The GOP Race: Message for the Extremist Paulbots & Cainites

Merry Christmas Everyone!

You know, I've been paying attention to the FB discussions in Conservative groups and I must say, two groups of Conservatives (I use that term lightly in describing one of those groups) are becoming more & more extremist & irrational in their trolling & postings - The Paulbots and surprisingly, an increasing number of what I call "Cainites". 

The Cainites want to write-in Herman Cain on the ballots where applicable which I disagree with now, since Mr. Cain has indicated that there's no way he's running or involving himself anymore  & he's already discussing other political endeavors. I think in that regard it's a waste of time but, to each his own & I will support other political endeavors of Mr. Cain. The "Paulbots" (to be distinguished from normal RP supporters) are becoming more & more aggressive & trolling Conservative groups with ignorant comments & personal attacks - switching names when they are booted & keeping up so much trouble (Where do these people come from? Do they not have day jobs?) 

This is what I have to say to both groups: There are times when we support a person & that person does not live up to the ideals he espouses & you have to separate yourself from the situation. You then need to stand back & objectively analyze the logic of the situation & look at the facts even if you don't like them and if that means you have to retract a previous allegiance, or reduce your commitment to less fervent support or just blatantly admit that you were wrong - there is a lot of honor in that. Trust me, it will be alright.

To the extremist "Paulbots" - Do you actually think that trolling various Conservative groups with the idiotic diatribes, ad hominems and totally ignoring the rules of conduct within these groups is going to persuade ONE non Ron Paul supporter to convert? I mean why in the world would I give my allegiances to a politician who has supporters who will not maintain a modicum of respect for other Conservative forums? Think about your behavior & re-assess your tactics - IT'S NOT WORKING!

This will make some of you angry but I am going to say it anyway. The "Cainites"  who keep messaging me wanting to argue about the testimonies of those women who accused Mr. Cain - Let's be clear about something: I did not believe the accusations of the first three women (especially the third who claimed he sexually assaulted her in the car then asked him to simply "take her home"w/o filing a police report...etc) but the fourth women (Ginger) I actually do believe they had an affair and yes, she's probably a gold-digger and she is scorned. Herman Cain even said his wife was "hurt that she knew nothing of the woman or that he was helping her financially" - As a Black woman who knows Black men, that is very problematic for me although it doesn't validate the other claims at all. That's all I will say about that.

 Now I still supported Herman Cain because I believe that despite personal issues he could fix the financial problems of this country, but then he dropped out of the race because in his words "I'm not going to let them hurt my family anymore". Listen people, the office of President of the United States comes under more fire & scrutiny than any other position in the world. If he or his family cannot stand while the media attacks him severely, he is not suited for the highest position in the greatest country in the world. To my disappointment he quit & I think he is better suited for a more peripheral role in our government, perhaps dealing with finances because the man is a genius when it comes to dealing with finances & budgets. Quite frankly, had he chosen to stay in the race in the face of all of the accusations, that would have commanded more respect in my book & been a testament of his strength as a leader because if he can handle all of that, he can handle most anything. We all know that Politics is a bloodsport.

Furthermore, the Conservatives who still support Herman Cain for President in the face of the fourth woman and AFTER he removed himself, I have to now wonder if you were just happy to have a Black answer to Barack Obama only. Now in a previous blog I said I wanted a race of Herman Cain vs Barack Obama, however, keep in mind that part of my reasoning was because having two Black men face-off would maintain a sort of "balance of power". To my dismay America is obsessed with race & this would eliminate all uses of the race cards on BOTH sides. We now know that is not going to take place so the best thing to do now is to study, research the pros and cons of ALL of the candidates. Pray for all of them and yourself. Ask God to give you the wisdom to select the best person for the job - it's that simple. Think about the values that we all share and what it really means to be a Conservative and choose the person who in your mind and heart best represents the ideals and beliefs that all Conservatives hold true. Think of your families - your children especially, and cast your vote for the person whom you would want to lead them in the case of your absence. This is what we must do as we exercise our right to vote and select our leader which unfortunately, is not the priviledge of everyone in the world everywhere.  I thank you for your attention & appreciate any intelligent comments. 

