M. Stefan Strozier

The speech that Obama gave in Berlin is his worst of all. It’s really, really bad. I read it, I didn’t see it, but I imagine that the only thing that saved it was Obama himself, the actor, and even he may not have been enough. On Charlie Rose’s communist hour, I heard guests defending the speech, notably a New York Times journalist. Clearly, this speech was not written by Obama, or at least someone else’s voice is in it. The last time Obama had another person’s voice in his speech was way back around Iowa. This time, the writer is trying desperately to sound “presidential”, whereas in Iowa there was much more of a campaign feel to it. I suppose it could be the same person – both versions sucked. Between Berlin and Iowa, I am willing to bet that most of the speeches were written by Obama, with Philadelphia being his best one. So Obama passed the buck on this speech, it looks like.

We have here a great public speaker, maybe the best I’ve seen in my lifetime. Obama is better than Clinton or Reagan, and from what I can tell watching TV, better than Jack Kennedy. And, Obama happens to be a very talented writer, speeches included, and if he really tries, he can assemble a great speech. But it’s clear that it’s a lot of work for him to do that, and he doesn’t have the time to bother with it. Coupled with these dynamics is some of the worst speech writing in history. So, when Obama gets lazy and says, “Ah, screw it, I’m tired,” and the fill-in takes over, the quality falls off the cliff. It’s interesting because with another speaker, like Clinton or Reagan, that might work – and perhaps those two had slightly better writers working for them. But for Obama it does not work, and it’s fun to watch him screw up, royally. He’s really in a bind here too, I feel, because he doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who likes to BS a lot. If a speech sucks, he’s probably willing to “change”.  I’m wondering what he does next. His problem is all the people who desperately want to write his speeches have egos the size of Texas; but still no talent. Of course, I am still willing to help him with his speeches, for a reasonable fee. I was going to try and edit this speech; but forget about it, it’s just too bad. The whole thing is an expositional history lesson. He spends the first half struggling with some metaphor about walls and the second half in a senatorial lecture and then tries to tie the two together. I couldn’t find one sentence worth a nickel.

The presidential campaign has taken its first major formation in the continuing debate about Iraq. Even the economy has not surpassed Iraq as defining the 2 candidates. Why? The media has been ignoring Iraq since last fall, after General Petraeus made his assessment. But the fact is Iraq continues to guide American foreign policy and economic policy (which is reactionary) and to some degree, domestic policy. The Iraq War is choosing our president. The American people – for about a year now – have ceded that that must change, and are prepared to take whatever action is required of them to bring about a change. McCain is very convincing in his argument because “the facts on the ground” are on his side. Obama is arguing that we should have gotten out a year or more ago – and I agree with him about that – and that by leaving we will force the Iraqis to govern themselves.

Here’s a little ditty for President Bush: If Obama’s goal of ending the Iraq War proves to be successful, then George Bush’s policy will have been proven to be a failure. McCain wanted the Surge, which saved Bush’s policy – or lack of it – in Iraq. Now McCain is talking of the “success” of Iraq and that we can’t “jeopardize our gains” and that our troops must leave with “honor”. The fact is it’s better to leave with dignity then to perpetuate failure, hoping for honor to come about in the future, as McCain advocates doing. At a minimum, we must recognize that Iraq is never going to be wholly stable, and there will always be violence there. So we can only achieve stabilization in Iraq, not “success” or “victory” or “honor”. And, my feeling is that calling the Surge a success right now is idiotic; in July, 2008, Iraq is far, far from being a “success”. McCain is only able to con us into letting him use that term because we’re so tired of the war. (I’ve noticed that the further we get into the political season the more I use “quotes”. I think it’s because there is so much “BS” out there I have to qualify every “statement” I make.)

Here’s one more thing we should not forget about McCain. John McCain lost his war and he failed at his mission and was a POW. There is nothing honorable about being a POW, in a military sense. Frankly, I am not even sure why we regard him as a war hero. He is a veteran, like every other veteran. When he returned home, there was much talk about McCain’s “honor” but that was a reaction to the fact that American servicemen returned from the Vietnam War and were spit on and treated horribly by the Hippies. Maybe McCain deserves some honor for representing to Americans what their servicemen were experiencing for freedom’s sake, and the extent to which servicemen will suffer in that cause, and that that sacrifice does not deserve derision; but that has nothing to do with his military record. And that is in the past. Who cares? I don’t care! Some Obama aide made a comment along these lines recently and there was a big flare up in the media. Why? We should realize that whenever McCain uses the word “honor” we have to be very careful to remember his past, and realize that honor is a very sensitive subject with him.

So if we leave Iraq, setting timetables as we should have done long ago, and then Iraq is stabilized, the huge question will immediately become, “Why in the **** didn’t we do that years ago?” This further proves that Bush does not have a clue about what he is doing, even as he races to send troops home so that he can appear to show that his policy won the war. But ending the war will only happen when the troops come home, in dramatic and honorable fashion. Why can’t they come home honorably right now?! It’s insulting and downright mean for McCain to insist that they can’t. The troops accomplished all that they could have long ago in Iraq; but were then made to keep at it long after that. And nothing really changed, nor will it change much in the future. Again, we’re back into McCain’s psyche, which says, “No, no, the servicemen must suffer for decades, and submit to pain and torture and death, and only then can they achieve ‘honor’”.

