I'm a Terrible Writer, and Here's Why

 For some people, this might surprise them that I'm saying this. For others, who have either known me for a long time or known me very well, it's probably not a surprise.

I am a terrible writer.

Wait! That's not correct. I'm a terrible author.

I write the words good. (Not then.) I do very well when it comes to putting my words on paper. I am. I don't have any trouble with the actual writing part of it. But I am a terrible author.

Dis me!

Being an author is more than just writing. It's editing and proofreading and rewriting. I'm okay with all these things, too. It's what happens after a manuscript is finished that is my problem. I'm terrible about sitting down and looking for markets and submitting my work.

Hell, I'm terrible about going back and looking over something I've written years ago to see if it's still any good.

I've been a member of both Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) and Horror Writers Association (HWA), but I've let memberships lapse. Honestly, I couldn't afford to maintain while I wasn't writing.

I've been busy with a lot of issues involving work, home life, moving, and mental health issues. That's been my excuse for not writing. I've been busy.

I bet some of y'all have been busy, too. And you have kept writing, kept being an author. I don't really feel this is a good enough excuse on my part.

I'm trying to change. I'm trying to remember I am a writer and I have been a decent, if almost entirely unknown, author. 

I'm trying to put myself out here and kind of shame myself into getting back to doing what I love. If this sounds twisted, it is. There is nothing I would rather do than write. There is nothing I would rather be than a well-respected author. There is nothing stopping me from reaching my goal... except me.

Here I am, trying to hold myself to task.

I used to blog here regularly, then it became sporadic. Then I didn't use it at all for years. I need to. I also need to start letting people know what I'm about. So I've started gathering email addresses for my first-ever newsletter. It's not that I have so much to share, but I need to be in contact with people who want to support me just by reading a newsletter.

I have also spent the past few years talking about putting together a collection of some of my short stories, both published and unpublished. I have had people tell me they like what I write, but it's hard to find it. Most of it is in print, in bound anthologies. Most of them are out of print. A collection would be a nice way to put a lot of my work back out there in an affordable way.

This isn't just talking. I have collected several published ones for this collection. I have even more unpublished ones. I was astonished when I went back and looked them over and realized they were all better than I remembered. So I have some of them. I have one that I recently shared online. I have a few that need to be published. I'll use one or more of them.

I will have a collection of short stories out! I am hoping to have it out by the end of the year, but it might be spring. I think I will self-publish it, because I suspect that will be the only way it comes out.

I have been working on a fantasy novel that I've been working on for literally decades. "Heroes," for those in the know. 

I am writing. I am a good writer.

I'm a terrible author.

And I am trying to be a better one. 

The United States of America v. The Supreme Court

 The United States of America v. The Supreme Court

My friends, please note that if anyone--ANYONE!--tells you that SCOTUS's pro-Trump-is-God finding was normal, just accept that, no matter what you think of them, they are LYING.

And if they're not lying, they are not legally-savvy enough to hear.

The ONLY thing that should have been granted ALREADY existed in the first place: a president has always had criminal immunity for "official acts" committed while in office.

This was the legal presumption that pro-Trump legal eagles use as justifying SCOTUS's decision.

OF COURSE they had immunity for official acts. An official act would be a decision to declare war on a country, knowing that civilians would die because of his/her/their signature.

A president that speaks out against barbaric actions taken by another country--a country that has laws against speaking against them--has total immunity in this country for their actions. Of course they do. Just 'cause Putin says it's illegal for someone to say he's a dick does NOT mean that the President needs to worry about being held accountable. Of course not.

Official acts--acts taken AS PART OF HIS REGULAR, CONTINUING JOB AS POTUS--are covered. They always have been.



Trump moved the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. You think that's criminal? It's not. Even if it was, it's an official act.

Biden continues to allow weapons of mass destruction to the Israelis, who use it to kill thousands of civilian Palestinians? That's an official act, as much as you may hate it. He will never be charged for that, unless the ICJ gets involved, but frankly, US laws will keep him from being held responsible.

These are official acts, acts that any president has to, or chooses to do while in office. That has been law since Washington and will always remain so.

That is NOT, however, what many of us are upset by.

Once again: Presidents will ALWAYS have immunity for official acts done as a result of their position.

It's what is not official that's the problem.

You see, SCOTUS has ruled that, from now until it is hopefully overturned by another court whose morals are actually... you know... MORAL, that ANY president is awarded a PRESUMPTION OF IMMUNITY for ANY acts they do.