Cainiacs 2012: "Why America - especially Black America, needs Oba...

Cainiacs 2012: "Why America - especially Black America, needs Oba...: "Why America - especially Black America, needs Obama vs Cain in 2012"

Why is it called America, not Columbusia? | The Hot Word | Hot & Trending Words Daily Blog at Dictionary.com

Why is it called America, not Columbusia? | The Hot Word | Hot & Trending Words Daily Blog at Dictionary.com

After numerous recent and past conversations with those who identify themselves as both Obama supporters, Liberal and/or Democrat, I have found many constants, however, one of those is overwhelmingly & conspicuously apparent : If you criticize President Obama, Liberals or the DP and are White, you will be labeled a “racist”, and if you do the same and are Black, you are a “sellout”or an “Uncle Tom”. Most Liberals loveto resort to name-calling when they are “cornered”with sound reasoning, logic and hard, objective evidence contrary to their arguments when debating Conservatives. They have no hard evidence themselves in most cases, to buttress their arguments, so that leaves them one of three choices: the first one is the Ad hominems or the name-calling (I've experienced it too many times) – basically, they launch a personal attack on their opponent rather than the opponent's argument. Secondly, they sometimes will argue back and forth to the point of ad nauseam, then when they can no longer come up with invalid arguments they will suddenly (out of nowhere) jump the DP/Liberal ship altogether and declare, “I'm an Independent.”Lastly, they submit to defeat and admit the strength of the Conservative argument. (Conservatives when debating Liberals, please do not hold your breath for the latter choice, we need your influence & your votes in the next election) This post is to address the first choice – the fallacious and unnecessary name-calling as it relates to the race of the target Conservatives.

I am convinced that the majority of Americans view many political & social occurrences through the prism of race, on either side. In this country, the primary sides are Black and White people. (I'm not disregarding the prevalence of other races or cultures but rather, I am being realistic about who mostly has issues with race in America for the purpose of this post.) As a friend of mine pointed out in a thread on Facebook:

"What a lot of people do not realize is that unfortunately, many Black liberals and the masses of Black people for that matter, will go against an organization that they do not understand just because it is predominantly white. If the majority of White people are in it and agree with it, then there must be something wrong with it. There are historical contexts that support this mistrust and suspicion. Institutional racism, the Tuskegee experiment, Scottsboro Boys – all of these things plus many more, have produced generations of mistrust in the Black community which is not easy to expunge."

So Black Liberals (many of you and your White sympathizers) I get it. You're still pissed off about the history of this country – slavery, the racism, the evil White man who did it all, as well as the greedy Africans who sold your ancestors into slavery right? Right? Hello...Liberals mad at the White man, US government for slavery & racism? (even though you are many generations removed from it for the most part) Oh well, a resounding echo on those Africans equally culpable. Darn. I thought we were about to make some progress over the historical context argument. I suppose you get to pick and choose which events to lament over rather than seeing all of the events in their cause and effect relationship, Mea Culpa.

Of course, there have been plenty of racist comments from black Conservatives regarding other blacks, Here are a few:

1. (Affect(ing) a black accent to recount San Francisco mayor Willie Brown asking) "Who is this "Emily List? She's supportin' all these people. She's supportin' Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She's supported Sen. Barbara Boxer....She supported everybody. Why won't she support me?"

2. "Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."

3."You'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."

Of course, there are also racist statements from white Conservatives too (We can't forget the evil white man!)

4. "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.”

5."He's married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black."

6."In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master ... exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell's committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture."

There you have it. Conservatives maybe the Liberals have a point after all. Here we have racist statements from black & white people among us and in a few cases directed against us. Maybe white Conservatives deserve to be called a racist after all, and the Black Conservatives should be called sellouts, Uncle Tomsand racist as well. I mean, what respectful black Conservative person would call one of there own people the “N”word? And Why would a white Conservative be at all concerned with “house n*ggers”? Oh, mea culpa again, I have my quotes mixed up! Quotes 1-3 are from white liberals ( Hillary Clinton, Roger Clinton & Fritz Hollings – all White, Democrat & Liberal) Quotes 4-6 are from black liberals(Spike Lee on Clarence Thomas, California State Senator Diane Watson's on Ward Connerly's interracial marriage & Harry Belafonte – all Black, Democrat & Liberal) So my Liberals friends, are you going to label your party-mates racist too?

