Blog Archives

I have a book brain at the moment

6/29/2022

I decided somewhere between leaving theater and fight choreography & writing for more than my own amusement that for professional purposes, I was an actor first and a writer a distant second. My other jobs of house spouse and trivia host turning up as they will.

In hindsight, I'm glad I'm choosing to self-publish this series. I don't expect a publisher to be cool with "I know deadline's in three weeks but I just booked a recurring, see you month after next!" and suchlike shenanniganry.

But with acting back in a lull, my brain is making me focus on the book details. Which I know are going to be much easier once I've actually done them. But for right now I'm deep in the weeds. The ability to follow a thread on formatting and suchlike helps. Audiobook recording is trickier, like rehearsing for a play where I don't know where the sightlines are. But once I can put together a playing space that passes audible's requirements, adjusting performance to fit will be much simpler.

At least it's keeping me distracted from the real world.

So many times I've been tempted to engage and my brain just says, "book."

It's no comfort knowing that the usual folks who would normally be screaming about what toxic war monkeys people like me are because of Bruen are instead legitimately furious and terrified over the striking down of Roe. And joined by tenfold others.

And I really, really want to grab every single one of those "we'll adopt your baby" signs and cram it in the waver's most delicate orifice. Bitch, there are twice as many kids in the system as there are Marines on active duty. What the fuck is stopping you? Other than it being a lot easier to wave cardboard and convince yourself you're right instead of step up and fucking parent. And I say that as someone who will never be able to foster until I get to a financial point where I can bribe my way past the bigotry.

But, I'm getting my shows done, the house is in order, and I managed to escape long enough for a swim yesterday. I'll take it.

And now my brain is prodding me about a book.

Take care of yourselves out there.

0 Comments

In the center, you may be targeted by all sides. But on the plus side, everyone talks to you.

6/24/2022

0 Comments

I was asked what I believe was an honest and sincere question.

"Would you share with me what makes it okay to kill a baby?"

I answered him honestly.

My response, edited for clarity and personal details, is below.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'm going to take you at your word, and explain as best I am able.

First and foremost, I'm going from the advantageous position of knowing I will never be forced to make this choice, as I am neither a doctor nor a woman.

But from where I'm standing?

It starts with many of the same reasons it can be OK to kill anyone else.

It's not a pleasant choice. But it's a choice that on horrible occasion had to be made.

Pregnancy and childbirth are the number one killer of women worldwide throughout history, full stop.

We're designed rather badly that way. It takes regular access to first world medicine for women to be more likely to die from cancer and heart disease than from childbirth. It happens all the time.

And first world medicine doesn't stop it entirely. I have more than one loved one who had all the access in the world and almost died anyway.

So in that case, it is a matter of self defense.

It's not often thought of that way. People think self defense and they think strangers in dark alleys.

Well, dudes do. But that's a bit of a tangent. A tangent that boils down to the fact that there's a lot of ugly circumstances that can come into play depending on how your life has gone so far.

But even if I can wrap someone's head around it, it's not fully understood that way, because a lot of people don't understand self-defense in general.

I tell the handful of people I've taught that far that there are choices that keep you alive, choices that keep you out of jail, and choices that let you sleep at night.

But the thing about self defense is that you can't truly be forced to defend yourself. Doesn't matter what your weapon is or how much you're trained. Oh, you can be coerced or punished or pressured, but you can't truly be forced. It's your decision and yours alone.

And quite frankly, it should be.

On top of that, something else that is rarely spoken of: Lethal self-defense cannot only be used to counter an attempt to kill. But also attempts to maim. Attempts to commit what the lawyers call grievous bodily harm.

Grievous bodily harm includes rape.

It's rarely used as a trial defense, for reasons any woman in your life can tell you. But it's there on paper. And for much of human history, it was practical as well. Parts of the US had the death penalty for rape of an adult on the books until the 1970's, and for the rape of a child until 2008.

At the bottom of their hearts, a lot of those who rail against self-defense fear people they don't control making such choices.

Many people feeling that fear have taken it out on me over the years. Many don't recognize that that is what they're feeling or what they're doing. But I see it. I can almost smell it on them. And I can smell it when a similar fear is being thrown at other people.

Those who rail against abortion fear women they don't control having the power of life and death within the confines of their body.

I can hear all of your points and arguments. I have heard them all my life.

But I will ignore them for now and look at what you really fear.

And it is a fear.

A woman who controls her own body wields not only the power of life but that of death as well.

One of those would be intimidating enough, but both? In one person? One uncontrolled by a man? Uncontrolled by culture or family or law?

Scary, that.

It is fear that drives every attempt to deny her that power. To deny her that choice. To put obstacle after obstacle in her way, as if risking her own life to bring forth another wasn't obstacle enough.

