|
About This Author
I am SoCalScribe. This is my InkSpot.
|
Blogocentric Formulations
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics).
Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places:
Thanks for stopping by! 
September 27, 2012 at 4:43pm September 27, 2012 at 4:43pm
| |
Okay, California. It's time to wake up. As you may or may not have noticed in recent years, our public school system sucks. Forget the talk about school board corruption, unions, bad teachers, and all that stuff; our schools are failing at a basic, fundamental level. Class sizes are ballooning at an alarming rate. Thousands of teachers are out of work, and the ones that are fortunate enough to find employment often find themselves subject to a "temporary" contract which all but ensures that each and every summer they'll be in job limbo, hoping and praying that the next year's budget will have enough money to bring them back or keep their class sections open. And lets not forget how many teachers are spending their own money to buy supplies for their classroom because budget cuts have necessitated schools becoming increasingly stingy with basic supplies like copy paper, dry erase markers, and pens and pencils for their students.
This November, the election will feature Proposition 38 on the ballot which is a "Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs." I know, I know. Taxes. Eek! How dare they raise our taxes! {e:indignation}
But here's the thing; our schools need money. It doesn't matter how or why or what the background of this issue is... schools need money right now. This proposition offers the following:
 Your state income tax will increase (depending on your income) by anywhere from 0.4% to 2.2%. The average single tax filer (assuming an annual income of $48,000-$100,000) would have their income tax rate increased from 9.3% to 10.9%. The average joint tax filers (assuming an annual household income of $96,000-$200,000) would have their income tax rate increased by the same (from 9.3% to 10.9%).
Of that extra tax income, 60% will go directly to K-12 schools, 30% will go directly to repaying state debt, and 10% will go directly to early childhood programs for the first four years. After that, 85% goes to K-12, and 15% to early childhood programs.
These funds are provided on a school-specific, per-pupil basis and are subject to local control, audits and public input to ensure that they are being spend appropriately.
The state legislature cannot take this money and reallocate it to other areas.
The biggest issue with this school fiasco is that the legislature keeps dipping into the education fund when it needs to move money around and cover other expenses. And call me crazy, but I don't think education should be treated like a rainy-day savings account for politicians to dip into and take money out of when they want to make adjustments to other areas of the budget. That won't happen here, because the money is specifically for schools. Any of you who have been hesitant to agree to tax increases without more transparency can rejoice; with Prop 38, you know exactly where your tax dollars are going.
If you live in California and plan to vote this November, please, please vote YES ON PROP 38. Our schools, and by extension our teachers and our children, really need us to reinvest in education. We're one of the most populous and wealthiest states in the union, and yet we have one of the highest student-to-teacher ratios in the country, and we're in the bottom 10% of all states in reading, writing, math, and science performance. We can do better, but schools need the money to hire more good teachers, to reduce class size, to purchase up-to-date textbooks and equipment, and to do the thousand other things that need to be done to get our kids' education back on track. |
September 25, 2012 at 9:49pm September 25, 2012 at 9:49pm
| |
On his blog  , screenwriter John August (Go, Big Fish, Charlie's Angels) recently interviewed author Michael Chabon (Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Wonder Boys, The Yiddish Policemen's Union) about his writing process. Chabon mentioned that he's currently using a program called iA Writer . What struck me in particular about this program is that it embraces the idea of completely ignoring formatting. In fact, there are no settings for the program. You can't change fonts or double space or insert a header... the only feature it seems to have is an automated spell check that will underline a misspelled word in red, like with Microsoft Word.
In the interview, Chabon said he loved the simplicity of that kind of interface and, on some level, I can appreciate that. But a larger part of me wonders when it became passe to actually format your work. Formatting, for me, has never really been a big deal. It's something you fuss with for a few minutes when you first open a document (and maybe later on when you're editing and want the pages to look perfect), but other than that, I've never really been bothered by the plethora of options and functions available through Microsoft Word when I'm in the middle of writing something. Is it just me, or is it strange to think that people will purchase a completely standalone writing program just so they don't have to take two minutes to worry about formatting when they're just starting a new document?
