To read an excerpt from the book, please click on the following link:

Saturday, October 03, 2015

Last Words Re: Francis and Kim Davis

I think the saddest thing which has come out of the Francis/Kim Davis event is how willing people are to believe, wholesale, what the Vatican says.  We all can believe that the Kim Davis camp could be lying (I sure would like to see more pictures of that--there are a handful which don't show much convincing evidence. There's Kim Davis and her husband in the embassy waiting room.  There's a picture, supposedly, of the van which took them there. They are cellphone pictures, though one of my friends told me that the Vatican photographers took photos and disallowed cellphones.  If there indeed are photos of her, the Vatican is never going to release them).

 I'd like to believe Mrs. Davis and friends are lying. I'm just not yet convinced about the Vatican. Why are people treating the Vatican as if it's the most honest source around about its doings?

Not one person in the meet-and-greet line (which Kim Davis was supposed to be in) has come forward to say they saw her.  That's odd to me. Surely someone would have known who she was.  I dare not talk about it publicly on Facebook--too many people defending His Holiness as the wonderful "pope of the people" whom I should embrace (even though I am not Catholic). I wouldn't do that anyways, because of his stance on the ordination of women and his canonization of Serra.  Besides, I'm not Catholic. As an ex-Catholic, I remain skeptical of the modern Church, which is not really modern in practice.

Of course the Vatican would distance themselves from Kim Davis.  What are they going to do, say they like what she stands for?  They have everything invested in saying that.

I'm puzzled why the headlines are also blazing suddenly with the private meeting between His Holiness and his friend in a same-sex marriage, as if that makes everything all better.  Good Lord.   Francis can meet with a former student and friend, be in the same room with him, give him a hug, and still condemn gay marriage as a mortal sin. I am tired of my friends saying that because he met a longtime friend who is gay and hugged him, Francis now changing his stance on gay marriage. It just shows he cares for his friend and respects him.  I would hate it to be a situation of "hate the sin and love the sinner"--which I find such a bizarre phrase, used often in the Church.

Anyways, if there is anything further to be revealed, it will be. Done.

Friday, October 02, 2015

The Vatican, Kim Davis, Post-Francis

If more draperies start coming down from the Vatican regarding Francis + Kim Davis, I'm going to give Christo a call.  He's likely to have enough material to swaddle the Grand Canyon when all this is over.  

The Vatican has issued an official fig leaf today in the form of a letter.  Weaselly-worded, it nonetheless attempts to put distance between The Supreme Pontiff and the esteemed Mrs. Kim Davis (by the way, I hope we are soon shed of her photos with face to the heavens and outflung arms, as if she's about to break into "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina"). Now the Vatican is pushing back that they never granted Mrs. Davis a real audience, nor spent any substantial time with her.  By the way, my father (who grew up in the most Baptist of churches) had an audience with Pope Paul, at the end of WWII.  He was with his fellows in the Navy, and spent little time with His Holiness, but it was still an audience.  I wish I had that picture today: I still can't get my mind around the fact that  Dad--whose fellow churchgoers spoke in tongues and handled snakes, though he didn't care for all that "damnfoolishness"-- has been the only one I ever knew who got to stand at the Rock of Saint Peter.

Anyhow, this story is now starting to strike something of a minor chord on the level of Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky, minus the naughty bits and blue dress. The Vatican says that Mrs. Davis was only part of a meet and greet line, that there was no secret visit arranged ahead of time.  Her lawyers and Mrs. Davis contend otherwise.  It's starting to boil down to a "he said, she said" situation so far.  In addition, Rome has trotted out a "some of my best friends are gay" story, describing a meeting between Francis and a friend in a same sex relationship, in order to show how tolerant is the Bishop of Rome.  I have no doubt he tolerates gay people, but I would wager he thinks they are committing mortal sin, too. It doesn't surprise me that he maintains the Church's condemnation of marriage between people of the same sex, though his "Who am I to judge" statement made me feel a glimmer of hope.  What does surprise me--though I should have been a bit more skeptical--is that the good Pope Francis seems to speak out of both sides of his smiling mouth, when I'd hoped otherwise.