I would not think to force anyone to defend themselves lethally. But I would let them know that doing so does not diminish their humanity. Despite what politicians and media and the mob think of it. That choice is their own.

Thus do I support a woman's choice. I would not force them into making one or the other. But I would let them know that doing so does not diminish their humanity. Despite what politicians and media and the mob think of it. That choice is their own.

You asked me what makes it OK to kill a baby?

I say your fear has blinded you into believing such choices are that simple.

The way fear of my weapon has blinded others into believing other choices are so simple.

You and they are so concerned with not trusting me or not trusting this hypothetical woman to make an ethical choice that you would deny us the right to make the choice at all.

Neither you nor they are close enough, involved enough, to make an informed choice for me, or for her.
And neither she, nor I, will allow your lack of trust to deny us our choices. They are difficult enough without you.

That is where I stand.

It is a position some may call crude and ugly, but it is one I can live with.

0 Comments

Grab the syrup, here's some hot takes

6/22/2022

0 Comments

So, I just skimmed the gun violence bill, which is probably more than your senator has done by now.

Title I is an expansion of children and family mental health services. Out of my wheelhouse. Could be useful. Could be your standard federal money pit. Could be useless as those old GWOT PTSD tests that accused you of alcoholism if you touched a drop of demon rum. Could go any way.

Title II has the bulk of the gun stuff.

First section allows for juvenile records to be checked under NICS.
Fair enough at first look.

Second section redefines "engaged in the business" by changing "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" to "to predominately earn a profit."

In other words, it's requiring people who flip guns the way people flip houses to be FFL holders. It does make exceptions for people improving or liquidating personal collections. But it also adds language about criminal and terrorist purposes. This is probably to add a federal charge of operating an FFL to anyone who bankrolls the armory of a gang or a terror cell.

Third section allows for Byrne grants to implement state crisis prevention programs.

And here's where I call fuckery.

It claims to insist that such programs account for due process. But then claims the accused have the right to counsel at no expense to the government.

In other words, prove you're innocent on your own dime, uppity peasant.

"we're not infringing on anyone. We're just giving money to states who do it for us."

Thanks, pal. When I get ventilated and my cat gets splattered against the wall by a SWAT team in the dead of night because some jackwagon red-flags me over pics of my next range trip, I'm gonna be real comforted that it was done by a state administration instead of the fed. I'm feeling cozy already.

Fourth section ups the penalties for straw purposes.

Normally I'd be cool with this, especially if I thought it would be enforced. But it also spells out that civil asset forfeiture is a part of the bargain.

There's also a subsection prohibiting DOJ agents from giving guns to known cartel members. Decade late and a dollar short there, but I suppose it's good to know that's one page of the Obama white house playbook that can't be used again.

Section five closes the "boyfriend loophole."

This was always going to be a tough one, but the language they have is workable.

"The term ‘dating relationship’ means a relationship between individuals who have or have recently had a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature... Whether a relationship constitutes a dating relationship under subparagraph (A) shall be determined based on consideration of— (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the nature of the relationship; and (iii) the frequency and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship."

Unfortunately the rest of the subsection becomes Lawdog's cake. DV Offenders in a dating relationship have their 2A rights restored five years after their sentence has been completed, but dv offenders in any other domestic relationship still have those rights permanently stricken.

I can see the question of "why should any dv offenders have the right to own a weapon again ever?"

Same reason we argue over whether convicted felons should be able to vote again.

It's an enumerated right that was taken from an individual upon conviction, and whether or not that right can be restored when they have paid their debt to society is on the table whether we like it or not.

This was a chance for the Democrats to prove they weren't interested in another slice of lawdog's cake.
Instead, they proved that when it comes to gun control, they are all take or no give.

They may have convinced themselves that not insisting on an assault weapons ban or magazine ban were concessions on their end. But to be honest, that was merely not asking for more instead of offering an exchange.

Title III is other matters. What looks like some medicare pork. And provisions for school safety.

Again, a lot of it is outside my wheelhouse. I'd like to think it would help with some school safety measures (like vetting RSO's not to be useless). But for all I know, it's just going to give reason to target kids who like loud music, horror movies, and crappy poetry again.

TBH, I think the straw purchase and boyfriend loopholes are useful, if only to punish actual straw purchasers for once. But the red flag provisions are kicking that can to the states, which will lead to state-by-state fuckery.

Take care of yourselves out there.

0 Comments

Should players be paid for AP's?

6/21/2022

0 Comments

Because the tiny part of me that is masochistic instead of the other way around gets whiny if I don't let him out, I was scrolling twitter earlier, and I came upon the question:

"Should players get paid for AP*s?"