And, if the troops come home now and we still “win” – which means stabilizing Iraq – then Bush will have “lost”. That is the reality. If you accept this reality, instead of what Bush wants and McCain preaches (maintain a presence for decades, continue on war footing, etc.), then you can appreciate how much McCain’s sermons make my blood seethe. He surrounds himself with veterans with canes who clap when he talks about “victory”. Liar! How dare you negotiate American policy with the lives of our servicemen, and use them to perpetuate your political campaign! Who the hell do you think you are, for chrissake? The only victory in Iraq will happen when we leave. We can leave now. We should have left a long time ago. You are gambling wrong, senator! And, if we can leave, then why should we stay a minute longer, and perpetuate George Bush’s massive failure? The notion of trying to secure victory is aimed at one thing and one thing only: Bush’ legacy. We are and have been fighting only to “win” the unknown and undefined policy of Bush’s. We must end that. We must accept that Bush failed in Iraq. We must accept that Bush will never win in Iraq – not as he envisioned. Then, Iraq will become stable. Then and only then will we truly win.

Bush must be tried as a war criminal for his failure in Iraq.

Watching Obama, it is clear how new he is at all of this, especially military matters. McCain does look like a pro here, and he is outshining Obama. McCain is more forceful and convincing. The problem is McCain is wrong. Still, if we didn’t have 6 years of failure to help us decide, it would hard to resist McCain’s position. My advice to Obama is to never forget that you are the one in charge – something Bush never grasped. The military is a servant to the president, nothing more. Maybe that is being too kind. The US military is like the president’s dog, and should be ordered like a dog, and if the dog does not obey the president’s orders then the dog should be severely beaten with a large stick (that’s a joke – beatings don’t work, anyway). The only interest the dog should have is how much fun it can have trying to obey the president’s orders i.e. how high to jump. Under no circumstances should the dog be ordering the master. Under a very weak, useless president and coward of a man like Bush, that is what has happened, whether subtly or overtly. The military does not make policy, twist facts or interpret things, and if they do then they are breaking American law – and every officer fundamentally understands and accepts that. The military follows orders. It’s part of what makes us a great country. And I believe the reason we have this luxury is largely due to the strength of courage of presidents past. McCain is trying to show everyone that he “understands” the military better than Obama, and that fact gives him added leverage. But leverage is unnecessary with the military, if they are governed properly. Recall how the general that bad-mouthed Bill Clinton was quickly removed. Generals continued to bad-mouthed Clinton – I heard it myself; we all have our opinions, after all – but they did so in private. By demonstrating that he understands he is in charge of the military, Obama will be contrasting from McCain, who is really like Bush in his buddy-buddy-I’m-a-Republican-officer presidency leadership style. Note that Jimmy Carter was a naval officer and sub commander – a top job in the Navy, despite his quite demeanor. Every president forms a unique bond with the military; Obama needs to break from Bush’s failed military policy and form his own bond.

The way a president uses his military is a big part of being president and Obama clearly is a novice in this area, and you can tell he doesn’t have a clue about the military. The only word I have ever heard him use for anything dealing with the military is “brigades”. I think this is actually a Donald Rumsfeld term. The army is discussed in divisions and always has been – those are the patches soldiers wear on their shoulders and where their hearts lie. Obama should say he is going to redeploy 2^nd and 1^st infantry divisions by July 4^th or Christmas – or whatever – that’s how it has always been done. This does anyway with any talk of “timelines”. The timelines we keep discussing are an integral part of Bush’s policy, or a reaction to a policy he never had. Obama’s policy is simply redeployment and an end to the war – make it happen. ‘A brigade per month’ is Rumsfeld talking, and further continuation of the Bush legacy. If Obama is going to end this war, then he should talk like he is going to end it. Otherwise, he’s talking as if he were arguing the finer points of Bush’s misguided policy. Then, like Kennedy, Obama should get up to speed on Special Operations, and send those bastards out to fight the War on Terror. Unlike Kennedy, Obama shouldn’t lose his battles. He should start bringing the regular military forces – who have done more than enough – home for good and make this a Special Ops war.

I approve of Obama lately, since he has shifted to the center of the political spectrum. I hope he does not lurch back to the Left. For now, no worries; he is what I would call an ideal president – the best I can imagine, frankly, living or dead. He is charismatic, young, a strong leader, open to discussion and new ideas and not set in his ways – and he is my age, of my generation. I could care less what he wants to implement – I’m for it! Who is the swing voter this year? It’s not soccer moms. It’s Independents – primarily white men, ideally those living in or from the Midwest, centrist, pro-military – that’s me! I am afraid Obama’s speeches have gotten bad, however, and he suffers from a lack of good writers. Fair or not, speeches are about 80% of how he will be remembered. What will he say in Germany, for example? He is incapable of turning a phrase, though he is often very clear. Even when he writes a good speech himself, like the one on race he gave in Philadelphia, it could have been considerably better with a good writer. I continue to offer my paid services here.

But enough about politics, I have little use for it. I live in the world of publishing and theater, and politics is useless here. Your reply is probably ‘ah, but those worlds are full of politics’. That may have been true years ago, back to the 1960s, but it’s not the case anymore – at least not from my point of view. Art is supreme, and resistance to that notion is futile and weak. Business is important, yes, but not politics. There are still places where that’s not reality, such as the New York Times, or the New Yorker, or university theater programs – or even a big, old-school publishing house that is tied to old business models; but how much power do any of these things really have anymore? Advertising is the key, and the money is on the Internet. Soon, my vision will dominate, and the money will flow our way in ever-larger amounts. Woe to those who resist, for they shall pay a price.

I am writing a couple of words here, not sure why, exactly. This blog is a strange beast, in that it does not earn me a dime — not even the ads are clicked; but there is a steady group of readers, and new ones too. So it’s valuable as a marketing tool. I have an essay I will post here very soon, and my play, La Revolution will be at my Web site in a matter of weeks.

Obama is heading to Iraq. Ever since America realized Iraq is a failure, several years ago, there was a question about when we would leave, and how long it would take us to do that. Obama keeps talking about “1 to 2 brigades per month”. The fact is the military can leave much faster if they are ordered to do that. This notion of generals pressuring a presidential candidate reminds me of Scotty telling Kirk that “he needs more time, captain.” Do it! Now! That’s what the president should tell his generals if he has any cohones.

