(#28) October 29 2014.

PERSONAL NEWS

EVERY AUTHOR NEEDS A CHAMPION—AND IT IS BEST IF SHE IS A WOMAN

I have never forgotten how tough it was to learn to write—and then to sell my first book. After several false starts—I committed totally in 1986—but it wasn’t until December 1990 that GAMES OF THE HANGMAN sold.

It wasn’t bought by a major publisher. It was accepted by Grove Press, a relatively small publishing house, which—in those days—was more associated with pushing the boundaries of censorship than anything else. Perhaps the fairly graphic sex in my book resonated… Perhaps I scraped through by a single orgasm. 

Which reminds me—there is a back-story to all this—involving an assistant to my agent—I keep on forgetting. It was really only thanks to her that I got my break. Something about my writing turned her on. Perhaps there is more truth to my orgasm quip than I realize.

Everyone needs a champion—and sex is a great motivator.

Grove were established in 1951 and, over the years, published a whole string of highly regarded avant-garde authors. They included: Jean Jenet; Jack Kerouac; William Burroughs; Allen Ginsberg, Malcolm X, Henry Miller; D.H. Lawrence (LADY’S CHATERLEY’S LOVER) and the Marquis de Sade.

I was a natural fit, now I think about it.

Five long years had gone by—a long time as most people count it. My sense of time is rather different. I will tend to spend as long on a project as it takes—and am more interested in the outcome than how long it takes.

Does that mean I’m slow—perhaps extremely slow?

It means I tend to do difficult things, which initially—almost invariably—are beyond my capabilities.

Of course, I’m still learning to write—and still struggling to sell my books—but when you have never done it before, it seems to an impossible task—and, statistically—in those pre-Amazon days—it pretty much was. Self-publishing was not really a viable option then, so your fate was in the hands of agents and traditional publishers.

God help you—because, mostly, they will not. You have been warned.

In truth, getting published by a traditional publisher is something of a Faustian bargain. On the one hand, you are almost certainly achieving your life’s ambition. On the other hand, if you have spoken to other published authors, you will know that you are largely dealing with people who cause the Devil to check that his tail is still there when he encounters them. He keeps them in a special ultra-high security section of Hell, with the heat turned up just a little higher. Agents and publishers—as you would expect—all go to Hell.

Authors, of course, never go to Hell. Since , by definition, our life is Purgatory, we go straight to Heaven. In fact, since our role in life is to illuminate the human condition—I guess we are really angels.

Never quite thought of it that way before. Makes me feel kind of warm and feathery.

488 words

---

(#27) October 28 2014.

I CONFESS! I HAVE A WEAKNESS FOR AVIATION

TRUE, IT’S A WEAPONS OF WAR—WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO BREAK THINGS AND KILL PEOPLE—BUT IT’S A TRULY BEAUTIFUL AIRCRAFT.

IT’S THE SAAB GRIPPEN, HOW CAN TINY SWEDEN AFFORD TO BUILD SUCH A SOPHISTICATED AIRCRAFT? YET THE SWEDES DO—AND BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA ARE ABOUT TO BUY A BUNCH.

The Grippen you see here is a two-seater version in Brazilian Air Force markings. It is less than half the cost of an F-35 and eminently capable of doing most of what we need operationally. It also has a much lower cost per flying hour.

Is the U.S. military concerned with cost? Largely, it would appear not.

So, given the extraordinary resources we expend upon military matters—vastly more than any other nation—do we win all our wars?

Largely, it would appear not. Instead, we have a disconcerting habit of winning the battles, losing the wars—and making the underlying situation a great deal worse.

Can we really say:

• Our invasion of Iraq was justified?
• We have left the Middle East better off?

Considerations of cost effectiveness apart—and if we had any sense at all, we should consider such things—despite its lower cost, and deadly purpose, the Gripen is a beautifully designed creation.

Sweden, as a whole, is worth a close look. They have evolved a way of life which most of us would envy—if only we knew about it.

Mostly, we don’t. Our media largely avoid international comparisons. Just as well. Whatever be the issue—whether it be healthcare, food quality, the environment, longevity,vacation time, or worker rights—we rarely come out well these days.