So which one is lying, or at least telling half-truths--the Vatican, or Mrs. Davis and friends, or both?  Wouldn't Mrs. Davis and her lawyers have a lot to lose if they fabricated an entire scenario?  The credibility in this case is self-inflicted, so to speak, but she's an "eye of the tiger" now for bigots and hatemongers, and fabricating a Papal meeting out of whole cloth would toss another shovelful of utter foolishness on top of the steaming pile. I don't put it past them to deliberately hallucinate anything, but I'm also not buying the Vatican's attempt to cover its own nakedness.

I don't believe for one minute that the Pope had no idea who she was.  Why, then, would he do something that the Vatican has not denied at all: praise her for her courage and tell her to stand strong in her faith, and to pray for him?  We will never really know, because the Vatican can create as many fig leaves as they want.  They've been doing that for centuries and are masters at that sort of thing.  I don't care if Mrs. Davis sailed out of the Rockettes kick line to clasp hands with the Pope for a millisecond.  His statement shows awareness of who she is, and what she stands for. If he had no idea who she was, he would have shaken her hand, prayed, and given her a rosary (he passes them to everyone: someone in his entourage must have the equivalent of a brimful Hefty bag). To paint him as someone who didn't know makes him look like a naive and unquestioning lunkhead--which I hope he is not.  Granted, the College of Cardinals tried to vote in a successor for Benedict who had the least skeletons under his miter, but I doubt they wanted a completely witless one to boot.

I will give the Vatican the benefit of the doubt that meeting with Mrs. Davis was not a show of support for her particular cause, but it was surely a sign of support for HER--and by default, her cause.  Will the circle be unbroken?  Time will tell.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

This is My Opinion Of Pope Francis's Meeting With Kim Davis. Do Not Read If This Subject Bothers You.

The following is all my opinion. It is not meant to be anything other than that.  The formatting is also my fault. Hopefully I'll get it cleared up before bedtime tomorrow. that's out of the way. Let's proceed, shall we? 

In a nutshell: Pope Francis came to the U.S.  There was a lovefest for His Holiness.  I don't begrudge him a lovefest.  Why not?  He's a nice guy.  He says the right things. He's got a lovely smile. He has that jovial teddy-bear look about him. He washes the feet of prisoners.  He says, "Who am I to judge?"  He used to be a bouncer in a nightclub--how cool is that?  If he could throw a big drunk guy out onto the sidewalk at 3 a.m., then Satan has surely met his match.  Francis kissed a baby who wore a tiny little Pope hat. The people of the United States opened their arms in welcome to His Holiness. The pesky ones who lay down in the street to protest the non-ordination of women in the church were swept aside so as not to cause a kerfuffle.  A good time was had by all...well, at least by many.

Francis is headed home to the Vatican now, having spread love and goodwill, and canonized Junipero Serra as well.  You all know how I feel about that.  I find it appalling that His Holiness declined to speak to any Native American groups about the canonization of the man who oversaw the absolute decimation of California's indigenous tribes, at least not before he put the seal of approval on Serra.  I'm tired of hearing about all the nice things Serra did for the Native Americans.  The article below tells a story I believe is true. I proceed from this standpoint regarding Serra and the California missions:

Now on to the esteemed Kim Davis.  I won't dwell on her marital history: she has the right to do anything with whomever she pleases, and I am sure she would defend her right to do that, though she would gladly withdraw that right from others. She does remind me a bit of the "widow next door" in the "I'm 'Enery the Eighth I Am" song, but she's only been married four times before, not seven.  She has the right to be married as many times as she cares, as long as she's not committing bigamy.  Any couple over the legal age, including two people of the same sex, may marry in our country.

In a nutshell, Davis, member of a small and conservative (some would say deeply fundamentalist) Christian sect, is the county clerk of Rowan, Kentucky.  She refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the grounds that it would violate her religious beliefs.  She is hailed as a near-martyr for the Lord in some circles. She has gone to jail for breaking the law of the United States, based on her faith.  The religious right and the GOP have elevated her to celebrity status. I'm not surprised if she'll run for office one day (perhaps with Donald Trump as her running mate).  The separation between church and state is nil at this point when it comes to the GOP, sorry to say.  What a far cry from Lincoln, who was a Republican and is likely rolling in his grave at the utter catastrophe.  So much for the angels of our better nature. Anyways...

