the day.]

Pop quiz, hotshot. When someone mentions Aaron Burr's name (if that ever happens), what is the first thing you think of? If you say anything other than he was the guy who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, you're lying to me or yourself, and believe me, you have no reason to impress me. Chances are, this is the only thing you know about him. It's the only thing taught about him in school.

But maybe you had a more progressive teacher, and you also knew he was the third vice-president in US history. Interesting fact: I think he's the only VP in history to have been accused of murder by two states while still in office. (NJ dropped the charge because while Hamilton was shot there, he died in NY. NY just dropped the charges. Burr never entered a courtroom for that one.)

You probably don't know that the 12th Amendment was written because of the election of 1800, because of the situation between Burr and Thomas Jefferson. You probably don't know that Burr was tried for treason several times for the same crime. We call that Double Jeopardy now. It's part of the 15th Amendment, so they didn't have that law at the time.

Here's the thing: Aaron Burr got a raw deal. And I believe that Hamilton had it coming. I know, I can see the look on your face and hear the groan you just uttered. But hear me out.

First of all, this is a novel of historical fiction. It's the first of Vidal's Narratives of the Empire. While, yes, this is a work of fiction, Vidal makes a point of being as accurate as possible. Any changes he made to what we know of history, he mentions them in the afterword. Obviously the dialogue can't be historically accurate in most cases. Whenever he could, he used actual quotes. Whenever he couldn't, he tried to be as truthful to the characters and what they would have said as possible.

But you can't just take his word, can you? I mean, I believe him, but it would be irresponsible for me to just accept this as a fact. So I fact-checked everything. It took me two hours, and I'd say, dialogue aside, he's 99% accurate.

Ever have a problem with a bank? I have had several. I will curse US Bank until the day I die. My brother owed them a considerable amount of money, so they took it from my account. And I had no recourse. I made angry phone calls. I wrote angry letters and emails. But they're a major corporation, and I'm a nobody. A nobody who suddenly had no money and therefore couldn't hire a lawyer. I'm with PNC now, and I had a couple of problems with them. They even resolved two of the three of them in my favor. My point is, I'll bet almost all of you, at some point in your life, have had a problem with banks. You can thank Alexander Hamilton for that. When the US still had its training wheels on, quite a few people wanted to make sure that a bank was never created on American soil. They lost that argument, and Hamilton not only created the first bank, he created our monetary system. So yeah, I guess he should be on one of the paper bills. I'd put him on the three dollar bill and put Burr on the ten.

Hamilton had a monopoly on banks at the time. We didn't have anti-trust laws back then and wouldn't have them until Theodore Roosevelt came to office at the beginning of the 20th Century. Burr, out of spite I believe, created his own bank to compete, which flabbergasted and angered Hamilton. It's weird because they actually used to be friends. They had a lot in common. Both were orphaned and were war heroes in the Revolution. (Unlike, say, Jefferson, who rather than fight the red coats fled and hid away.)

I used to think that Jefferson was the most interesting of the Founding Fathers. Flawed, certainly, but interesting. And as I read more of Vidal's account, I found myself liking him less and less and less. He wasn't just two-faced. He had a face for every occasion, kind of like the Queen in Return to Oz. He freely lied and manipulated his way through his political career. He betrayed a lot of people, and yet he came out on top in our history. The only blemish anyone talks about now is that he, the man who wrote "all men are created equal," owned slaves, didn't think women were really people and wanted to make sure only landowners voted in elections. And he impregnated at least one of his slaves.

So could all of this be true? I fact-checked. Like, for real fact-checked. I'm not a lazy researcher. I require three independent accounts before I can believe something as an historical fact. In this case, I got eight. Nine if you count Wikipedia. I don't, but I did check. Wikipedia is useful as a launching pad. What you read there might not be true and often needs citation, but for the things that *do* have citation, you can find them through the bibliography at the bottom of the page that no one looks at. So is this the way Jefferson was? Yes. I fully believe that he was a thorough scumbag.