And we are continuing to lose ground.

Worth pondering.

268 words.

---

(#26) October 27 2014

WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP?

THE BOTTOM 90 PERCENT OF AMERICANS ARE POORER TODAY THAT THEY/WE WERE IN 1987

THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE MOST OF OUR COMPETITION IS CONCERNED. THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING BETTER OFF. WE HAVE BEEN LOSING GROUND. WE CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

You know, although I wear an economics hat, primarily I’m a thriller writer with strong military interests and connections—so I don’t particularly like dwelling upon this Great Country’s decline. That said, I’m somewhat shaken by the fact that the Mid-Terms are upon up us, yet no one still seems to be making an issue of the dire state of most of the U.S. population (at least as far as the economy is concerned). Instead, the media are rabbiting about Ebola—with a side dish of ISIS—and are ignoring the painful fact that most of us are getting poorer at quite a rapid rate.

All is not well in the land of the (legally) drugged, and the home of the free (but heavily indebted). And I wouldn’t be too sure about the ‘free’ bit. Try forming a union tomorrow—or complaining about chemical pollution, and see where that gets you. Powerful people will do their best to wreck your way of life—and I wouldn’t count on the Supreme Court helping you out (unless you are rich).

Good people! I’ve got news for you. The state of our economy—as far as most of us are concerned—constitutes a CLASS A crisis which should have our pulses racing and sweat beading upon out foreheads to such an extent that the entire nation—well 90 percent of us—will have to be quarantined!

The deep blue line is us and you will notice that it is going DOWN! The light blue line is the top 1 percent (the ultra rich) getting ever richer—which is why it is going UP!

The ultra rich can afford to pay whatever and whoever in order to rig the system in their favor—and that is exactly what they do.

So much for democracy. We are now a plutocracy—a country governed by the rich for their own benefit—where less affluent mortals are scarcely listened to. Formal academic research backs up that finding, by the way. Most of us really are irrelevant when it comes to policies.

Here is what Wonkblog says.

It started in the 1980s when the top 1 percent awoke from their long postwar slumber, thanks to the combination of lower taxes, financial deregulation, and new technology. It wasn't a total disaster for the bottom 90 percent. Even as most Americans saved much less, accumulating far less wealth, stock markets and housing prices continued to rise. Until they didn't, coming crash down in 2007 and 2008.

The problem was that middle class doesn't own that much in stocks, but went into debt to buy lots of housing. So the housing crash turned their biggest financial asset into an albatross, wiping out their equity but not their debt. And the housing recovery hasn't done much to fix this, since it's struggled to move beyond the "nascent" stage.

Stocks, meanwhile, collapsed during the crisis, but came back soon thereafter. The middle class, in other words, missed out on the big bull market in stocks, but not on the even bigger bear one in housing. That's why the recovery has restored so little of the wealth that the recession destroyed. In fact, the bottom 90 percent have actually kept losing net worth the past few years, in large part, due to rising student loan debt.

It's been a lost 25 years for the bottom 90 percent, but a lost 15 for the next 9 percent, too. That's right: altogether, the bottom 99 percent are worth less today than they were in 1998.

But this isn't a story about the top 1 percent running away from everybody else. It's a story about the top 0.1 — scratch that, the top 0.01 percent — doing so. You can see that in the chart below, again based on data from Saez and Zucman, of each group's share of US wealth. Indeed, since 1980, the top 0.01 percent's piece of the wealth pie has increased by 8.6 percentage points, while the next 0.09 percent's has done so by 5.4. The bottom 99 percent, meanwhile, have seen their wealth share fall an astonishing 18 percentage points.

Source: Saez and Zucman

Here's a bit of historical perspective: the top 1 percent now own over 41 percent of all the wealth in the country. That's the most since 1939. Although it's still well below the all-time high of 51 percent set in 1928.

In other words, this new Gilded Age might get even more Gilded.

Matt O'Brien is a reporter for Wonkblog covering economic affairs. He was previously a senior associate editor at The Atlantic.