Iraq is more stable these days. The Republicans cling to the notion of “success” but that will never come. We have already failed and the sooner we leave the better we will all be, and so will our economy. A stable Iraq will never be worth our efforts and price paid. But more to the point, we seem to equate success with a sense of mission accomplishment. Bush, of course, makes that his goal. In fact, that is not going to happen. Iraq is going to change dramatically over the coming years, it will never be “over and done” as an issue. We just need to leave and move on, so that our country can heal, and so can our economy.

I have a headache the size of Jupiter and I am sick. This happens when I near the end of one of my plays, as I am now, with La Revolution, my 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution. I am overwhelmed that it all works and is excellent. Once I post it, the typical idiots will say this and that. Meanwhile, I will move on to the next play, which will be the first half of Mexican history. I am already looking forward to that, and have started reading. I have to find a few more corridos for La Revolution. They are proving to be quite obscure.

I noticed when I blog a lot, like yesterday, I get a lot more readers. Imagine that. But how the hell do you know to read when I am blogging vs. when I am not?

I watched this documentary on PBS about a sculptor in El Paso who made this giant 36 foot horse of a conquistador. It turns out that the conquistador had been sent on a mission from Mexico City — probably by Cortes — to take New Mexico (hence the name?), which he did by rape, pillage and man-eating dogs, among other things. And, this sculptor decided to make a statue of this historical figure to increase tourism to downtown El Paso. He got a boatload of funding, millions of dollars, which is no surprise to me. Anyway, at the end of the movie, the local Indian people, who are direct descendents of the people that were killed by this conquistador, realized what was happening and protested. They were very upset and challenged the sculptor directly. The sculptor, John Houser, then also realized the damage he had caused — apparently for the first time. Mr. Houser said he was sorry.

What an amazing story. I would end my comment here; but the point is the statue is still there, and the people have to live with it. Thus, this story is related to the purpose of my 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution, called La Revolution. This history has yet to be told, at least accurately, or even very well. There are some movies on it, but they are hither and thither, not very good, and certainly not serious art. This history is a crucial part of America too, not just Mexico and Indians indigenous to Mexico, or even the US. It is American history too. And I am the first to write a play about it! So even though I am moving beyond New York, I am really going above New York, in fresh ideas, great work, and relevance. I am only interested in the Mexican story — screw the US. We’ve already heard that part of the story — a la this statue — and it largely sucks, or isn’t told well. The statue itself — to me — looks like a giant cliche. 5-act plays like La Revolution by M. Stefan Strozier, that are excellent and great art, will define this history, and I am the first to do it. We’ll dance circles around this statue. And, when I am done, I am moving backwards in time. I plan on at least one more 5-act play on Mexican history, I don’t think there is a third one but I may be wrong. There is definitely another 5-act there, however. And the second one will write the history of this statue. For now, La Revolution is more timely anyway.

Back to writing it. I am getting close to finishing. I will post it when I am done, on my Web site.

But before I get to that, I have to say that Joe Biden would be the best choice for VP for Obama. He’s just the guy least likely to cause trouble, and be the most positive.

Mr. Obama, I say again, you need to hire me as your speech writer. Your speeches are getting bad again. The timing of the speeches are good, and the topics and subjects are generally on target; but your delivery is sloppy. You sound like a boring senator again. At the beginning of your primary campaign, you sounded like you had a bad speech-writer whom you were making look very good. Then, you branched off and maybe read some of my suggestions, and your best speeches were the one in the Georgia church about the Walls of Jericho and the one on race in Philadelphia. The patriotism was okay. This one on foreign policy is bad, it sucks, it’s very boring. I’m going to sleep here, bro. zzzzzzzzzzzzz. But really, it’s all about how you say it. Here’s one little suggestion: don’t tell us you “already said that” or you’ve been telling us something for a long time. You’re going to lose that way, pretty damn fast. You’re only out is becoming a boring senator. You’re not appealing to middle-of-the-road white America like this. Look: my fee is low. Let’s talk. Go to my Web site. I don’t have to agree with everything you say if you’re paying me. I will make your speeches A+s I will connect you to the white middle-class man. I don’t think you can do it on your own, bro. I don’t think you’re going to make it. If I have not seen a good speech-writer on your staff yet, then there ain’t any. Let’s get you elected!

I just watched Obama’s foreign policy speech. You see, what is McCain doing right now? He’s talking about the great speech that Obama just gave, saying he (McCain) is better than Obama. Then why ain’t you giving a speech, brother? This is how you can tell a leader from a wanna-be. The one is taking action, the other is talking. And it was a damn good speech too.

* * *

I am now in the final stage of writing my 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution, called La Revolution. I have read Aristotle’s Poetics cover to cover several more times this week. Every time I read it, I learn something new, it’s incredible. This time, I have come to understand what he meant by the two kinds of tragedies and epics, the simple and pathetic, and the complex and ethical. Aristotle says that the Iliad is the former and the Odyssey is the latter. I feel my first play, Guns, Shackles & Winter Coats, was a simple and pathetic tragedy. In fact, one critic, who only read the book–and while begrudgingly admitting that he thought the play had merit–thought he was getting the last word by insisting that the lead character, Sgt. John Brown, was “pathetic”. Ha! Exactly. If I look at Hamlet, then, it qualifies as simple and pathetic too. Hamlet, like Achilles, is pathetic. Lear, for example, is complex and ethical, if that makes sense, because his problems are ethical problems and he experiences reversal of fortune and the other elements of a complex tragedy. I should note that all of this is what I think. I am not concerned with some academic interpretation.