But I'm getting off topic. Because now I believe that Aaron Burr is the most interesting of the Founding Fathers. He's unlike any of the others, and I actually find myself identifying with him a lot. Let's look at some facts that come from both the book and my eight sources. Burr, unlike any of the others (with the possible exception of Jefferson, but there is no definite proof of it), was an atheist. Yet he studied to be a minister for a brief period of time, mostly, I think, to please his surrogate father, who was a Calvinist minister. He had incredible wit and charm. Take a look at all of the paintings of the Fathers. Most of them are grim and depressing. Look at Burr's portraits, and you will see someone with light in his eyes and a dancing mischief. His sense of humor often got him in trouble, and he never cared about it. He genuinely didn't care what others thought of him. Do you know how rare that is in a politician? And politician he was. From senator to the VP, he worked the system he tried to create with the others. Too bad everyone else hated and feared him except maybe for Madison. That's what the book says. I only found one source that kinda-sorta confirmed it. But one source is not three. Burr, oddly, really felt no affinity to any political party and often worked for both the Republicans and the Federalists (and the Whigs, if you can believe that). He often created scandal with his taste for the fairer sex, whether he went to brothels or visited society women when their husbands were away. He had a few legitimate children, but there were a lot more bastards he fathered. Vidal tries to suggest that Burr fathered Martin Van Buren (who Burr delightfully calls Matty Van), but I couldn't find any confirmation of that. For the time Burr was very progressive. He was an Abolitionist when that was a vile word no gentleman would ever use. He believed women had the right to an education, and he ensured that not only did his daughter Theodosia get the finest education possible, he also funded the education of stepdaughters and other girls he adopted. There is a story, and I found three sources, that says that a neighbor of his couldn't afford to send her two children to school. Burr, who was often broke and lost money almost as quickly as he made it, pawned his pocket watch for twenty bucks and gave it to his neighbor. That was back when twenty bucks meant something. Burr also advocated for everyone to have the right to vote, not just white men who owned land. He was a thorn in Jefferson's side, and he never trusted Burr, not even as his VP.

Did you know that Burr was almost our third president instead of Jefferson? They tied when the electoral votes were counted, and 35 ballots later, a winner was declared. By that, I mean that the states voted, in total 36 times to figure out who the winner was. Back then, the loser was always the VP. Hence the 12th Amendment that was created shortly thereafter. Burr, a gentleman by the definition of the day, made a deal with Jefferson. Burr wanted the presidency after Jefferson had his go. If Jefferson made that happen, Burr would deliver the electoral votes from New York, which were vital for Jefferson, whom the New Yorkers didn't like. Even still, they tied 36 times. It came down to one vote. ONE! Bayard of Delaware was the only vote for his state. He was a friend of Burr's, and because Burr made a deal with Jefferson, he convinced Bayard to vote for Jefferson instead. Because of Burr's sense of honor, Jefferson thoroughly betrayed him when it came to what Burr had asked.

Burr never trusted Jefferson again. And Jefferson was still not finished betraying Burr. Burr had an idea to take over Mexico to create a government much better than the BS that the US was already becoming. At the time, Mexico was still a Spanish property, so that would entail declaring war on Spain, which Jefferson actually wanted. But when he heard of Burr's plan, he made it look like Burr was going to separate land bought in the Louisiana Purchase from the union by taking control of New Orleans, which never entered Burr's head. There's a dispute over how many men Burr had during the so-called Burr Conspiracy. He had somewhere between 30 and 80 men. Do you think he could have taken a city with such a paltry army? I kind of think Mexico was a pipe dream of his, but he was accused of treason. A lot. And he was captured. A lot. And he was tried for treason. A lot. And he was found not guilty. A lot. Each and every time, in fact, much to Jefferson's pathological hatred of Burr. But Burr had enough. He also had a lot of creditors after him. So he lived in Europe for a while before coming home under an assumed name. Here's the funny thing, though. Near the end of his days, a group of Americans, mostly from TN, under the leadership of Davy Crockett tried to annex Mexico themselves. They failed miserably, and they all died at the Alamo, which is a story we're taught in school was the heroic battle of white Americans against the evil Mexicans. What it really was, was an attempt to steal Mexican land and impose slavery upon it. Mexicans were opposed to having their land stolen, and they were opposed to slavery. So who are the real heroes of the Alamo? (Also, I'm not planning on visiting Texas at any point in my life. I'd rather not be strung up for speaking ill of Davy Crockett and company.) So in essence, Burr was tried for treason several times for the act (the intended one, not the BS one) that Davy Crockett and his Tennesseans were declared heroes for. History can have one hell of a sense of humor sometimes. 

Let's get back to Hamilton. Because of his growing enmity with Burr, he talked a lot of smack behind Burr's back. His mouth was so loud that word eventually got back to Burr. A friend had written a letter in cypher to Burr describing what Hamilton said about him. There were two things. One is confirmed and 100% certain. To paraphrase, Hamilton said Burr was a dangerous man and had to be kept from the reigns of government. That's pretty bad, but it's not bad enough to start a duel. In fact, Burr was used to being slandered, so he didn't really care. And then there is the second thing that Hamilton said, and no one quite knows what it was (or, at least, I couldn't find any reliable source for it). Everyone agrees on one thing: the word to describe it was "despicable." And that was the reason Burr began a new correspondence with Hamilton, trying to get to the bottom of this and to get an apology. Vidal has a theory, and knowing what I do of humanity, I think he might be right. And if this was indeed what Hamilton said, I don't blame Burr for killing him for a second. We'll get back to that.