Now I know there are Liberals who will quickly say, “There are Conservatives who are racist and say racist things as well!” Here again, proving a prior post that you can never argue within the terms of the original arguments because that would involve you arguing against the racist quotes above and therefore your friends in the Democratic Party. Catch-22 isn't it? Not a fun dilemma to be in at all. It's a shame that many Liberals have either lost their ability to be objective or never developed that skill because for Conservatives it is invaluable, enabling us to praise or criticize one of our own, simply based on the facts, and not a person's race. That was the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr., a Republican, who prayed for a day when men would be judged by their character & not the color of his or her skin.

We utilize this objectivity when assessing President Obama's ability to transform this country socially & economically. This is a task which he has failed us – all of us Black, White, Hispanic, Asian and thank God some of us can see him outside of his “race” which by the way, my Liberal friends is both Black and White. So are white people racist for criticizing his Black half only? How do White Conservatives feel about his White half? (surely they couldn't be “racist”against his white half also.) What about the Black Conservatives who criticize him?, I guess you would argue that we are criticizing his Black half and in a love affair with his white half & are Uncle Toms and sellouts because of that. When you're done criticizing this piece (and when I'm done laughing), I'd like you to respond with your method of separating President Obama's two identities because you absolutely must separate Obama's halves in order for the racist, sellout & Uncle Tom charges to have any merit, you guys do know this right?

Lastly, here is the actual language of the name-calling. First of all a racist is “aperson who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superiorto any or all others. This definition does not say one word about a particular accuser or target of this adjective nor can Liberals point to one Conservative who has advocated the superiority of their race – White or Black or any other race. However, I can point to Black and White Liberals who have done just that! (Ironic isn't it?) A “sell-out” is a person who betrays a cause, organization or in this instance, their race. Well, since you won't be able to reason properly to get from under the “racial duality” argument with regards to President Obama above, I'll keep laughing through those attempts and give you a free pass on the “sellout” charges.

Now the “Uncle Tom”charge I will debunk because every time I hear a liberal call a conservative an Uncle Tom I shake my head in disbelief and humor because being called an “Uncle Tom”is actually a compliment. If I were a Liberal I'd stop referring to Black Conservatives or any Black person in general as an “Uncle Tom” because it shows that you have not read Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel. Uncle Tom, who is the novel's protagonist, actually suffered and died because he refused to tell his brutal slave-owner the escape intentions/plans of other slaves.

After Tom is sold to said brutal owner (Simon Legree) The slaves are taken to the man's run-down plantation among the swamps. Tom is set to picking cotton, and he tries to make the best of his position by prayer and hope. He meets Cassy, Legree's black concubine, and learns her horrifying story. Tom is whipped mercilessly for attempting to help his fellow slaves, and Legree vows to break his spirit or kill him. Cassy does her best to use her influence to save Tom. But Tom, in the months that follow his beating, loses heart and nearly his faith, until at the lowest ebb of his life he is given the grace to prevail in spirit against Legree's torture. He brings his own spiritual strength to the other slaves, and Cassy devises a way for her and Emmeline to escape. The two women hide in Legree's own garret while the man searches the swamps for them. Legree questions Tom, who knows their plan but refuses to tell. Legree has Sambo and the other overseer whip Tom until he is near death; finally Legree gives up, and the dying Tom forgives him and the two men who whipped him.

George Shelby, arrived to buy Tom's freedom, is in time only to hear his last words. But Cassy and Emmeline have made good their escape, and they meet George on the riverboat going north. Another lady on the boat reveals that she is George Harris's sister, and Cassy recognizes that George's wife Eliza is her own daughter. The two, with Emmeline, go to Canada and find George, Eliza, and their children; they all eventually go to France, return, and plan to emigrate to Liberia. Meanwhile George Shelby returns to his farm, where his father has died, breaks the news to Chloe of Tom's death, and frees all his slaves, telling them to remember that they owe their freedom to the influence of Uncle Tom.