There was a run on the banks over the last couple of days, did you hear? This is the first time I’ve read about this kind of thing in my lifetime, and I’ve always kept up on the news. I wonder if we’re not actually on the fringes of a depression. President Bush is such a failure. The problem is made worser because he is such a loser, and a poor leader, and since we’re in 2 wars this has real impact on the economy. War as a policy, which is Bush’s wish, means death, failure, and destruction — just ask the Roman Empire. Oh wait, we can’t ask it because it’s dead!

The answer is to fund the arts! Go to this link now and give your money and we will save you! Or, buy a book at this link and read it and get smarter!

The current cover to the New Yorker is a great example of the idiocy of Liberals. It’s this kind of self-indulgent, academic, highly political writing that is typical of the 1960s. They try to be highbrow, but in fact, they are not even very good at what they are doing i.e. writing, art, literature, etc. The editor, David Remnick, claims that this cover is “satire” but it’s not. Satire is a very simply thing, really. Many people claim to grasp it and insist they are great satirists. That is because everyone wants to be in on the joke, lest they look like the fool. Satire is taking something that someone takes seriously and making it funny, in order to make a point and show that the topic at hand is full of BS. (See what I mean?) Thus, take this cover: there is an attempt at satire that falls short of this definition. The issue in question is Obama himself, that is what they are mocking. Mr. Remnick is trying to satirize the Republican Party political attack machine but where are they, or anything they represent, on the cover? What we have here is hearsay. The reason there are so few good satirists, and so few at all, is because when satire misses it’s mark the result can be very painful and devastating. When it hits, however, virtually no one notices. Indeed, that is the satirist’s greatest reward, and he gets the last laugh. As you can see, this attack has missed its mark, and has ended up hurting those it meant to help.

Obama has spoken out against the politics of 1960s, and its culture, and this is one of the things I admire about him. He is, however, at his core, a liberal too, and that worries me. But Obama is still learning. McCain perfectly embodies the Republican Party: feisty but very old and probably not far from death. I’m torn.

I have not blogged for a couple of days. I do not feel guilty. It’s your damn loss, not mine. Look: I need to explain a few things. (I’ll be posting a number of things today.) Part of the point of this blog is to try and understand who the hell are my readers. This does bother me as a subject. It is a rather extensive topic too. I am a writer and I have been all of my life. Here’s a good analogy: frequently these days people vie for attention in the media, from the streaker on the baseball diamond to the actress promoting her pet cause. Each person feels they “deserve” attention, for their cause, but really for themselves. Every career has a purpose, right? If you want people to look at your buildings for decades or even centuries, then become an architect (although I find that career very boring and highly overrated, frankly, and not qualifying as art; urban planning is far more interesting). If you want to change the Earth, then go into waste management. Most careers can impact our lives in fundamental ways. Writers steal your attention. That is our job. Writers do whatever they want, and you will pay attention to what we say, period. Newspapers are simply a watered-down version of writing’s influence on culture and society. In America, writers are undervalued, and under-utilized. But not me. That’s why, even though I ignore you and could care less about your welfare, you keep coming back to this blog. ‘Nuff said, like the comic book.

Having said that, I have yet to determine who I am trying to connect with. Do I want a mass audience, or a smaller, refined one? What do I want to say, and how can I change things as I see fit? I feel like I have not yet found my focus. Here’s what I mean: when I wrote and produced my plays, there was no question that I am a great playwright. But in a country of very jealous people and weak, undervalued writers, that comes as something of a shock. But facts is facts. I played to full houses, over and over and over. I had no help. The acting sucked, with a few notable exceptions. There were ZERO sets or costumes. There was nothing. My scripts were not even finished; they were rough drafts, no kidding. And I was charging up to $25 a ticket, far more than the $15 going rate. People eagerly paid me and wanted more. I went until every last ounce of free labor went dry and then I had to stop; but I could have kept going if I had ANY DAMN MONEY!! You get the point.

Her name is Cathy and she lives in Brooklyn and there is now a Restraining Order to her to stay away from my family or me.

So, no, I haven’t blogged in a few days and I am a bit off of my game (I realize that’s the intended effect). At moments like these, things tend to crystallize, and you can see very clearly through the crystal. I always try to take advantage of such temporal shifts. I don’t think this makes me any weaker or stronger, per say, just in need of a change. The problem is New York, I have determined. Theater holds nothing for me here, so there is no more point hanging around any more. I will never advance as a playwright/writer in a New York that has soundly rejected me. Regional theater is the key. Now to pick a location. I don’t think New York even matters anymore. I could be wrong; but I don’t care.

* * *

My writing continues, unabated. Now that my 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution, called La Revolution, is beginning to take real shape, I have turned my eye to Poetics (Aristotle) and Shakespeare for guidance and here are some of the things I have found. Most of this I already knew but I had to reconsider in the present play. For one, Shakespeare did not write his tragedies in one day, they were extended over many months, even years. I can see why it is best to contain all the action in one day but it’s near-impossible to do that. Other than that, I am contemplating Shakespeare and what he did and why. There are many ways he followed Poetics, such as when the action stops, or pauses, having the Thought occur. In other words, speeches take place in lulls in the action, like with Marc Anthony or Hamlet’s “To be or not to be”. I’m noticing that Shakespeare stole directly from the Greeks too, I’ve even found some direct quotes from Euripides. The man was a serious, professional plagiarist, there’s no question about that.

But my main discovery is that I am constructing what I have been calling an “epic play”. I wrote that, and going back to my notes in Poetics, I see now the course I was traveling all along. In Poetics, Aristotle talks much about writing a tragedy vs. writing an epic poem, like the Iliad or Odyssey, and how the two things overlap. So what I’ve done is write an epic tragedy. It is an epic poem for the stage, one that takes on all of the elements of tragedy. That’s not exactly it, but close enough for comparison. What I’ve done is take a tragedy and form it into my own making, stretching and bending the rules, the way Shakespeare made his own thing. It’s quite fun.