More importantly, doesn't formatting become an issue eventually? At some point, your words have to leave the safety and confinement of your own hard drive. You have to send a manuscript to a publisher, or submit it to a contest, or self-publish and present it to the world. At which point, your work needs to be formatted appropriately. I wonder what users of iA Writer are supposed to do? Once their work has been assembled in the sterility and simplicity of a program with no formatting settings, does it then have to be exported to a program that will allow you to format it, so the work can be double-spaced, indented, paginated, fitted with a title page, etc.?
For me, formatting is a minor inconvenience at the very start (and very end) of the process. It's not something that invades my waking thoughts when I'm staring at my computer screen, and it's not something I take into consideration when I'm writing my sentences and paragraphs. I'm tempted to give iA Writer a try, just to see what it's like (it's currently only $4.99 in the Mac App Store) - and to test out some of it's cooler features like working over iCloud for my iPhone and iPad - but I wonder if this whole idea of doing away with formatting isn't a bit shortsighted because most of us... at least those without assistants to do it for us... have to tackle the ugly format monster at some point.
Has anyone out there tried iA Writer, or think it would be a welcome relief from the distraction of formatting-capable programs like Word or Pages? I'd be interested to hear other viewpoints on the idea of formatting and whether it's a concern to other writers (or not) at some point in the process.
|
September 21, 2012 at 1:46pm September 21, 2012 at 1:46pm
| |
By now, most of you have probably heard about Mitt Romney's rather inelegant comment about nearly half the country's population, which he's apparently written off and doesn't have a whole lot of respect for. If you haven't heard about it (or heard the comment) yet, Romney was at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser dinner where someone surreptitiously recorded a portion of his speech, the video for which shows him saying:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.
I have a couple of thoughts about this. The first is that I think I know what he intended to say. I think he meant to comment on the fact that there are some people in this country who feel like they should be taken care of... that want a free ride and choose not to work, pay taxes, or otherwise productively contribute to the economy. And because the Republicans have a "less government in your lives" platform, it's probably a foregone conclusion that they'll vote for Obama, the candidate with a platform of more government programs and assistance.
However, one of the major problems with the comment is the breakdown of that "47%" he's quoting. If he did truly mean to say that there are deadbeats who are a drain on the economy and are getting tax breaks while also siphoning off precious resources from the rest of us, I don't think he's taken into account that the majority of those 47% get significant tax breaks because they're either receiving them for educational purposes (and will eventually pay income tax when they get jobs), unemployed (and will eventually pay income tax when they get jobs), retired (and have paid income tax during their working years), or get a tax break based on their income level, size of their family, etc.
There's actually a great breakdown of the 47% of which Mitt Romney speaks, found here:
The far greater problem, however, is the way in which he said it. I'll concede that everyone, at one time or another, inarticulately expresses themselves. And sometimes it makes them sound incredibly stupid. So maybe that's the case here. But Romney is fighting an image battle, where much of the nation finds him to be dull, impersonal, not particularly charismatic or passionate, and worst of all, suspect he may be an out of touch old rich guy. And one of the few candid comments we actually hear him make is to derisively dismiss people "who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it?"  That sure sounds a hell of a lot like he thinks human beings in one of the wealthiest countries in the world shouldn't expect to have to basic human services like food and medicine and a place to sleep without earning it! Does that mean he thinks students, the elderly, veterans, the unemployed, the disabled and other people who may be unable to work should have to fend for themselves and don't deserve any kind of support?
There are undoubtedly some people who want a free ride. Who try to capitalize on public assistance programs and choose not to be a productive member of society when they have every ability to be one. But I hardly think that category of people accounts for forty-seven percent of the American population. Does he really think that nearly every second person in this country is a freeloading loser who doesn't work hard enough to deserve basic human necessities like food and shelter? And he makes this comment at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser at the private estate of a billionaire constituent for a select group of ultra-rich supporters? 