Now if that's an “Uncle Tom” you are not only free to call me that name but encouraged to do so (Well Aunt Tom in my case) He not only endured two brutal beatings so other slaves could escape, but his life inspired a White slave owner, whom he had served for years, to return home and free all of his slaves. The author, Harriett Beecher Stowe, was a White abolitionist so when you call a Black person an “Uncle Tom” you are actually not only complimenting them but also honoring her.

I wish we did live (now) in Martin Luther king Jr's “dream” where we all would be judged only by our character and not color but we do not and have a long way to go. The Conservative agenda is the closest to realizing his dream because we judge Obama based on his failed policies, empty promises & his fiscal irresponsibility. Believe me, there is enough there that we need not even mention his races. I find his biracial heritage quite a relief for us all because since he is both black and white, this should keep everyone from attacking him based on race because black and white people would actually be attacking themselves because we all share a part of him. This is one of the reasons I am proud to be an American and Conservative.

I know of another American whose dream his fellow Democrats (especially Black) fulfill diligently and faithfully, that of Lyndon B Johnson, the 36th President of the United States, who said, “I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” That was less than 100 years ago so if we stop wasting time with racial epithets and the name-calling, there is still time to prove him wrong.

Politics: For My Liberal Friends

This post is for my Liberal/Democrat friends (some not all): For the life of me, I cannot understand why in a plethora of political & social discussions, when arguments are presented, you can never argue in terms of the original argument. In other words, if I say, "President Obama is fiscally irresponsible" The Liberals/Democrats will respond by saying, "but Talitha, Bush was fiscally irresponsibe too, How come you don't say anything bad about him!" First of all, How do you know I haven't said anything "bad about him" (Let me add that I don't care for the word choice "bad" - it's vague & inappropriate, I'd say, "Why don't you refute or disprove his positions/policies, but that's just me) If you're going to participate in such discussions or rebut someone's assertions, why don't you at least take as much time researching the person's position as you do typing these long, emotional diatribes? Many of you criticize myself & other Conservatives for "bashing"Obama in terms of a perceived failure to equally criticize previous White presidents when if you did your homework, you will find that many Conservatives/GOP supporters have done just that! Trust me, we have no problem whatsoever telling one of our own when they are in error. Second of all, it is very erroneous & illogical to bring up irrelevant counterpoints (for example the one about Bush) without first telling me why Obama is indeed fiscally responsible, in & of itself. If you did this (which you cannot btw) your arguments would be far more effective & you'd gain a lot more respect from me just by the mere fact that you are showing respect for intelligent discourse period. If I say "the clouds in the sky on the east coast are thin & don't produce enough rain" & if you live on the east coast & respond by saying, "the clouds on the west coast are just as thin & don't produce enough rain either, Why don't you talk about those? Why don't you like the clouds on the east coast? You must be from the west coast!" If you researched where I live (or asked me) you'd find that I do live on the east coast which would debunk part of your argument. If I were you I'd say (after thorough research if need be), "The clouds on the east coast in fact not thin, their thickness is hidden because the clouds on the east coast are less visible due the the difference in the refraction of sunlight against them & actually do produce sufficient rain Talitha. In fact, Scientists have proven that the dry climate of the east coast over time has caused the people, animals & plant life to adapt well to it & therefore, that area of the country does not require as much rain. As to the thin clouds, scientists have proven that the thinner clouds are, the more moisture they retain, however, it rains less because it takes the clouds a very long time to complete a hydrologic cycle, much longer than the west coast & this is the reason for this phenomena of nature which you have observed. Doesn't that sound much better? More sound? More logical? Wouldn't the latter discussion go a lot more smoothly than the former? These are just my thoughts on my page on what I have observed in the discussions that I have participated in online & in person for quite some time now. It's just some food for thought! Please don't inbox me any angry or childish responses, if you wish to refute what I have shared, do it intelligently & please, please, please (some more than others) think about what you are going to type before you do! Also, please don't send me messages arguing the science of my example, I know it's not scientifically sound, pay attention to the flow of the logic not the science. When you participate in discussions in this illogical manner which I have described, you're only shooting yourself in the foot &  making it easier for Conservatives to disprove your arguments! Call me crazy, but I'd like to have some real competition in my political sparring from someone other than a Conservative every now & then.