One little footnote: I’ve found that the notion of “character driven action,” that is often cited by teachers of theater writing, is a misnomer. Once you get to a certain point, you can see that there are people who claim to be experts actually don’t have a clue.

You may have noticed that I frequently write that I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution. That’s right; I do repeat it, because by often mentioning that I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution, you begin to slowly realize and accept that I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution. That’s the reason why I continue to mention that I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution (did I already say that?)

There is a strong bias for anything that is new in America. This comes from our fanatic media. I really don’t agree with this bias; but that’s another, long story, one which I play out online. But if I consider this bias for what it is, I can understand that maybe it derives from the fact that we have such few things worth repeating. I am talking about writing and art. In Europe, for example, they have many things worth repeating, like, say, Shakespeare. In America, we do not have a great theater. Then sentence alone caused people to weep and gnash their teeth in agony; but it is true. We have had no Shakespeare, Sophocles, Euripides, Chekov, Ibsen, etc. Our O’Neill, Miller, and Williams are not in this league. Am I wrong? So let’s accept that. The same can be said – though to a slightly lesser degree – of poetry, painting, and prose but I won’t “go there”, in part, I admit, because I am not confident enough. After all, I was ran out of the English department in college (and very happily ended up in geology). In theater, however, the evidence is stark, and I can talk authoritatively.

I have found that in theater there tends to be an almost fanciful wish to achieve mediocrity. We Americans want to do theater “our way”. That is because, one, we are Americans and independently-minded, and two, because there is a lot of illusion in theater. It is a place where one is easily made to believe something that is, in fact, not remotely true. By the miniscule percentage of those who have had to begrudgingly admit that I might have something in the way of talent, I have been told that my writing exhibits a strong voice, and that I have a conversationalist style, as if that is simply one way to write plays. No, that is the only way to write for the stage. Clarity, strength, and power make good plays, nothing else.

And, plays must adhere to very strict structures. Note how in America we are well-known for our love of de-constructionists, like Pinter, Albee, or Beckett. ‘Theater of the Absurd’ is nothing more than a sideshow; it is not the main stage. It is a response to what is true, and is therefore temporary and weaker than the truth. But since we have never been able to produce on the main stage, we rally to the sideshow, and defend it vociferously.

Nowadays, we have TV shows on the stage and call it theater. There are strict rules (would-be playwrights are told this) to write 3-5 characters if you hope to see your work produced. Williams, Miller, and O’Neill wrote when TV and movies were not equal to theater, they were less powerful or important than theater. However, America was a new country too, and so was its theater. These playwrights wrote plays with limited characters because they did not reach a level where they could write 5-act plays with 25-some characters, like every great playwright in history did. And, TV and the movies grew quickly and applied pressure to our playwrights, to conform to the new rules. The growth of theater in America was stunted as a result, and had not advanced since that period. But theater can advance in America. In England, theater is more important that TV or the movies. In America, the opposite is true. Theater can, in fact, dominate our culture, and rather easily.

That is why I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution. Writing a 5-act play with 25-some characters is much harder to do than writing a 2-act play with 3-5 characters, which I have done. That is why all truly great playwrights in history wrote 5-act plays, because they are more challenging, and demand more of their audiences. Those great playwrights were not concerned with the economics of their country, or of any competitors, because they knew that their 5-act plays would be great, and recognized as such. Those great playwrights did not reach a certain point and then conform or stop. No, they continued on, and broke through the next obstacle. Now that I am writing a 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution called La Revolution, I have no idea how Shakespeare or Sophocles did it on a regular basis. This feat is far more difficult than anything I have ever tried. Has any American playwright ever written a 5-act play? Certainly, 5-act plays have never been produced in America. However, even though Shakespeare is edited nowadays, in this country, for the most part there are many productions of his full work, and the long plays by other playwrights. It’s only American playwrights that have never reached this level.

I will reach that level. And I will be the first American to do it and the best for many years to come.

The lesson to be drawn from the failure of President Bush is that he must be held accountable. For me, that is priority no. 1. The fact that he escaped impeachment is wrong. He did it by inciting terror, claiming that we have no choice but to keep him in power, if we value our security and our lives. But, the fact is, things are never that bad. And even if they are that bad, we are strong enough to withstand them, and because of the principles we must hold dear, we should face any unknown together. It is better to stand straight, independently, then to hobble after someone else. Bush is a war criminal, and he needs to face a court. If he simply walks away from all this, mumbling, ‘I told you so’, what have we become? If he made us follow him and he was proven right, then okay; but that is not what happened, was it? No, he has been proven sadly wrong. Part of this depends on if we can ever admit that Iraq was a failure. We have, still, yet to define Iraq, our goals, our purpose, the value of our sacrifice, the meaning of our presence. Listen to Americans argue about how it must be that we are in Iraq ‘because of the oil’, as if we did not understand that fact. Bush would have us wait another five years to figure out Iraq, and he has laid that trap on purpose, to avoid prosecution. We must define Iraq now, and we are far too late in doing it, though we have been actively prevented from doing so by Bush. My position has been clear for some time. Iraq is already a failure. It has been a failure since about 2004. The reason is mankind cannot survive if we allow wars to become a policy decision that can be perpetuated. Precisely because Bush is so inept otherwise, he is able to utilize the primary, most readily available tool, the military, at whim. Bush did not even have to think about what he was doing when he used the military to invade Iraq. Then, having done that, he realized it was his one key to power, and he had to keep it in use to remain in power. We must recognize that fact, and then we can see that Iraq is a failure and has been so for years. Wars are fought for very specific, limited purposes, and then fought to win. We have done neither thing in Iraq. Now, we will never win. All we can hope for is to come to terms with why we are there and then leave as soon as possible. And, then we need to recognize what Bush has done to the American people. We cannot accept the argument – Bush’s – that stabilizing Iraq will be worth our effort and bring Americans security by allegedly excoriating Al Qaida in Iraq. The world is not that simple, and we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security by the actions of very weak leader like Bush, who’s only purpose in life is to prove that he is right – that his actions were right, when in fact they were not right, they were wrong. Achieving these goals of Bush – he would not even call them goals – are inconsequential, and were accomplished years ago. That is why we can leave, because there will not be chaos if we leave. Bush is a bad habit that we must break. And he must pay a price for selling us his poison.