(#25) October 26 2014

PERSONAL NEWS

SOMETIMES THE BEAR GETS YOU— SOMETIMES YOU GET THE BEAR—SOMETIMES YOU RUN LATE REGARDLESS OF WHO IS CHASING WHO

It’s a great feeling to work really well—which was certainly not the case when I was recovering from my mid April injury. I was out of pain by mid August, but—though I was functional—not really firing on all cylinders until about four or five weeks ago. Since then I have been at it for 16 hours a day plus—and feel wonderful.

Or else my concussion was more severe than I thought.

Will I keep on working this crazy schedule? No. I look forward to a somewhat more balanced existence, but right now I’m struggling to make up for lost time.

That’s not so easy. Writing is time-consuming enough in itself—I do research on top of that—and then being entrepreneurial is notoriously time-consuming largely because you are breaking new ground and doing things for the first time. And I would add, because there is always a great deal to learn. True, I have been involved in a number of start-ups before, but this is my first one in the U.S., and my first publishing venture. It’s really a damn fool thing to do at my age—but it’s a great adventure. Incredibly hard work though.

The good news is that —after endless delays and much frustration—things are beginning to work. On the face of it, an observer might—quite reasonably—hold a contrary opinion (I’m dealing with all sorts of problems) but I have the sense that it it is darkest before the dawn.

Work perfectly? I should be so lucky!

Better.

My next big task is to master the phone. I grew up in an era where you turned a handle to wake up an operator to make a call. She then plugged in things to make a connection and—if nothing else was on—had a good listen. The Surveillance State was in existence long before the NSA.

I regard phones with mixed feelings. There are few more effective ways of breaking a writer’s focus than with a phone call. On the other hand, once I get into the spirit of the thing, I rather like chatting on the phone—especially now that costs have come down. There was a time when a phone call had to be regarded as an investment decision.

But, today you don’t talk on a phone. You do everything but…

More on phones later.

Meanwhile, my apologies to those who feel neglected.

415 words

---

(#24) October 25 2014 War has become integral to the American Way of Life—yet our economic wellbeing (for all but a minority) continues to decline.

AUTHOR/ENTRENEPRENEUR/ADVENTURER

WE LOST THE VIETNAM WAR—BUT LEARNED A GREAT DEAL IN THE PROCESS. WE SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN MOST OF IT.

I was sent the above by the estimable Joe Galloway. He is the journalist featured in both the book and of the movie WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE—AND YOUNG—and has distinguished himself in many other ways as well. We have never met, but we correspond from time to time.

I am not overly impressed by either the rich and powerful—or celebrities (I have met many of both over the years) but Joe is someone I admire.

On to the the focus of this piece—our disturbing habit of making war an integral part of the American Way of Life—while rarely actually declaring it. Apart from being unwise and morally wrong, such behavior directly violates the constitution. It also initiates what the CIA calls “blowback.”

Blowback may be defined as, “profoundly negative and unintended consequences.” Blowback can often be predicted in general terms—because, for instance, if we assassinate a terrorist leader with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone, it is fairly obvious that they will try and retaliate. Its dangers lie in the detail. Retaliation may come in a dangerous and unexpected form. It will almost certainly surprise us since our enemies pick the time, place, and method.

I write heavily researched action thrillers so feel like something of a hypocrite for saying this, but I would really like to see a less militaristic U.S. which was focused on re-building this nation—not on getting a vicarious thrill from our formidable military inflicting death and destruction on yet another under-developed nation.

I write this as someone with many military associations who also happen to believe that we need to be militarily strong. But the whole point of carrying a big stick is that it should not have to be used very often. It is—or should be—primarily a deterrent.

We have got into the habit of striking out with our stick as a matter of routine.

The list of countries we are bombing at will grows ever longer. Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Yemen, Afghanistan—and who knows how many nations in Africa. 

This isn’t to decry the courage of our troops at the sharp end. Generally speaking they do a magnificent job, and deserve all the support they can get—and more besides. But, I do question the system that puts them into harm’s way in the first place. All too often our policies and actions are dramatically at odds with our stated values. Again, all too often, we sow  the seeds of the very actions—like terrorism—which we later so self-righteously condemn.

Do we ever admit our guilt in such matters—and discuss the harsh reality of cause and effect—of action and reaction—and understand, and anticipate, that desperate people will eventually do desperate things? No, largely we do not.