That means "unofficial acts." Acts that are NOT part of a president's day-to-day operations.

You know what an unofficial act is? Trump will forever be known for his.

Urging armed individuals to march on the Capitol building.

Asking a state's attorney general to "find" one more vote that would be needed to award him that state's electoral votes.

Attempting to prevent the lawful change of office.

Declaring congressional members who don't disagree with him as "traitors."

Announcing that he intended to be a dictator long enough to get what HE wanted done.

These are ALL "unofficial acts."

Now, anybody with a streak of decency ANYWHERE in them knows that these should NEVER be considered lawful. However, SCOTUS has declared that a president who does this (meaning Trump, of course) should maintain "the presumption of innocence" until proven differently.

Why is that important even if he is LATER found guilty?

Because it stalls.

It stalls EVERY trial CURRENTLY awaiting or in motion.

ANY SINGLE "UNOFFICIAL" ILLEGAL ACTION THAT TRUMP TOOK MUST NOW BE JUDGED BEFORE HE CAN BE TRIED FOR IT.

"Mr. Trump, you're on trial for attempting to subvert the counting of votes in Georgia!"

"Fine," he could say. "We need a court to determine whether or not that was an OFFICIAL act."

It's a surety that the state or local courts who are pursuing these charges have already decided.

Trump gets to appeal every one of them. Every. Goddamn. One.

And when an appeals court says it was illegal, he will get to appeal it to the circuit court. And if any circuit court but the 5th Circuit hears it, they will say these acts were not official, and were in fact, illegal. (Already has happened.)

He will appeal again... to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS must then decide if this was an official act or not.

Realistically, they will NOT find in favor of these being official acts. I believe that Alito, Thomas, and Goresuch would find they were, and possibly Kavanaugh. But I suspect that John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett would side with the sane liberals of the court and declare they are unofficial and therefore, illegal.

What's the problem, you might ask if you weren't too swift?

It stalls. It brings the legal system to a grinding halt. If Trump wins in November, he will be able to escape ANY legal issues. He is--as an "official" act--able to order the Department of Justice to end all of its investigations and trials on him. If he was already found guilty of something on a federal level, he can literally and "officially" pardon himself and move ahead with his Christo-fascist dictatorship.

SCOTUS knows this. They KNOW they are giving him a chance to stall. How do we know they know?

Because, from every legal expert I've seen discuss it, the "presumption of innocence" that the president has been given to cover flagrantly illegal acts was made up out of whole cloth as a gift for Donald J. Trump.

There is nothing in the Constitution awarding this. (That should have kept those "strict Consititutionalists," Alito and Thomas away, but they cannot hide their partisan bullshit anymore.) There is no precedent for this--because nothing like it has EVER happened in this country.

They didn't use precedent or the Constitution to award the president a temporary "okie-dokie" for his illegal acts. They made it up. It was created for Donald J. Trump.

He has Rudy Giuliani "whacked" for talking too much? "We must assume this was an official act, at least until he runs out of appeals. Then we can charge him with a crime."

He sells pardons on Pravda Social for $1,000,000 a pop? "We must assume this was an official act, at least until he runs out of appeals. Then we can charge him with a crime."

He goes to Putin and gives him the home addresses of any US Armed Forces upper-level officer that speaks out against him? "We must assume this was an official act, at least until he runs out of appeals. Then we can charge him with a crime."

Anyone remember when it was the GOP who whined about "activist judges?" We have six activist judges on the Supreme Court right now, and not a single damn conservative has issues with it.

They have given Trump carte blanche to stall every pending case out there.

But that still leaves the New York case, you might ask, and well you should. Why has the sentencing been delayed on that one when it was already ended?

Because the second huge gift SCOTUS gave Trump was this:

No court can consider the impact or intention of ANY act that Trump claims was "official."

You know, those acts that he really should have done, but ALSO those acts that have been given "the presumption of innocence," at least until he runs out of appeals.

I'll say it again: NO court can consider ANYTHING he did in office while determining guilt.

SCOTUS was firm on this. He could have murdered Liz Cheney in cold blood on live TV and in front of his usual crowd of about a thousand people, and so long as he did it while he was in office, IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY A JUDGE OR JURY if determining whether or not he was guilty of a related crime.