With his history as a successful businessman in the investment world, Romney is already fighting an uphill battle to prove that he's not like the infamous 1% ... the rich fat cats who put the economy into a tailspin with their greed and shady business dealings. I'm not sure Romney's clearest path toward a better public image is to make a comment like this in a crowd of other one-percenters.
|
September 18, 2012 at 8:51pm September 18, 2012 at 8:51pm
| |
Today I got an offer to come in for an interview with an insurance sales firm. I'm always skeptical of sales jobs, and this is why:
THEM: "We saw your resume online and think you'd be perfect for this sales job! When can you come in for an interview?"
ME: "Before I come in, I have to ask... is there a base salary, or is the job entirely commission based?"
THEM: "Well, there's uh, some salary involved. But you can make up to six figures with commissions!"
ME: "That sounds great and all, but what's the base salary?"
THEM: "Don't worry, we'll train you and everything. Come on in for an interview, and we can discuss all your questions!"
ME: "Tell me what the base salary is first."
THEM: "Uh, it's $2,500 a month."
I have to give them credit... at least they pay a base salary. A lot of sales places expect you to work 100% on commission. But come on, thirty grand a year before taxes? In Los Angeles? That doesn't even cover my rent... and I'm not going to gamble the roof over my head on whether or not I can convince people to buy an insurance policy. 
I get that sales is a numbers business. I really do. And I get that this is a tough economy and that companies can't afford to pay an army of salespeople if they're not generating the sales that will keep them in business. But to not pay someone a living wage for the area in which they're living is completely crazy to me. To make their ability to keep a roof over their heads... to put food on the table... to afford a doctor's visit or medication for their kids contingent upon whether or not they can sell a product (and how many products they can sell) seems incredibly dangerous to me.
Maybe I'm just not a born salesman. Maybe I don't get the whole competition thing, or am not confident enough in my salesmanship to take a job like this. But the idea that I could lose my apartment or default on my car payment after a bad month or two of disappointing sales numbers is a terrifying prospect. I don't think I could handle the stress of working under conditions like that.
I don't have kids yet, but I imagine when I do, that concern is going to be even more pronounced. If I'm going to work a day job, I need to make sure it's one that will pay the bills each month and every month. And if they're going to offer incentives for numbers-based sales, then that should actually be in the form of a legitimate bonus, not additional income that your family needs to survive.
And if you are one of those people who by choice or necessity works a commission-based job and relies on that non-guaranteed income to support yourself and your family... my hat's off to you. You have a tough, stressful job and I admire the hell out of you for doing it.
|
September 13, 2012 at 6:09pm September 13, 2012 at 6:09pm
| |
I was looking through my account on WdC earlier today and I just realized that I've given a grand total of six reviews in the last five months.
More than anything, I think I'm feeling a little bit of review fatigue. In addition to reading and providing feedback on items here, I also read screenplays both professionally and for fellow screenwriter friends. I'm a member of several other writer-centric groups and message boards, and I'll often read the stories of other members when asked. And sometimes, I guess I just get a little burned out with the whole process of reading with a critical eye, looking for praise to give and improvements to suggest. My reading time hasn't decreased in the past five months, but I've largely been reading for fun. Screenplays and books and articles that I can just read and enjoy and move on from, without having to digest, consider, and articulately compose a response for the author.
I'm hoping I can get back into reviewing soon, because I really do love to review. I love helping other writers improve their craft. I guess my current reviewing funk is just lasting a lot longer than it usually does, where I'll take a month or so off.
If anyone has some suggestions about how to get back into the whole reviewing thing, please let me know! I could use a motivational pep talk right about now. 
|
© Copyright 2025 Jeff (UN: jeff at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Jeff has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
Comment • View 2 comments 