We invade, we kill, we maim, we torture, and we destroy on an epic scale—millions of people killed—and yet we seem to think such actions won’t have consequences.

Meanwhile, the ultra rich who control the MICC (the Military Industrial Congressional Complex) get ever richer—and the economic wellbeing of most Americans is in decline.

We did great things during and after WW II. Our contribution towards the rebuilding of both Europe and Japan is something that every American has every reason to be proud of. But after the Korean War—where active hostilities ended in 1953—we seem to have lost our way.

• The Vietnam War was a horrendous mistake. We should never have become involved. It was much more about nationalism than communism. In fact, Ho Chi Minh was our ally in WW II. He wanted an independent Vietnam. The French wanted to keep it as part of their colony of Indo-China.
• Our activities in South America—nominally to contain communism—do not bear scrutiny. Where Chile was concerned, we conspired to remove a democratically elected president.
• We have interfered endlessly in the Middle East to the point, once again, of conspiring to remove a democratically elected government. Iran has good reason to fear us.
• Hunting down Al Quaeda is one thing. Occupying Afghanistan is something else entirely.
• We had absolutely no business invading Iraq in 2003—and we compounded that problem during our occupation. The Islamic State is a predictable outcome.

As I write this, U.S. troops are in over 100 other countries—and we are, in effect, aggressively dominating the world through our military. Meanwhile, the economic wellbeing of most Americans continues to decline.

This is a great country—which cries out for reform. Our pattern of behavior since the close of the Korean War has to change.

We are, I would like to think, better than this.

761 words.

---

 

 

(#23) October 24 2014. To a writer—everything (no matter how intimate) is material.

AUTHOR/ENTRENEPRENEUR/ADVENTURER

PERSONAL NEWS

Where a writer is concerned, everything is raw material—which is not the same thing as saying that writing is simply a matter of re-gurgitating one’s experiences. Values, judgment, and integrity come into the picture—as does some degree of discretion. That said, it is not unreasonable to regard us scribes with some suspicion. Even if heavily disguised, and in a different context, our experiences have a habit of ending up in our writing—down to every intimate detail. 

Do those experiences include confidences? I guess it depends upon the writer. I would like to think not—at least not in any recognizable form. But, in broad terms, we do use everything. But, we also read a great deal, and use our imaginations.

Friends of mine—particularly female friends—often think that they are  the inspiration for this character, or that—and if they content with that—I don’t disillusion them. However, normally they are wrong because the reality is that most of my characters are composites—and then they just “grow on the page.”

The best of us are remarkably aware, observant, empathetic, analytical—and, dare I say it—judgmental. A writer has to be judgmental—albeit, I would like to hope, in a tolerant way—in that it is nigh impossible to convert thought into words unless you come to some kind of conclusions. Well, you can dither, of course, but that makes for dull writing. Entertaining writing requires a degree of decisiveness. We are in the business of illuminating the human condition—and that requires a writer to commit to a viewpoint—even if in the most subtle way.

But isn’t that risky? Yes, it is—note that one of the first moves of oppressive regimes is to lock up writers (or worse) but writing is innately a business of risk. Just for starters, you are exposing your skills and thoughts to one and all—and stand the risk of becoming a laughing stock. Reviewers may cut you to ribbons.

Has that every happened to me? Yes, it has. At an early stage in my career I received a terrible review in the New York Times. It was written by a competitor who was clearly biased and out to do a hatchet job—but you don’t think of that kind of thing when you have been publicly scarified in one of the most influential newspapers in the world.

I was badly shaken—and so were my publishers (courage is not a common virtue in the publishing business). However, since then I have received so many good reviews for exactly the same book that the incident no longer resonates. Also, I’m now sufficiently battle hardened to take both the good and the bad with a pinch of salt. I have also learned that many critics are just plain ignorant—so if you write about something that is outside their limited experience, they just plain can’t cope. In fact, the CEO of one of my publishers commented that she found my work hard to classify because she couldn’t decide whether I was writing thrillers or fantasy.

Since just about everything in my books has a basis in fact, I was somewhat dumfounded by that remark—but have since learned that ignorance in traditional publishing is not in short supply.