(*actual plays. Live streaming events where people play a ttrpg before the cameras.)

Someone order another round and pull the chairs in, this is gonna take me a while. And I'm not doing it on Twitter.

Performing arts careers have always had gatekeeping and cash flow problems. And performers encountering them have always been thinking up ways to make their own damn gates. Youtube making video streaming practical for laymen users... fuck, almost 20 years ago? Make that next one a double. Anyways, meant that new forms of performance have been followed by new forms of performers looking to make a buck that way. We've seen it with video review shows and we've seen it with cosplay, among others. Now we're seeing it for AP's.

And while @AlliesNerd has a good threat going, there's some big questions that aren't being asked.

Big question one:
"Is the AP in question being run for the sake of the players or for the sake of the audience?"

Leaving that question unasked or trying to weasel out of it by saying "both" will not end well.

If the answer is "the players," then the answer is no. They don't need to be paid. Their focus is on having fun. Let them. The audience is just along for the ride at that point.

(If you want to pay them on general principle, I'm not about to stop you. But I'm also not about to throw shade if you just throw them a party or something if there's anything left after expenses.)

If, however, your AP is situated on drawing a crowd, or, gods help you, a profit, then yes, your players should be paid.

That said, while it will still be more fun, that may require further direction on the DM's part. Performing for your own sake instead of that of the audience is what an old friend of mine calls actorbation. And while it's all well and good if that's understood that's what you're doing, it's not the recipe for a paying gig.

Big question two:
"Where is the money to pay your players coming from?"

(And I swear to Odin, the first little fucker who says anything about a capitalist hellscape is getting strapped down and spanked with an economics textbook until they can scream "free markets work" well enough to make me believe it.)

Twitch seems to allow for the two classic methods of payment: patronage and direct ticketing. Twitch acts as a house manager, splitting subscription revenue with a given streamer. And viewers have an option to donate, which is a method as old as passing a hat around.

Other streams, like merch, really should wait until the first two are established and regular.

Once you've established this, you've got an idea of how many eyes you need on your channel and how often hats need to be passed in order for everyone involved to be paid at least comfortably.

You've also probably realized that you'll need to invest in yourself first in order to have something that brings said eyes on.

Big question three:
"Where is your game at now?"

If you're asking about paying players, you're at one of two stages.

Either your game hasn't started and you're dreaming about the future.

Or, you've been playing for a while, suddenly there's money, and you're figuring out what to do.

The first stage is the better one to start thinking such things with by far.

The second is possible, but everyone involved needs to tread lightly.

Because, one of the big ugly secrets of art history?

If the question "you're getting paid for this?" was answered early, often, and honestly? A significant portion of the world's collaborated art would never have been made.

Which is part of the reason transparency on such things is like pulling teeth (looking at you, theater.)

Yes, some of it is undoubtedly due to greed.

But I'd wager that most is the result of wanting the art to happen being a higher priority than paying everyone who should be.

Unfortunately, the greedy have learned long ago that "the show must go on" gets sympathy. Figuring out what is which is an ongoing problem.

So, some things to keep in mind:

What are the sunk costs?

Cameras, mics, lights, computers. How much did you buy for the purpose? (and how much wear and tear are you putting on your personal gear?)

Who's working behind the scenes? Sound, light, camera, editing, artwork? Because they've earned their cut too.

Who's getting hit with the tax paperwork and the payment processor fees? Such things should be accounted for.

This is why contracts spelling out daily rates or percentages of the take get signed before the picture comes out, folks.

Big question four:
(and this is really for those who are trying to make money from the ground up)
"What are you bringing to the audience that nobody else is?"

At this point I'm assuming that you've decided to do this for money, and are working towards that end. So I have to ask you what makes people want to watch your AP? What about you, your game, and your players will bring in the 600 bottom tier subscribers it will take to make what twitch calls a successful streamer?

Critical Role has a simple premise: "professional voice actors play D&D."

One sentence says it all. It's the gaming equivalent of watching headliner musicians record a jam session.

Tabletop, the spiritual ancestor of ap's, had a simple premise: "Wil Wheaton and guests play a new board game every week."

Yes, the first and most successful examples of ap's were people who were already involved in the industry trying something different.

Now there's a lot of AP's out there. What is it about your game that makes you different?

The answer doesn't need to be complicated. In fact, simple is better. But it does need to fit in a sentence or two and it needs to hook me from there.

TV and movies have to do this at every level, from getting pitched to getting made to getting audiences.

Buffy the vampire slayer is "A monster stalks a cute girl into a dark alley. She kicks his ass."

John Wick is, "Gang thugs beat up a random guy, kill his dog, and steal his car. That random guy was the deadliest man in the underworld, and that dog and car were the last things he ever cared about."