Personally, I hate seeing this foolish and bigoted woman have a platform of any kind.  I was hoping she would just dry up and blow away at some point, and get shuttled to a dreary office in her county building where she can do less harm.  As far as I'm concerned, she's the worst poster child for religious freedom in decades, perhaps ever, in the history of the United States.  As for conscientious objection: okay, maybe she technically is. I will grudgingly concede that, but I hate seeing her lumped in with people who have suffered immensely, even died, for the sake of conscientious objection to senseless wars, human rights violations, etc.  She can go home at night, microwave a Hot Pocket if she feels like it, and watch Fox News if that's her pleasure. There are conscientious objectors across the globe who can never have a shred of comfort, never see their families, who endure untold misery.  Kim Davis is lolling in the Four Seasons of conscientious objection, as far as I'm concerned.

Pope Francis met with Kim Davis in a private meeting this week. It has come out that it was arranged some time in advance by those friendly folks at the Vatican. He asked her to pray for him (poor fellow, be careful what you wish for). He said he would pray for her.  He then thanked her for her courage, and told her to stay strong in her faith and convictions (which is, in a nutshell, opposition to the laws of this country because she opposes gay marriage, and he knows that).  Now the esteemed Ms. Davis is glowing like a Roman candle (literally), waving her rosaries around with giddy joy and basking in even more undeserved fame.  She's crowing about how Francis supports her cause, even though her sect believes  that the Pope is the Beast of the Apocalypse.  Isn't consorting with the Antichrist  in opposition to her faith?  Sorry, splitting hairs, I know.

Since this story began to break, there's been a scuffle to explain away what His Holiness had in mind with all this. First, it was said to be a hoax. Next, it was said to be a fiction her lawyers cooked up. Then, when the private meeting was confirmed by the Vatican and credible news sources, it was diminished to "only fifteen minutes". Then the Pope himself was given a lot of slack: he didn't know her specific case.  He does not read American newspapers, so he had no idea of the controversy. He was merely praising conscientious objection, not her stand on gay marriage.  Honestly, I've never seen so many draperies come down since the finale of the last symphony I attended.

If the Supreme Pontiff indeed doesn't read American newspapers, he had better pony up for a subscription to The New York Times: whether he likes it or not, his position is a political as well as a religious one. Though he can make no laws (except in terms of Church doctrine), his stamp of approval or disapproval on anything carries enormous weight. He heads the Catholic Church, one of the most powerful institutions in the world. American Catholics make up a huge part of his flock. It is in his best interest to be savvy about the current political climate of every country he visits, too.

This visit, it's said, was arranged by others a couple of weeks ago. Representatives of the Vatican have said that there was no need to brief the Pope on who Kim Davis was, as her story is known worldwide. If he wanted to avoid seeing her, he could have politely declined, as he did with the Dalai Lama. He could have seen any number of persons who have put their lives on the line for the sake of conscientious objection. He gave an audience to her. He's no lunkhead; he's an educ:ated man, and hopefully not fully dragged about by the people who arrange such meetings.

It is very obvious to me that he was, in essence, hailing Ms. Davis for her religious belief that gay marriage is an abomination, and by default gay people, too, and her willingness to break the law for that belief. Why, then was she given an audience with the pope? Because the Church feels the same way: it is opposed to gay marriage and has inflicted untold suffering and hatred on gay people since the day Saint Peter sat upon his rock; they will never err from this course. Kim Davis is an unfortunately public figure who upholds that conviction as well, and the Vatican wanted to give her a pat on the head and a couple of rosaries for it.  Sorry, Pope, if the lovefest ever began for me, it ended there.

Of course His Holiness knew who she was. He's perfectly fine with what she stands for. Did I expect something along different lines from him during his visit?  Yes.  I expected he might have gone the "Who am I to judge?" route and given audience to an actually worthy person who does not represent hatred and narrow-mindedness.  For me, it's a very big ding in the Pope's carefully burnished halo.


Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Hello, Pope Francis

I will have to say right off that, despite the current Pope's progressive views, I do not trust him.  I have had a lifetime of dealing with the Catholic church (I attended Catholic schools all the way through my bachelor's degree). Some of that history is positive; some is negative.  The Church has such a long history of ignoring and sweeping controversies and outright crimes under the rug that I cannot blindly trust anyone elected to the Papacy, or any of its higher offices.

The Pope, though somewhat progressive in thought and deed, has refused to even address the ordination of women in the Church. This is an issue which has been going on for decades in the Church, probably long before I was born 56 years ago.  Francis refuses to address this issue, saying that it is moot, that because Christ was a man, priests must be male.