The Elements (Book I) - A Writers Journey II

So I had somewhat of a solid story line. I know what I wanted to say and initially where I wanted the story to take place. Initially I played around the idea with the setting being another planet entirely and then I decided against it. I am of the opinion that sometimes, particularly in science fiction & fantasy, (let me say this carefully) we want to push for social change in our uutopias & dystopias and this is a good thing especially when written well & not too "preachy" but sometimes, the fictional world we create can be so vast, so far out ther, so removed from or foreign to the reality of this world and science & physics...etc people get so caught up in that hype, that they "miss the forest for the trees" - this is probably more of an issue with fantasy than science fictio because Octavia Butler said it best - "Fantasy is totally wide open; all you really have to do is follow the rules you've set. But if you're writing about science, you have to first learn what you're writing about."Science Fiction must have valid science period.  I didnt want to make the error of getting so worked up with filling my fictional world with weird beings and characters with over the top magic powers. I had to keep myself in check because imagination is powerful and must be tamed sometimes. In the end, I found a great balance (at least I think so!)
 I was going through my packed closet and there were many things in there still packed in boxes. (sidebar: if you move and after a time you still have boxes and boxes of things, they are things you obviously do not need) I pick up a large rolled up, laminated map of the world. I unrolled it and I tool a dry erase marker and started writing the names of the people in my book, where they could live on the map - the Iscindri (water people) were written in in  the oceans of the world. I would use the planet Earth! There was no need to create an entire fictional planet and ecosystems, new atmospheres, moons...etc This novel would take place on the Earth of long ago. I hung up this map (which I still have - I have no idea where it came from by the way & my long term memory is quite remarkable if I may say so myself) I stared at it, erased, wrote the names & locations out again.  I came up with names for the god-like beings who would forced the humas into this symbiotic slavery - the Iscindri (water), the Firii (fire), the terranu (earth) & the Windu (wind) -these were names I just made up, I mean obviously the Terranu comes from the Latin noun "terra"which means land/earth but the others were pretty much off the top of my head. Then I had the god like beings (it would be a few months before I would simply call them "the elements")  who would convince the "Photari" (the people of the island) to use thir knowledge of microbes to "ïnfect" the people with people with a bacteria to force them into the symbiosis. The Microbes would live inside the bodies of the people (still seperated into four groups based on the four body systems) and they would cause the physical pain or death of 1 member of each of the four groups of people. The pain or death would be directly proportional to the level of biochemicals released by the brain whenever the emotion of anger is felt. I had it all figured out, or so I thought. Then I began to think that this was way too technical than it should be for a story taking place millions of years ago before or while the dinosaurs were alive (I hadn't decided if I'd included dinosaurs or not) Who would have this technical knowledge in my world? And at some point the humans would have to learn that the pain and/or deaths were caused by someone or something and it would be to incredible to have them believe that "the gods"had done this to them. I mean I could have found a way to pull it off I think but why put myself through all of that? Then I said well the god-like beings and the Photari could be from another planet and of course be light years ahead of the humans of the earth as far as knowledge and technology. They would know that the people were too primitive to be told what was done to them technically so they could blame it on the gods of their indigenous religions/spirituality. It could work! But then I thought ok so these early people would need to be a bit primitive and kind of intellectually "way behind the times" witht hat said these people would need to have a race and I would want to represent them with the real people of the Earth - that presented a problem because inevitably, some modern day homo sapiens would be offended and I would seriously flirt with stereotypes of early indigenous people of the planet - even if I was wrong I didnt want the worry of this to bother me. As a heavy thinker I go through such a mental process when I write - maybe more than the average person, but thats me.  Either way, I made the decision to scratch that because it wasn't good enough and I was uncomfortable with it. Then I said, "forget it"- I can't write genre fiction let me go back to literary fiction. I put the story down - then there was work, school, the daily drama of life. A week became a month, a month became 6 months, 6 months became a year. If I am honest with myself back then I was somewhat of a lazy writer. I wished that thoughts would somehow telepathically leave my mind & hot the page. Then I'd get an editor to clean it up, an agent would take it & I'd sell a million copies & live happily ever after.  Those of you who are starving artists know exactly what I am talking about.    