Even though Trump's New York trial for falsification of records in an attempt to manipulate the results of an election happened years BEFORE he was in office, ANYTHING he did in office can't be considered.

This means evidence that came from people that worked with him WHILE he was in office--Hope Hicks, for instance--must not be considered. According to all evidence, Trump repeatedly spoke with Michael Cohen and others about the actions he took BEFORE he was President WHILE he was in office.

Every one of those things cannot be considered, even now.

This is the immediate result of SCOTUS' decision. They are trying to keep him from being rightfully sentenced.

As I understand it, Judge Merchan will have to do one of two things: write up a lengthy report (statement?) about the court's findings that show that enough evidence was gathered from BEFORE the time when he was president to outweigh the evidence that was gathered after the time when he was in office.

The second thing would be to declare a mistrial and try again.

Again, from what I gather from ACTUAL legal experts, Judge Merchan is opting for the first and has agreed to delay sentencing at least until the end of the month to allow Trump's legal team to file their paperwork and D.A. Alvin Bragg's office to respond.

I suspect from what I've been hearing, that he will delay sentencing, provide proof of evidentiary findings and that enough of them occurred before Trump was in office, and then he will let Trump appeal his case AGAIN, because Trump will certainly claim that this should have been a mistrial. However, from what I'm hearing, that probably won't change the sentencing much.

I suspect he will be sentenced--and at this point, I suspect Merchan will sentence him to some sort of confinement--and he will have to start serving it. After all, jailed inmates have the same rights to appeal as ones sitting at their nice homes do. By the same token, waiting on appeal is NOT reason enough to keep someone out of jail.

This is just what I have gathered, mind you.

But these weren't the ONLY things that SCOTUS gave Trump.

The last comes from Clarence Thomas, personally wrapped up in a big hundred-dollar-bill sheet of paper, tied up nicely in a bearer-bond bow.

And yes, by "Clarence Thomas," I mean the same Clarence Thomas who has accepted about ten times more gifts than ALL OTHER JUSTICES TOGETHER, which takes on an even WORSE shine when you realize that almost every one of them came from billionaire Harlan Crow, that far-right Nazi fanboi freakshow who has proven that one man, given enough money, lack of scruples, ethics, and morals, can indeed publicly buy and sell a black man in today's America. Gobbless Amurca!

What Uncle Thomas gave Trump was a written concurring paper that states that the position of independent special counsel is a bogus one and should never have been used against Trump.

He believes that, not only is Jack Smith a meanie who shouldn't be harassing Trump, but that he has NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO because that position doesn't legally exist in the United States.

You know, for a guy who believes in doing things the way they used to be done back when his wife would have been his owner, he doesn't seem to understand that this position (or ones very similar to it under slightly different names or offices) have existed since 1875 when President Ulysses S. Grant appointed the first. Since then, they have been appointed by four US presidents--Grant, Garfield, Theodore Roosevelt, and Coolidge, 12 different attorneys general (including Bill Barr SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES, under Trump, Clinton, and Bush Sr.), and the DC Circuit Court on 20 different occasions.

But facts aren't important to Thomas, so he is pretending that ALL OF THE SUDDEN (GASP!) these are not legal. Of course, Thomas was on the bench when several of these positions were appointed, but he never found them to be problematic until Trump and Crow told him they were.

What does this mean? This gives that partisan freakshow, Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, a chance to use Thomas' own words to try to remove Jack Smith from Trump's theft-of-classified-documents case and simply end it.

With everything she has been up to since the case began, she will absolutely try to do this.

To sum up... there are three VERY IMPORTANT things to remember when some conservative legal eagle tells you that "nothing really changed."

1. SCOTUS created the idea of "presumption of innocence" for all presidential acts to be considered "official" until THEY decide it's not. This is abjectly pro-Trump.

2. SCOTUS has declared that ANY official or unofficial action (until determined by SCOTUS) involving the president is NOT to be considered evidence in ANY other case.

3. "Clearance" Thomas has told Aileen Cannon that she has the unilateral ability to simply fire Jack Smith and bring an end to Trump's document case.

EVERY ONE OF THESE IS CRITICAL!

Do not let yourself be gaslit into thinking they didn't happen or they are not important.

SCOTUS has given Trump a Christmas-in-July to remember. What we have to do is give America a holiday season to remember. We must support Democracy. We MUST keep Trump out of office and use our power at the ballot box.

At this point, it's the United States v. Supreme Court.