The idea of the book is that a young reporter, Charlie Schuyler (who didn't exist in real life, as noted in the afterword), wants to write a biography of the Colonel, as he calls Burr. His editor wants him to do it in order to prove that presidential hopeful Matty Van was Burr's bastard son. While Charlie does want to know, he doesn't want to push Burr because, well, he really likes him. His spirit is catchy, and his charm and wit are spot on. A lot of people called Burr Satanic because of his nature and demeanor. I really like that.

I said on Twitter that if they ever made this into a movie, I would require James Spader to play Burr. Watch Spader on The Blacklist. Pay attention to his mannerisms and to the way he says things when he's excited or amused or even thrilled. Then read some of Aaron Burr's dialogue in this book. You'll see what I mean.

There's one thing I wish I didn't know going in. It's a spoiler, so I won't mention it. I read two of the Empire books before this one and found out about this. I didn't know that a certain character didn't know something. Something that is the final line in this novel.

I need to bring this to a close. I've spent the last two hours writing Goodreads reviews of three books, and that's just too much. Besides, I need to pick up my meds and get some comic books. And I have a lot more reading to do. So I'm going to leave you with this.

Being the scumbag that Hamilton was, first creating the banks that would eventually suck our country dry, and then betraying friendships, and then slandering a man who was so thick skinned that slander never hurt him.

Except this once. This once, Hamilton said something so vile that Burr had to kill him. All the reasons stated above are true and reason enough to kill Hamilton. But what I'm about to say next, I can't verify. If Vidal is correct, and I wish he were alive still so I could send him a letter or a Tweet or something, then Burr was absolutely justified.

What was the "despicable" thing that Hamilton said?

He said that Aaron Burr and his, Burr's, daughter were lovers.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #304: WE LOST A WORLD

 So last time I talked about Gore Vidal's historical novel, Empire. I went in search to  many used bookstores looking for his earlier works in the series, in particular Burr because I wanted to read them in order. While I found many treasures along the way, the only other one of Vidal's I could find was Lincoln. In all honesty, that was the one I was most interested in. I knew that the older John Hay was portrayed as a misanthrope, but one who very much still had his finger on the pulse of society. I knew in Lincoln he would be portrayed as a young man, someone who was an adult but still couldn't grow a beard, so he took to gluing fake beards on his face so that people would take him seriously.

I bought the book, and I went to one of my favorite places in the world: the Graue Mill.

I don't remember the first time my mom took me there, but it was so long ago that they didn't have signs that said not to feed the ducks. She would give me a half-loaf of bread so I could break them up and toss them to ducks and geese. I couldn't have been older than four. That place is very dear to me. The Fuller house still stands to this day. The woods are named after that family, Fullersburg. But the Graue Mill is not just any old place. It is one of the very last working mills in Illinois. Most importantly it was a stop on the Underground Railroad, helping slaves escape to Canada. And at one point in time, Abraham Lincoln stayed at the house here. I'm fairly certain that it's not the same house, that it was razed years ago and now a new structure stands there. Regardless, Lincoln walked on this land.

I have been a regular visitor all of my life. It is the place I feel the safest. It is the place where my best thinking happens. I try to go there when most people are at work or in school so I more or less have it to myself. And the ducks. The geese. The chipmunks. The deer. The occasional fox and coyote. No bears. They have not been seen in this area for decades.

Sometimes I read there. Sometimes I write there. Back when I had the full use of my legs I hiked everywhere. There are even a few paths that lead to dead ends, and you either have to walk back or climb a minor cliff face. I usually chose to climb the cliff face. There is even a very, very secret place there. I only go there in the most intimate of moments because there is evidence there that no one has been at that place since the 'Eighties. I know that because I recognize the litter. For example, I saw a Pepsi can from the 'Eighties there, and you'd think that would have been cleaned up by now.

In case you're interested, there is a nearly complete wooly mammoth skeleton on the far side of Fullersburg Woods. Touching it is like touching something from a far distant past.

And so I found myself reading Vidal's Lincoln on the very ground that Lincoln once walked. It probably shouldn't have mattered so much, but I could still feel the power of his presence in the novel. It made it feel so much more real, and history should always feel real. That's the only way you can connect with it. And once that connection is gone, it's gone. There is no retrieving it.

History is never too far behind us. And while Hay might have been right in Empire, about us having lost a world, there is still a world to be remembered. And, having that knowledge, maybe moving into a new world. One that is different, but one that has learned from the mistakes of the past. I forgot who said it, but someone once pointed out that it's only a mistake if you don't learn from it.

And now there is some talk that the Graue Mill will be destroyed due to a reorganization of Salt Creek's flow. No historical consideration is being given to it. If you drive by today, you can already see how different Salt Creek looks as opposed to the way it looked only ten years ago.