There is a group of Catholic women who have simply gone forth and ordained themselves.  I say "Bravo!" to this. They were, of course, duly excommunicated by the Church.  A small contingent of this group traveled to Washington DC today to protest the Church's stand on ordaining women.  They were again duly moved out of the way so Francis could go on and canonize Junipero Serra:

Serra is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.  I can't believe the unquestioning nature of many people  following this event.  "Well, it's so cool to see a real canonization," said someone in the news.  " No saint is perfect," says another. Yeah, it's cool, because you might as well sweep the atrocities of the California missions under the rug. 

I have lived in Santa Cruz for over thirty years. There is a strong presence of Ohlone and other Native American people here, who have sought to educate about the missions.  Never has Francis given them any time to discuss with him the horrors perpetrated on California's indigenous people (which Father Serra duly recorded in a diary, dispassionately, as if penning his grocery list).  I began to hear about these atrocities soon after Serra was beatified.  I will not go into what I read, but the articles were sound and credible pieces of journalism, and they made me ill to the core.  In the eyes of the Church, Serra "converted" people (in reality, mostly by brute force, and when the native people tried to leave the missions, they were beaten and tortured).  This is the reality of Father Serra and the founding of the missions: and today he is elevated to sainthood...because he "preserved the dignity" of native Californians.  It's hard to preserve the dignity of people you've tortured, killed, and enslaved, isn't it...or did a memo come out that I didn't get?

Francis has a long, long way to go before he earns a shred of trust from me.  I trust no head of the Catholic Church, sorry to say, and I am not participating in the Francis love fest. I appreciate his attempts to be progressive, but this doesn't let him off the hook in my eyes. I hope nothing awful about him comes to light--that is something which really would devastate me--but today's canonization (without having a dialogue with Native Americans until AFTER the canonization was completed) really doesn't earn him many points in my book...sorry to say.

Here is an article about Serra and others who founded and ran the missions of California:

Tuesday, September 22, 2015


I had one huge screw-up in my performance with my dance troupe, which I had to cover.  I am not blaming anyone, but the type of dance I do is improvisational, and we change dance movements through cues from each dancer--that is essentially part of it.  There is always a lead dancer, and the one in my group did not give a clear cue, in my opinion.  I am not blaming her, but it was part of the screw-up, and is a move that is easy to screw up.  I have to figure out how to cover it, as I also don't pick it up in class very well.

So, I gave an excellent performance otherwise, and what do I focus on?  The screw up!  It's time to start turning off some of those critical sides of myself.  I have them for everything: the way I failed to be a good mother to my children in every way (they deserved no less and I know I could have done better), keeping the house spotless, and other ways I can't let go of having done something "wrong".  It is nearly impossible to let some things go, and even immoral to do so, but there are small areas I can let go: such as doing a wrong step in a dance. In fact, no one blamed me but myself.  If anyone did secretly, their day for a screw-up is coming.  I've seen the person who invented this dance make royal screw-ups.  It's a performing art.

So, I forgive myself and move on to just trying to do better.

Here is a picture of me from the performance, still a proud and happy dancer despite it all.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Don Quixote's Performance

I am performing with my American Tribal Style bellydance troupe, Shekinah, tomorrow night at Don Quixote's "International Music Hall" in downtown Felton.  I think the show starts at seven.

I have had two shows now since the "bad thing" happened at Don Quixote's (I've written extensively about it elsewhere in this blog).  The first performance was with my folkloric troupe, Dancers of the Crescent Moon, a year or so ago.  The whole show redeemed that place for me and purged it of all sadness and fear.  There is a picture I really like of myself (and those of you who know me, know I am not vain by any standard), singing at Don Quixote's with my troupe.  Now I will go back tomorrow night and be in my fourth performance with Shekinah.  I want to work harder on this style in ensuing months.

I have only a week to really exchange courtesies on Facebook with a friend from whom I have been estranged too long.  I would like to see this person, I think, maybe over coffee, but the ball is in their court and I realize this may be asking too much.