That’s a pretty good piece of writing. I think I’ll keep adding to it and publish it in the December issue of audience. It’s almost like a Restraining Order to this citizen to stay away from me and my family, right? Isn’t that crazy?? Hey, there’s a lot of freaks out there, sometimes you have to tell people in no uncertain terms to leave you alone or face legal consequences. Otherwise, they just don’t “get it”.

Well, I am working away at my play about the Mexican Revolution, La Revolution. I suppose I should set a date when I will post it at my Web site. It will definitely be some time in July, how’s that?

Some time ago on my blog – you may not recall – I said that I was going to write you a letter. It was to be inspired by the letter that Diaz Soto y Gama wrote to Carranza during the Mexican Revolution. At that time, I was not entirely ready to draft such a letter, however. You still had over a year left in office and I was not yet clear in my assessment of your immense failures. The time has arrived.

I am a citizen of my country, and I address you as a citizen that you will shortly become. I will soon be your equal. As equals, it is inadvisable that we ever meet. Therefore, you need to avoid me at all costs. I, however, am going to pursue you, and hound you until the day you die, and even beyond your grave, with my words. I have heard you say that you hope to return to your ranch in Crawford to do farm work. But as a writer and an artist, my words will travel to Texas too, and linger for many years, in the local library, perhaps on the stage, if I am successful. My words – and some others with me – shall follow you for a long time. You are familiar with spying on Americans through the library, yes? And you wife is a librarian. So you have a good understand of how a library works and will have no problem finding my work. As a citizen you will have no power over me of any kind. Indeed, I will have power over you. And as my influence as a writer grows, I will never forget what you have done to ruin my nation. I will not permit others to forget.

I draft this letter on the 4th of July, our nation’s birthday. The last 8 years have been the worst years that I have witnessed America suffer in my lifetime. Those years must be among the worst our nation has ever endured. As a person, you are a moron. You have the personality of a goat, or perhaps an ass. Simply witnessing your election in 2000 was uninspiring. You were not justly elected to become president of the United States. Our Supreme Court had to vote you into office by a vote of 5-4. You lost the popular vote. There was voting suppression and tampering with ballots. The election of 2000 that brought you into office was a farce, and the world laughed at us for the first of many times to come in the next 8 years.

Once in office, you ignored your duties, much as I recall your father playing golf while I was working 23-hour-days, as a soldier in Germany preparing to go to war in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. You were rarely at your desk and often on vacation. You moved the White House to your ranch in Crawford, a brazen act and the first of its kind. This act seemed to denote your style too, one of defiance with the very office you hold. It is one thing to defy and challenge; it is quite another thing to defy your own position as leader. Action such as this demonstrates a certain bitter, deep-seated hatred of a personal nature. As a person, you have no humor or feeling or compassion for others. You also have a strange, false bravado, a machismo that is almost comical. As a physical presence, you have a sheepish, rather ugly appearance. You are no intimidating; yet, you insist that you are. Thus, you present a strange quality, part comical, part idiotic. To say you are ineloquent is to say the sky is blue. But as with many of your actions, you take your failures to brave new lows; you turn a certain dialect into something that Americans have come to hate and despise, and even commiserate in shared misery about. Initially, your inept style was something that you rejoiced in, to the pain of death of your countrymen, such as when you said, “Bring ‘em on” in the dialect that I speak of, about our brave soldiers fighting in Iraq. You comments caused the death of some of those soldiers. Perhaps, you feel that by showing such a fearless lack of thinking others will respect the nature of the power that you wield.

Then came 9-11, and here was an event seemingly tailor-made for your rough personality. And for a brief period, you seemed to think, act, and talk like a president. There have been numerous allegations of conspiracy around 9-11. Like all things, there is some truth to be found within. At the very least, by going on vacation as president, you were ill-equipped to handle this crisis and shocked by it. Had the last plane finished its mission, our nation would have been finished. But it did not and we survived, because we are a strong people. Surviving your legacy will make us even stronger. Your lack of leadership squandered the world’s good will toward America in 2001. You sent us to war in Afghanistan but have not achieved your mission to this day because the Taliban have returned, and our causalities are at all-time highs in that conflict. And the mastermind of 9-11 remains at large, as does many of his lieutenants. You often claim that we have killed or captured many of the enemy; but how many of them remain at large?

Then we went to war with Iraq. The reason we went to war was proven to be a lie. That lie was premeditated. We are fighting a premeditated, preemptive war based on a lie, in Iraq. And we have been fighting it for 6 years. After the initial battles, which we won, you again showed your indecision. For all of your bravado, you can be a very indecisive man. As a result, Baghdad fell into chaos and there was widespread looting. The leaders and generals that you appointed were as inept as you are, and their bad decisions sealed our fate for what may be decades in that country. Nearly 5000 American servicemen have now died in your premeditated, preemptive war based on a lie. 3000 died on 9-11 and you had a hand in their deaths. Your total of American dead will likely close in on 10,000 before you leave office. These are deaths that you personally caused, by idiocy, negligence, and stupidity. And worst of all, you seem to remain proud of these dead. Like 9-11, to talk of conspiracies is often not wise; but still, if you are capable of killing 10,000 Americans – many who died in the most heinous ways – surely you must have committed other acts upon Americans of which we have no knowledge.