Quite why so many people thought the U.S. was immune from terrorism in the Nineties is a question to which I have no answer—though I think it has to do with the way public opinion is manipulated—and I’m not holding my breath for a phone call from the lady in question to say: “You were right.” I just wish I hadn’t been vindicated in such a horrendous way as 9/11—and that the U.S. hadn’t over-reacted so massively (Sadly, it continues to do so).

We writers can illuminate the human condition—but it is damnably hard to counter deliberate ignorance.

If I now react to my reviewers with equanimity, I confess my fan e-mail still thrills me to bits. I just love love hearing from my readers—and many of those I have met have become friends. A book is a revealing thing—and I have found there is no finer way to bond with another than to give them a book (assuming they read it). The pattern tends to be that when you next meet, they regard you as someone they now know well (but who, maybe, has experienced life with rather too much brio).

All that sex—all that violence—all those fascinating characters… How do you know all that stuff? and have you really done such and such and so and so—and what is it like?

Yes, I have.

658 words

---

(#22) October 23 2014

ARE WE A NATION OF FROGS”

THE FRIGHTENING DECLINE OF THE U.S. MIDDLE CLASS—BY WHICH I MEAN THE BOTTOM 90 PERCENT

YOU? (ME, CERTAINLY)

ALL THE WEALTH ACCUMULATED SINCE 1940 IS GONE. WHO HAS IT NOW? THE ULTRA-RICH 0.1 PERCENT

If ever you wanted an example of the boiling frog pattern of human behavior, you would be hard pressed to find a better example than the attitude of most Americans since the early Seventies.

It was at that time that the ultra rich—and their followers—decided to reclaim their absolute dominance of the U.S. economy. They felt it had been severely challenged by the New Deal, the rise of the trade unions, the War on Poverty, and the massive demonstrations against both the Vietnam War and the system in general that characterized the Sixties—and 1968 specifically. A massive factor—though rarely discussed openly—was—and remains—profound hostility towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The poisonous effects of racism are ever a factor in American life.

American capitalism’s extraordinary hostility towards its own workers—unique among developed nations—is heavily intertwined with racism.

This counter-attack by the ultra-rich—seemingly unnoticed by most Americans has been entirely successful—as the above chart shows.

Time to remind you of the frog story.

If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death.

Version of the story from Daniel Quinn's The Story of B

What is the source of this information? A a new study by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics.

Let me quote from a Huffington Post story of October 20 2014.

Debt has been the big force driving net wealth lower for the middle class, according to Saez and Zucman. Brief bubbles in stock and home prices in the 1990s and 2000s only temporarily offset the steady, depressing rise in mortgage, student-loan, credit-card and other debts for the bottom 90 percent.

"Many middle class families own homes and have pensions, but too many of these families also have much higher mortgages to repay and much higher consumer credit and student loans to service than before," Saez and Zucman wrote.

Another important factor has been that incomes have stagnated for most Americans over the past few decades, once adjusted for inflation. Along with rising debt levels, stagnant wages have made it impossible for most families to save very much money.

And who has been the beneficiary of this middle-class misery? The top 0.1 percent of Americans, whose incomes have just kept rising, and whose share of wealth has soared to levels not seen since Jay Gatsby was still staring at the blinking green light at the end of Daisy Buchanan's dock:

In fact, the middle class is not alone in suffering from shrinking wealth. The rest of the top 10 percent of Americans below the 0.1 percent -- the "merely rich," Saez and Zucman call them -- have also suffered from falling household wealth over the past four decades.

This rising inequality of wealth can only lead to more inequality of income and wealth in the future, Saez and Zucman warned, echoing French economist Thomas Piketty. The very rich will just keep getting richer by living on the returns from their wealth, while the rest of us will keep falling behind.

Are we doing anything about this? No.

Is it a major issue in the Mid-Terms? No.

Are the media making an issue of it? No.

Does it mean that the U.S. is in rapid economic decline? Yes (as far as most of us are concerned).

Is this decline inevitable? No—it’s actually quite unnecessary—but it is inevitable if we don’t change the current American Business Model (which is rigged in numerous ways—and is certainly not free market capitalism).

666 words.

---