If this happens, we will lose another world. An important world to history.

An important world to me. I can't imagine living in a world without this place. The only place that can bring me peace or even a calm state of mind. We can't let this happen. We can't let this piece of living history die.

Or it will be another thing that we lost for the sake of ignoring all that came before us.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #303: GORE VIDAL AND HISTORICAL FICTION

 My first day on the psych ward. After a torturous meeting with one of the doctors, who looked oddly like Jerry from Parks and Rec, only meaner, and after having my body gone over in search of damage, kind of like when you drop off your car to get body work done (Hey, you came in here with that, so we didn't do that to you), I was shown to my room. The first thing I noticed was that there were two beds in there, so the possibility of getting a roommate was very real. It never happened, but if it did, I was prepared with a bowel full of farts to discourage any stranger from assaulting me. And then I was left to my own devices.

I asked if I could get the books I brought with me. I had to assure them that none of the three were hardcover, because apparently hardcover books could be used as weapons on the psych ward. They said they would see what the doctors had to say, and then I sat down at the desk provided to me in the room. Much to my surprise, the former patient for my room was a reader and had left all their books behind. I decided to pass the time by reading one of them.

I chose Empire by Gore Vidal because Vidal was the only author I knew of the bunch. I'd read essays by him previously, and I was very familiar with his screenplay for the notorious Caligula film. I'd never read any of his novels, so I gave him a try. I thoroughly enjoyed it to the point that I took it with me when they let me go. It turns out that this is part four of his take on American history. The first is simply called Burr because one of the characters learned that he was the illegitimate son of Aaron Burr (which apparently wasn't an uncommon thing back then; Burr fucked like a maniac). Empire covers the period of time leading up to the so-called American Century. It tries its best to explain why our backwoods isolationist country decided to become the biggest empire since Britain. I did some research, and it turns out that Vidal really, really put his all into this. A lot of it is historically accurate (though there are some artistic licenses taken). Still, you know what they say about who writes the history books, so we can never be too sure.

This book introduced me to one of the great unsung public figures of the late 19th century: John Hay. I remembered from history class very little about him, but when you look him up, he truly was important. He had no idea that he was, but by the time of his death he helped mold the America that our great-grandparents stood witness to. He was a very close friend and confidant to Abraham Lincoln, who was the first US president to die before his very eyes. Every dead president from then to McKinley had Hay in their presence. Hay is a fascinating guy, but what made me enjoy the portrayal most is that he plays it like a misanthrope. He and Teddy Roosevelt get along, but Hay is one of the many people who make fun of him constantly. If you like history as much as I do, I highly recommend you do some research into Hay.

Hay has stuck with me ever since I got off the psych ward. There are two masterful scenes with him in this book. The one I'll not speak of. You have to experience that for yourself. The other? Well, allow me to quote, and I think you'll get why I got so much pleasure from this book.

Quote: There was a long, loud applause, as Theodore finished. In the north a black cloud appeared. Taft helped Hay up. To Hay's surprise, Taft asked, "Was it here that Lincoln gave his last inaugural address?"

Hay nodded. "Yes. Right here. I remember now. There was rain at first. Mr. Johnson, the Vice-President, was drunk. Then the rain stopped, and the President read his speech."

Taft looked thoughtful. "I know that speech by heart."

"We never suspected, then, that we were all so--historical. We just saw ourselves caught up in this terrible mess, trying to get through the day. I remember there was applause before he had finished one sentence." Hay had the odd sense that he was now, if not in two places at once, in the same place as two different times, simultaneously, and he heard, again, the President's voice rise over the applause, and say with great simplicity the four terrible words: "And the war came."

"We lost a generation." Taft was oddly flat.

"We lost a world," said Hay, amazed that he himself had survived so long in what was now, to him, so strange a country.

OK, me again. There is one more thing I'd like to say before I post this and go to bed. We almost had a Trump situation just after the turn of the century. Thank fuck no one in their right mind took William Randolph Hearst seriously. This book was written long before Trump even thought about running for president, but with my modern eyes, I can't help but make the comparison. A business tycoon with no regard for truth, creating wars just to make insane amounts of money, all in the name of making sure that he is worshipped throughout the rest of history? Yeah, that does sound pretty familiar. For those who don't remember very much about our history, Hearst started the Spanish American War simply to sell newspapers. In retrospect, it was considered Yellow Journalism. I can't help but think that while Hearst is gone, he still has a grandson in charge of his mega conglomerate fuck fest. I've said it here before, and I'll say it again. History is not that far behind us. Life is a constant cause and effect. I'm certain that we're in this horrible second Civil War because of all the crazy bullshit Hearst flung, like a monkey at the zoo throwing feces at visitors. And somehow his visitors ate it all up.

Does that, too, sound familiar?