 I am prepared to just say, "It was nice talking to you," and walk away if I feel this person has any malign intent towards me at all, or if he's around just to manipulate some other poor woman (and whoa, does that say something about the character of a man who would do this?) They never thought I was anyone particularly special a couple of years ago or anyone worth fighting for (if I were, I never knew it), so what might have made them change, even a little? It seemed like I was just some chick with no money who wrote some books and some poems and published in literary magazines that he had no idea were important in any way, though  they were, and did not know how hard it is to get published in literary magazines at all, much less the ones I have been in. I feel that I was some crazy, insignificant chick who fell apart when she got hurt one terrible night, and took her granddaughter in, and danced some.  That was about it.  If that was different, I don't remember it.  What has changed on my account is that I will NEVER be treated as "less than" again. 

What has changed?  I nearly passed out when he expressed some desire to help me find sources for learning Polish, in the possiblity that I might be able to speak to Asha's family (something I still have no idea how to approach). I was surprised because if he knew at all that I was writing about Asha Veil (which he sort of magically did he?), he knows I am going into very shadowed places with my writing: something he certainly did NOT encourage in the long-ago, for a good reason: the fear of what might happen to my psyche if I strayed too far.  Yet he's encouraged me to learn Polish, and has tips on how to travel overseas.  He has to know that this book touches the incarnate shadow, and yet he is supportive of my writing.  He sure didn't like me straying into the waste places back then (though for good intent...often he was protective of me).

But I have to say: if I try to be a happy little lamb prancing in a field, writing frou-frou romances and science fiction (fun as those are to write)--THAT'S when I go out of my mind.  When I try to push the shadows of life away, those shadows rebound on me.  I write of the shadows because in that way, I can try to understand and master my own. That is who I am.  I have all my moments of light and fun, but I have to find courage also, to write of the injustices in this world, and put my whole heart into it. Not everyone can light their lantern and walk in such darkness.  I do not fear it.

So who knows? The future is not known.  There is only the now, and I am willing to stand in the "now" without fear.  People change; they feel sorry; they come to know another's worth.  Whether this will happen in any way is not known, and it is good, in many ways, that it remains to be seen. The future does what it does, and is always so differently from every expectation.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

When A Friend Advises Caution

I had a long chat over coffee with a friend, and she talked to me about the recent small contact I have had with someone from my past, on Facebook.

Even though I was the one who initiated the contact, as she looked over the entirety of the posts and other people he's responded to, she said very gently to me that I needed to stop communicating with this individual if I sensed that he was just using me as a pawn to get someone else jealous.  There were things that indicated to me the contact was genuine, but some worrisome things also. She enumerated the things this person did to me in the past, and said something very true: it's often not possible for someone to just change their stripes entirely in a year and several months, nor change their attitude towards someone, particularly in my case, unless he is really sorry and truly misses me, and has been working on himself.  A friendship cannot take place if those things have not happened on both sides.

My friend pointed out that it is very possible he is just trying to rile someone up and make them jealous to manipulate her feelings somehow, with no regard for either of us, which is what he did in the past. This again would show such disrespect for women, making them like pawns on a chess board so as to play one person against the other and hurting both so greatly in the process. I hope this is not the case. She said he had better be in touch with me because he feels that what he did towards me was wrong, enjoys hearing from me, and is not trying to manipulate another person via me.  And honestly, when these things are said and when I consider them, I just don't know.  I know my own motivations are honest and clear: I hate bearing grudges, I hate the "silent treatment" towards any person, and I hated having so much unresolved between us, and I have missed this person and feel sorry for the things I did which ruined our friendship at the time.  At any rate, caution is the order of the day, and I will be doing that.  Trust, after all, is earned.

Friday, September 11, 2015

An Anniversary to Break the Heart

I did not post about Asha Veil on September 9, even though it was an important day: on September 9, 2006, she disappeared from the Ben Lomond Market, vanishing without a trace.  Instead, I sat and thought about her, and went outside to see the sky and the amount of light left, knowing, as I have all this year, that it was still light enough outside that, had McClish (her killer) taken her to a place where there was the remotest chance of them being seen, I am sure someone would have saved her and Anina. 

I know now that he probably took her to a remote place--not Quail Hollow Ranch or the Ben Lomond dump area, both places where they could be seen--but somewhere else.  McClish, a "local boy," surely knew all the remote roads and hiding places.  Did she know she was being taken to this place, wherever it was, for malign intent?  I hope with all my heart that she was not conscious at that time, that she never knew what happened to her. 