Writing great fiction is work. Its easier said than done and yet not as difficult as some of us make it. Its not for everyone. Everyone wants to write the great American novel including myself & most who want to write will not. (if you're not American take out the American and fill in the space with where you are from) I picked up my mental pen again, opened the file on my computer labeled One Nation and brainstormed yet again. I kept the general themes and threw away what I had written so far - I hated it and needed to clean it up. I cannot count on both hands and feet the number of re-writes I did. Then I gave up and decided it was not for me so many times! Every other month or so I would pick the pen up again and add to what I had written - it was really a mess for a while. Then finally one day I picked up the map & I decided on a setting - everything would take place on Pangea - the supercontinent that existed before the contiinental divide but I couldnt call it Pangea (or didnt want to rather) but I said I'll start writing again and figure that out later.  After eight years of back and forth, sometimes writing, sometimes not I finally dis an outlind and basic story plot then did the proper research that one must do before writing a science fiction novel. I re--familiarized myself heavily with symbiosis, Pangea, the continental divide, plate tectonics...etc and then I sat down & did detailed character analysis, decided what indigenous cultures I wanted to base my fictional characters from & studied them heavily, learned some of the languages, looked for & received help when I needed it (I must say when speaking with universities in Ghana, Zimbabwe-especially Zimbabwe, South Africa and a professor here in the US from Senegal originally I received so much help & resources - Is it me or are Africans someof the friendliest peope in the world? : ) I spoke with people from the Indigenous American communities - particularly the Dakota/Lakota tribes (most non indigenous americans are familiar with the name Sioux Indians or Plains Indians) once again, I received so much advice and resources. Tehn I went through the naming process - I wanted names that had real meanings. (I'll talk more about that next week) I decided to call the god-like beings"the "Elements" and the two of the tribes would be the Kishnu and the Lungi (now those came from my brainstorming but I liked them so I kept them) I got a map of Pangea and wrote on it where everyone lived.

One thing I will say is as a writer when you really get going and you're on a roll you gotta stay focused and stay on it. Write as much as you can because you can refer back to it when you experience writers block. I finally decided (one of my most important decisions) to take out the idea that a microbe would symbiotically link the people and have one of the elements do this (I won't say which or how I don't wanna give the story away) but this decision pushed me closer to the fantasy genre than science fiction and I was ok with that. The best thing I love about my novels is the interactions between the humans and nature - the elements. After all, we are in a very real symbiosis with water, wind, fire & the wind - we need all four. I once was in a dicussion at work & we were discussing conservation & the ozone layer & the greenhouse effect. A co-worker said in response to something I said, "Ok Talitha, so when is all of that gonna take place like 30, 50 or 100 years from now? I won't even be alive then..."  I looked at him (he was older than me) I said, " How many lines of posterity do you have already?" He said that he was (unfortunately) already a great grandfather..I touched his shoulder and said, "yes, you will be alive then...you are alive then" We all in the human race, are alive then...