To create your war state, you changed our constitution and expanded the powers of the presidency to levels heretofore unseen. You also greatly increased the power of the vice-president, to a level not envisioned in the Constitution. Next, you began a systematic operation of torture against our enemies and opened Guantanamo Bay. You plan of torture and rendition was eventually revealed. Amazingly, however, you persist in the righteous of your acts in this plan. If I ever met you in person, I would spit in your face and challenge your to torture me. I feel you are a coward to not take up my challenge. I made this challenge a long time ago on my blog.

There were other failures, almost too many to cover. Your actions, or the lack of them, devastated New Orleans, and again we were laughed at by the entire world. Your corrupt pardons of fellow criminals in your administration are noteworthy. You have done nothing for our economy, which is now in a violent spiral. You have not helped Americans with health care or fair wages or quality of living. You greatly expanded the military’s role in spying on Americans, whether legal or not. You oversaw the passage of legislation to restrict Americans’ rights.

All of these things are familiar to all Americans. And all of America hates you with a passion that burns brightly. We Americans truly, madly, and deeply despise you, in a way that I have never witnessed before against any politician. In fact, I have never seen any person hate another person the way that all Americans hate you, with a sense of personal hatred, seething animosity, pulsing with cruel delight. For myself, it’s your lack of recognition of your failures and our hatred of you that most gets under my skin. It’s your admitted belief – professed to this day – that you will be proven right that is truly regrettable. It’s a quality that your vice-president shares with you. You are not content with failure and the pain that you blindly inflict; you must perpetuate those things with all the power that you have, for as long as humanly possible. To accomplish this, you rely greatly on words, at last. Words trouble you, and you do not speak clearly or accurately. The prepared argument that you deliver is offensive and arrogant. And we must endure your atrocious lies, which you deliver with a straight face – even the occasional grimace and smirk (another quality you share with your perpetually near-death vice-president). For to weaken in your argument would lead to your overthrow, because it is all you have, or have ever had. Thus, you create a sickening, shameful situation, without end.

But there will be an end, because you are only human. You will soon be gone. And my words will follow you. You do not understand what it means to be an American. Your soul is poisoned, and the rot of it has infected the fabric of our great land. It is necessary to purge your great evil from our nation, so that we might become Americans again. The vastness of your failures is staggering. The sheer numbers of American deaths that you have caused for little to no gain is incomprehensible. When you are gone, we will praise God that you are gone. There will be an awesome silence at your departure, as if Lucifer had just exited the room. The evil housed in your soul is unimaginable, unfathomable. The feats you are capable of lie beyond understanding. I, personally, wish you no harm. I, for one, forgive you. But you are no American. You have lessened my country. You have hurt and killed my fellow citizens, on account of your black, unyielding, psychological vendettas. America is a diminished land because of your actions, greatly diminished. No action that you have taken at home or abroad, in war or peace, will reverse that, despite your continuing arguments to the contrary.

In closing, I urge you to consider the hopelessness of your fate. Attempt to reconcile with your failures in your last months in office. There is nothing more that can be done than that. Consider humanity, though you will never grasp it. Feel for Americans, though you are not an American. Try to love your country, America, even if you hate it and wish death and destruction upon it.

I’ve gotten a lot done with my play, La Revolution. By the end of this weekend, I may be nearing the end. This is a massive project, it’s like trying to sail around the world. There are many different things to consider at once; I can’t see the entire object in an instant. But by next week, I will be pushing for home, rounding third, and on the last leg of the journey, I expect. It’s a hell of a lot of fun, I must say.

Then the question becomes what do I do next? Or why am I even writing this play? My work haven’t been produced for a year, and the last one was entirely my own effort — aside from the actors. I am persona non grata in the New York theater community, or I am simply ignored, which is fine with me, it’s not like they are very good at what they do anyway. Who cares what they think about me, these producers of Legally Blond? Even off-Off Broadway is all garbage and seriously boring. I have proven my talent, I don’t need anyone to tell me anything about my abilities at this point. So Broadway — on or off — can go F*C* itself.

Then there is regional theater, and I feel a little bit better about them, but not by much mind you. I mean, for the record, I don’t give a rat’s ass about regional theater. Look man: I know for a fact I am excellent. I know it for a fact, period. And, I am not just a good playwright, I am the best in the god-damn land, brother. In fact, I am better than any American playwright that has ever lived, by far. I have proven this, it’s not talk. That’s why I don’t give a damn, my dear. So if regional theater wants to produce my plays, that’s fine; but I am not going to lift a finger to make it happen, and I never have. I produced my plays in New York to show what I can do, and I did it. But I didn’t spend a nickel (another reason why I am confident i.e. what made my plays good and popular was only the words).

What I really want for this play is to be produced in Mexico. However, I would settle for a regional theater in the Southwest, L.A., or Chicago. The problem with Chicago is its either Steppenwolf — or whatever the other company is — or nothing. And Steppenwolf seems to me another yada yada whining liberal theater company. I could be wrong. But being from Illinois all the way to 20, and living in Chicago on more than one period in my life, and attending more than one school there, I would be fine with La Revolution being produced in Chicago. Just not New York. New York is largely useless at this point, both to me and to American theater.

Once I finish and post my play, I am a bit curious who will produce it first. This time it won’t be me. In one sense, it’s a rather pathetic reality that all I have left of theater — especially if what I say about my talent is eventually verified — is this very blog and my Web site where I post my finished plays. What’s up with that? Playwrights exist in the here and now, or not at all. They are not discovered after their death. So, in my case, either America and New York are very, very wrong, and arrogant beyond belief, or I am nada. I have to believe in the former.