And I can only say to McClish: you are an evil demon, on the level of a guard in a concentration camp. You killed a beautiful woman and her baby for money, the root of all evil, because you had the POSSIBILITY of shelling out some child support. And I say to Asha's spirit: I am sorry you came to this country, the country of my birth, with what must have been a sense of adventure and hope, and fun, and got repaid with the worst thing that could befall a human being.  Though I had nothing to do with her death, I feel guilty as a citizen of this country and of the county I live in.  To say she deserved better seems a statement that is a drop in an ocean of sadness.

So what is different on an anniversary I have never ceased to mark, in ways large and small?  Yesterday, worn out from taking Thistle to school, I went home and slept for three hours straight.  I dreamed of Asha and her mother, and many members of her family (none of whom I have yet contacted or met), on a white stage that looked as if it were made of marble; I have seen this stage often in my dreams. Asha and her mother were dressed in caftans embroidered with flowers and gold trim; I said aloud in the dream, "How much she looks like her mother!  This is what she would have looked like if she had been allowed to grow old!" All the people were doing a very slow, dignified dance, turning to one side, then the other.  I woke up feeling as if I had a visitation.  Was I watching spirits in a beautiful afterlife?  I never know these things, but I hope so.

Here is what is different, this year: I learned that McClish should never have been walking free.  I don't know if he was protected by his family--which happens--or if there was simply indifference towards him by law enforcement, taxed beyond belief by the crime in this area. Or--a situation I view with jaded anger--perhaps they didn't care because he abused women, and who cares about women?

I know that her death has left a hole in the hearts of everyone who knew her and loved her, and even with those who did not know her well.  How can it be that a person would be so beautiful and good at heart that NOT ONE person I have ever spoken to has said one negative thing about her?

And yet she is gone, and her innocent child with her, a story that reflects over and over in all of this troubled world.

Saturday, September 05, 2015

What Is

I have been a member of a program for those of us who have alcoholics and addicts in our lives, active or not, close or far.  One of the things I cherish from this program is a little bookmark I keep, with sort of a daily schedule...take 30 minutes for myself every day, do something to improve my mind (read a book), don't nag or scold, etc. (not that I do any of these well). One of the things I try to remember (and often don't), is "Today I will accept things as they are and not try to bend everything to my own desires."

What I believe this means is that yes, we can and do have the power to change things, but profound change takes time and it takes a certain trust that we, ourselves, have great power--but that ultimately everything is in the hands of Spirit, or of whatever "outside of ourselves" force there is, even if you don't believe in any sort of spirituality.  In 12-steps, many people who are atheists begin to think of the wisdom of the group or of the recovery community as their Higher Power.

I am in a situation right now in which I am having tentative contact with a friend with whom I have been estranged for some time.  This is the third time such a thing has happened in as many years.  With the first two, they returned and asked for forgiveness (and really did ask with that very word). I don't expect that, but it is nice when it happens.  I told them both that forgiveness had already happened, that the past was gone, and we had a new slate.  And every day since I have been in touch with them, this is the case....I do not forget the past (though I don't trot it out, it is a way to stay cautious and unfoolish...if you had a cobra in your past, it is unlikely it's going to change into a dove, so even when the cobra is dormant, it's good to know that it has been active in the past).  People can and do change, though.

So what is the sensibility, now?  One: I hope for nothing.  I enjoy the small bits of repartee, which are online.  I hold out no expectations.  If I savor the moment, and only the moment, it is like looking into my hand and seeing that someone has dropped a rose petal into my palm.  If I become worried (for some reason, my fear is that this person is making fun of me behind my back...old history...), then I forget the simple goodness of the moment.

This journey is not in my hands, but wherever the journey takes me--no matter what its shape, large, small, or even not at all--my hands are open to whatever may be.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015


I wanted to print a gentle retraction about something I said yesterday regarding my old writing group and their ability to deal with my book.  M. is the one who writes vampire stories, and weirdly, they are not violent in the degree that some of those books are.  I know that he might be glad to help me with Asha's book, though it would be painful for him on multiple levels, which is why I have not pointed him in the direction of it online.  A. could handle it, and so could H.  I worry only about K. and C. because of the violent subject matter.

But it doesn't  matter, as I don't know if I will ever work with them again.  I just wanted to let my audience know that I thought about it last night and felt I was being unfair.

At any rate, Thistle has her first day of first grade today, and suddenly I have time to write.  And write I will.