Journey of a Writer

Back in March 2003 I was sitting on a sofa  in my tiny yet cozy apartment in Marietta, Ga watching the television. The local news was on and although I generally don't watch the news (its so depressing sometimes), this time I paid close attention. The president (George W. Bush) along with Congress were sending troops into Iraq & thus, war had begun. I thought of all of the young soldiers who would go to Iraq to fight for our country, and also how many of them would not return, or would return never the same. Suddenly, an idea came into my head that I wanted to write about war. I had no idea how I would do it, but that was what I definitely wanted to write about. I had read many novels in which war occured and others where war was the major theme and I wanted to take the same topic and somehow treat it differently. Most if not all novels abour war  created empathy in the reader by exposing the bloodiness of battle and the carnage. This is very effective for most but I didnt want most of the human audience I wanted all (many have become desensitized to direct  violence through various mediums unfortunately), and so my quest began. At the time I was unemployed, clinically depressed and was busy writing a coming of age story about a young black woman battling depression. I had named it, The Autobiography of Jane Doe since I had taken many events from my own life and some of my actual journal entries and inserted them into this book. I came up with the Jane Doe portion of the title because although it was largely my own story, I was neither famous nor well-known in any way and therefore I was a "Jane Doe"or Everywoman. I became so obsessed with writing about war in some unique and different way that I soon put aside TAOJD and began brainstorming this new "war book" as I initially referred to it. I brainstormed for a couple of months and finally I knew where to begin my thinking process around the plot & philosophy of this "war book". My mind traveled back to the days of high school and college where I had studied ecology and organisms. I particularly reflected back on what I had learned about symbiotic relationships and even more specifically, the symbiotic relationships mutualism (the way two organisms biologically interact where each individual benefits) and parasitism (a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host). I went back and dusted off old text & reference books on my shelf) and reviewed the material and refreshed my knowledge of examples in nature of both symbiotic relationships. My fascination was renewed and I began to wonder if humans, physiologically linked to one another through major & vital body systems by another organism, would voluntarily be linked harmoniously -philosophically & socially in order to maintain biological life for the whole. Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. Anger is one such emotion and is an emotion related to one's psychological interpretation of having been offended, wronged or denied and a tendency to undo that by retaliation. Humans, throughout our collective history have chosen violence and large-scale wars to resolve & retaliate these feelings of wrongdoing and conflicts. #1 What if an organism such as a bacteria or virus species when introduced (purposely in The Elements) into a human host could somehow link all of the humans physiologically. #2 What if said organism directly reproduced or relied on the very biochemicals released by the human brain during an emotion such as anger and caused the harm of or death of a number of individuals who are a part of the biological whole? #3 Would man, after realizing the physiolocial linkage as well as the cause and the implications (no violent emotions=physical life of the whole) acquiesce to the mutualistic relationship between all members of his species and live peacefully together despite differences? or would mankind be ruled by their violent emotions and therefore face extinction?  This was the essence of my brainstorming and I had no choice but to explore my own curiosity and quest to demonstrate that a peaceful existence is vital and possible for all of us. Writing fiction became my highest priority because the imagination allows us to experiment with ideas that could (or should rather) not be explored with real humans in real life . The latter idea is what scientists do in laboratories everyday - hypothesize, experiment, data, conclusions, applications. The writer of fiction, namely science fiction, can do the same things with his or her pen, answering the "what ifs" without bringing harm to living species. Unfortunately, human history is filled with examples of inhumane "human experiments" whose results were disastrous. Initially, I called my "war book" Una Gentis (latin for One Nation/People) since my fictional tribes would be physiologically linked and literally, One people. I came up with the idea that once exposed to the microorganism, four random groups (physiologically) would be formed, seperated by which body system their microorganism controlled when the individual became angry. There was the Cardiogas (the cardiovascular system), The Nervanu (the nervous system), The Resprii (the respiratory system) and the Immuni (the immune system) - while writing this I have to laugh at those early ideas which seem so silly but you have to begin somewhere with an idea. I thought of those soldiers on the news being deployed.  I thought of their mothers and children and siblings. They had wives and daughters to escort to dinner parties and dances, sons to play baseball with and they were going to a place with weapons and quite likely, their deaths. I imagined the faces of the mothers, fathers, children and neighbors of the communities they would invade. The amount of death and injury that would come to both sides saddened me and I vowed to finish my work, no matter how long it took and show humanity another possibility. Peace was that possibility and I wanted every last man, woman and child to stop and think that if peace can be maintained through coersion via biological linkage (physiological symbiosis) then mankind, being the highest and most intelligent of all living species, without a doubt had to have the ability and the will to live peacefullly, voluntarily. If we can be forced, we can volunteer. The Kishnu and Lungi in The Elements learn this very lesson as did I - their literary mother, and now I share this with the world.