The other problem is I am not really going to tolerate being put at the end of the line, nor am I going to submit my work anywhere. At the end of my brief 2-year career in New York, I was charging $25 for tickets to my plays, while my peers charged $15 and even union plays were $18. And people payed the $25, gladly, without complaint. And I kept all the money, too, and spend it on fancy food, all on myself. In other words, say a regional theater were to want to produce my play. They would make it clear that they are doing me a favor, and probably set the date for 2-5 years in the future. To hell with that, I would tell them. No, either do it now or forget it. And pay me too. Am I making myself clear? Tickets would be at least $35 and I am priority no. 1 for whatever company produces my work. However, for a production in Mexico, I would make many exceptions, no problem, please note. Or don’t produce my work, I don’t care. Your loss. I will still win, one way or the other in time, as I always have.

Act 5 Carranza will get murdered, as will Villa, as Zapata, then Obregon, and finally Huerta. The Revolution would demand nothing less of me. And, each of their deaths are a conspiracy, which lends itself wonderfully to theater. Finally, Huerta’s death is even further shrouded in mystique, and America and Germany have a hand here — another sub-plot. Last will be Diaz but he dies by natural causes, regretting the past. Then, the deux ex machine, which I should clarify. I don’t mean to say I am trying to end the play improbably. That is not an issue. The point is I am a big fan of Euripides, and in Greece there was the use of deux ex machine for a real purpose, even Sophocles used it. When used correctly, it can be very powerful, I think. Here it may be the case. After all of these people die, then an Aztec god will appear – I won’t tell you who or how – and say a few lines, perhaps dance. The point is the ancient god of the people is reclaiming his children and his land. End of play. That seems pretty powerful, I think. It seems so right now, and I’m not even done yet.

Beyond this, there is so much more I have at my disposal and haven’t even mentioned, which will be in the play. But note how precisely it works in its plot.

Here is the plot for La Revolution, my 5-act play about the Mexican Revolution. Also, there are several scenes that open with the chorus leader singing the songs that were composed for events. Also, the ending is not yet done, and there may be a couple more scenes that I will add. As you can see, this is an epic play. But it works!

Act 1: Opening scene with chorus leader, Zapata reads Ricardo Magon, Madero and Diaz meet, Madero in Jail; Gustavo, Gonzalez and Madero recruit Villa, Fight at Juarez with Orozco, Villa and Madero; Diaz surrenders; Huerta sees Diaz off at Veracruz; Madero gives speech at Mexico City.

Act 2: Madero meets with Zapata; Zapata at HQ rejects Madero, forms junta, reads Plan de Ayala; Orozco Rebellion, Huerta orders Villa executed, saved by Gustavo; Ambassador Wilson and Huerta meet and Madero orders Huerta to fight Zapata; Villa escapes prison; Gen. Angeles reveals list of names in coup to Gustavo, who shows to Madero, who rejects it; 10 Tragic Days (chorus); confrontation with Gen. Blanquet and Madero, taken prisoner; Huerta and Gustavo, who is torn to pieces; bells ring end of 10 Tragic Days.

Act 3: Huerta and Diaz meet with Ambassador Wilson and draft up Pack of the Embassy; US Navy occupy Veracruz; Villa train scene as he takes Juarez again; Carranza drafts Plan of Guadalupe; Battle of Zacatecas and insubordination against Carranza; Obregon enters Mexico City for Carranza; Obregon and Maria Pistolas; Carranza enters Mexico City and speech.

Act 4: Obregon meets with Villa and General Pershing and General Patton; Convention at Aguascalientes; Guzman jailed in Mexico City by Carranza; 2nd day at Convention, enter Guzman and other ex-prisoners; Carranza fleeing to Veracruz on train; Zapata and Villa meet in Mexico City palace.

Act 5: Obregon and Villa fight; Villa breaks to dance and talks with Guzman; Execution; Villa on the run, attacks USA; Zapata murdered; Villa murdered; machina al duex. The end.

I’m doing a honest day’s work here and I just watched Obama’s full speech on YouTube.com. This guy is good. I should have never questioned him. Listen: my “plan of Queens” doesn’t apply anyway because we’re in America. McCain’s a great guy and I feel for the Republicans, but Obama has got to get elected. Back to work…

I would like to point out that if America and Congress have taken the opportunity to get out of Iraq in the spring and summer of 2007 – as I strongly advocated in this book and on this blog – right now we would be 100% gone from that country. And what would be different? The same situation on the ground would be present. We are not stabilizing that country anymore; it’s largely doing that on its own. The surge was and is largely irrelevant, and way too late.

At this point, we all must admit, however begrudgingly, that we have to stay in Iraq, and maintain a presence there. “A presence” is much different than an occupation, and McCain needs to make that crucial distinction if he hopes to win the presidential election. We must end our occupation. That has not changed, and it has never been worth the cost. The fact that Obama opposed the war is basically meaningless at this point. We need to readjust our thinking about the war. Also, I am not too happy about pulling out in 16 months, it can be done quicker. Obama has some work to do in the leadership category if he hopes to win. If he doesn’t learn how to “check six”, and believes everything said by his Liberal/media fan base, his chances of making a mistake seem good.

* * *

As for how the writing of my play about the Mexican Revolution, La Revolution, is going, I have officially taken the plunge. Once your in the water, it feels much nicer. I have actually plotted out the entire thing. That is quite a feat, I must say. What’s amazing is the plot is perfect. It’s not my plot; but I had faith there was one there and there is. The story tells itself, it’s so incredible. I am on a serious roll now.