The Untouchables is, "The handful of cops in Chicago who aren't on the take band together to take down Al Capone."

One or two sentences, you know what you're in for and you want to know what happens next.

(This is not completely foolproof. Some movies are really difficult to sum up this way. And even if those movies are really good, they suffer commercially. The Princess Bride is one of my favorites ever, and it tanked at the box office. To this day it is taught in marketing classes for it's unsellability. Because encompassing it in a marketing pitch is damn near impossible. Everything Everywhere All At Once STILL hasn't broken $100M at the US box office despite being the most incredible movie I've seen in a decade.

That said, you're not trying to redefine cinema. You're trying to get subscribers on your channel to watch your ap, thence to get paid. So make with the marketing pitch.)

I'm not trying to be a crusty old capitalist mercenary (although I absolutely am one).

I'm glad people's first instinct is to pay those that made the magic happen for them.

We need more of that attitude in the world. (Still fucking talking to you, theater)
But questions of "can?" and "how?" definitely need to be answered before anyone starts attaching numbers to "should?"

Anywise, take care of yourselves out there.

0 Comments

Sounds like

6/15/2022

0 Comments

It's said that scientific discovery sounds less like "eureka!" and more like, "huh. That's wierd."
Sometimes heroism sounds less like "follow me!" and more like, 'wait, WTF?"
There's not a whole lot of press when a riot is stopped before it ever starts. But one in Idaho, where a bunch of Patriot front yahoos were all arrested before they ever got near a Pride event they were looking to disturb, is getting a bit of attention.
What stopped them?
Someone at their hotel noticing a platoon's worth of uniformed, masked, and armored guys loading up into a uhaul and called the cops. The uhaul was stopped within 10 minutes, and everyone there was arrested for conspiracy to riot.
There's a lot of conversation about the state of the world in general and security at Pride in particular that I don't need to be joining.
But I wanted to point out that a good bit of ugly was prevented the other day not from thrilling heroics, but from one working stiff saying, "wait, WTF?"

0 Comments

sigh

6/8/2022

0 Comments

Look folks, complaining that an actor said stupid shit about guns is like complaining the sun rose in the east. It's not gonna stop, so don't waste your time.
The ones that have a clue don't dare say so too loud on official platforms. They can barely talk about it at work without being looked at like they grew a second head. And in a business where you're always wondering where your next job is gonna be, nobody can risk doing so for long, lest they be considered... problematic.
I could say McConaughey is a local of Uvalde, born and raised, and thus has a personal stake in the matter.
I could also point out that he came within a hair's breadth of running for Governor of Texas this year, and there may be a political angle being played.
Would I like more actors to be better educated and able to speak freely? Absolutely.
But it is what it is. And making inaccurate cries of hypocrisy because they've fired guns onscreen is a bad argument that doesn't work.
I've done a stoner comedy and I don't indulge at all.
I've played a demon and I have nothing to do with Satanism.
Kindly give others of my ilk the same benefit of doubt.

0 Comments

Speaking as a Marine Corps combat veteran...

6/2/2022

0 Comments

Marine corps combat veterans are no more or less likely than the general population to be complete fucking idiots.
Seriously, I knew a guy who was an absolute virtuoso behind the trigger of a S.A.W. If there was a Mozart of light machine guns, it was this guy.
He still had a room temperature IQ and the kind of personal hygiene normally found in barnyard animals.
The Marine Corps, for all I love it, is still a government bureaucracy that does stupid shit on a regular basis.
Combat experience, on the other hand, is just as much a function of being in the right place at the right time as anything else.
Someone opening their argument with either, or even worse, both, is making a weaksauce appeal to authority. Probably because the thrust of their argument fucking sucks.
They're not a pearl of wisdom dispenser.
They're the proverbial guy on the other end of the bar trying to get their proverbial dick wet, and they're checking to see if you'll proverbially buy what they're selling.
If you're down for that, then go in peace.
But try to have a solid grasp of what you're actually agreeing with.
Take care of yourselves out there.

0 Comments

I have a book brain at the moment

In the center, you may be targeted by all sides. But on the plus side, everyone talks to you.

Grab the syrup, here's some hot takes

Should players be paid for AP's?

Sounds like

sigh

Speaking as a Marine Corps combat veteran...

Jay Peterson

Archives

Categories

Certa Bonum Certamen

I have a book brain at the moment

In the center, you may be targeted by all sides. But on the plus side, everyone talks to you.

Grab the syrup, here's some hot takes

Should players be paid for AP's?

Sounds like

*sigh*

Speaking as a Marine Corps combat veteran...

﻿Jay Peterson﻿

Archives

Categories

Certa Bonum Certamen

sigh

Jay Peterson