Getting published; Situation Normal

So, I got a call from my agent last Wednesday.  He called at 9pm, and we started talking.



At the moment, it looks a  lot like it's Situation Normal.   And, for those who do not know military acronyms, Situation Normal are the first two words of SNAFU.



On the one hand, my agent is having a grand old time selling projects. As long as they're nonfiction.



And, as you might recall, while A Pius Man has historical elements all over the darned place, it's contained within a framework of a thriller. Which puts me in a new acronym: SOL.



However, my agent suggested I try writing something in nonfiction. Maybe even Young Adult nonfiction.  Maybe something in Ethics, or Religion, or something like that. Something that parents would want their kids to read.  And, after all, I have been spending large parts of my time writing religion articles for Examiner.com.



So ... any thoughts?



Seriously, you folks are the most non-partisan observers I know. Do you think I should write more articles on Catholicism, only make it into a non-fiction book? I can call it Snarky Theology, 101.



There's also the wonderful world of IRA songs. I had an entire thesis in graduate school around Irish rebel songs. Between the text and the appendix, that was almost 150 pages. I would only need about 90 more pages to have a full book ready.



And, there's philosophy. Yes, philosophy. I can literally rewrite philosophy for the basic consumption of the general population. I am snarky by nature, after all.



For those of you who think I should be writing a nonfiction book on Pius XII .... no. Because I'd rather write a novel that people would read than be lost in the shuffle of the two dozen books on the subject.



So, what do you think I should try? Irish rebel songs? Snarky theology? Philosophy? Ethics? Something else all together?  Give me a comment with your thoughts on the matter.

Father's Day

I love my father ...

Alec Baldwin

When they were filming It's Complicated at St. John's University, where my father teaches philosophy, Alec Baldwin crossed paths with my father. My father gave him a big broad smile, and said, "You know, Adam is my favorite Baldwin brother."

Adam Baldwin on

the left... for once.

Alec Baldwin sighed and said "Yeah, I get that alot."

Adam Baldwin has nothing to do with the tribe of the Baldwin brothers, and is actually on the opposite end of the political spectrum from said family of left-wingers.

My father can be just a bit of a troublemaker.


Once, at the Great Irish Fair, in Coney Island, New York, my father came across NORAID -- a "charity group" for Northern Ireland, dedicated to helping the widows and orphans of the violence in Northern Ireland.

In reality, they took the money and dedicated it to creating more widows and orphans.

When Noraid hit my father up for money, he told them, in his clear, second tenor voice, "I don't support cop killers."

My father did catch the attention of every police officer within earshot.

.... Okay, more than a bit of a troublemaker.

My father is about as responsible for my writing career as J. Michael Straczynski.  When I told him I had an idea for what basically turned out to be Fanfiction from Hell, he told me to write it down ...

A million words later, and it turned into something so completely different, I had to rewrite it from the bottom up. Now that it's a five book series (and outlined to thirteen) I'm thinking of submitting it to Baen books.

My father is responsible for my Catholic education, more than any of those ignorant morons in Catholic school.  As a student of Thomas Aquinas, my father has applied reason and rationality to religion, and has taught me to do much the same .... which is usually why atheists like Matt confuse me when he says that "no one uses their brain about religion and believes in it", and why Protestant friends of mine say that Catholics don't even read the Bible. All I can think is: Where do they find these people? Answer: everywhere, probably.

There was this one time, back in college, my father worked with a hydrogen generator ... remember those? If you don't, there's a wiki entry for that somewhere, I'm sure... anyway, my father once, by accident, added the wrong acid. His professor took his generator and tossed it out the window, destroying part of a construction site outside. The professor then informed the lab that using the wrong acid results in the more unstable cousin of TNT....

It's going into a novel somehow.

Another story he told me was of ether ... apparently, ether tends to give off a lot of vapor. It is also very flammable, so to heat it, people in a lab use a water bath, heated by a hot plate beneath the water. So, of course, someone used a Bunsen burner, the ether vapors caught fire and ...

As my father told it, "When you see the air catch on fire above your head, you hit the ground fast."

Anyway. Here's to my father. I have no idea what I would do without him.

"Atheists are Right." or: Jesus Freaks Scare Me.

Atheists have a point … or some of them do, anyway.



When originally looking at Marx, or Nietzsche, I figured that they had no idea what they were talking about. I do not use my Deity as a drug. I don't hold onto an image of someone being tortured to death on a set of 2x4s because I'm afraid of the dark. I don't use my faith as an excuse to not think, in fact, just the opposite.



I can give you reasons for my beliefs. I could tell you I think there's a God because of this thing called causality (IE: cause and effect … what's the cause of the Big Bang?). I can tell you I believe in an historical figure called Jesus, because there are records from that time period. There is more evidence for a carpenter named Jesus from Nazareth than there is for Hannibal of Carthage waging war against the Roman Empire (Hannibal was only written about a hundred years later, Jesus from the same generation, and was noted by Roman authorities).



I can give a bunch of reasons why I believe different elements of my faith, but as I've said before, I'm not here to convert one single person. Educate, sure, convert, no.



I'm relatively certain that I would not change one element of my life if I were an atheist. So, Marx, Nietzsche, sorry if I've disabused you 19th century pinheads of any fantasies you have.



Unfortunately, as I'm exposed to more of the world, I have to admit that atheists have a few points.



Yes, you read the title of the blog correctly. I'm Catholic, and Jesus freaks worry me. Seriously, how many people have had religious folks force their faith on you? There is a difference between someone having a civil conversation with you, and someone abusing you with a bible.



Let me be clear. If someone asks, “Is Jesus your personal savior?” and you say yes, and they leave you alone, that's one thing. I find it strange when anyone actually asks me that sort of thing at all, but if they ask, accept my answer, and leave, great.



If you're an atheist or a non-Christian, you say no, and they start a civil discussion with you, that's also great. Talking and reasoning are good things.



However, if they continue to talk at you as if you hadn't spoken, or they start by narrowing down what church you go to, on which street corner, then, Houston, we have a problem.



When it is no longer a conversation, but someone trying to shove a bible down your throat, it's time to break out the taser.



As I've said before, I'm a little strange. So, I'm going to provide some context.



Growing up, I learned more about religion from the novels of Fr. Andrew Greeley, and from my father the philosophy professor, than I ever did from any Catholic school instructor. In fact, a lot of what they had taught me was either inaccurate, or outright fraudulent. I had always thought it was my school, nothing personal, just a bunch of morons. I could go on, move on, have a nice life.



I figured that my upbringing in Catholic school was an anomaly, and that more people were like me.



Recently, I've gotten the impression that it's not going as well as I would like.



One friend told me about how she was Protestant at a (very) small Catholic college in California, and they considered burning her at the stake as a heretic. Fail.



They also didn't believe in reading the bible, “That's the priest's job.” That wasn't even a position held five hundred years ago.  On the one hand, vernacular translations SUCKED in the middle ages, and on the other-- do you know how expensive it is to write a bible, by hand, on lambskin (vellum)?  The Bible was chained down in church, but if you could read it, knock yourself out.  Here's a hint to these modern fellas, the bible has been revised and translated, if you can read, you're allowed to read an authorized and footnoted copy. You're a few centuries late. Serious fail.



Recently, Matt was told on his Facebook page “My God is better than no God.” Epic fail. (Two words for you, buddy: Allahu Akbar.)



Now, I may be an anomaly. Most of my friends are Jewish. My first ex is a Wiccan who had not yet come out of the broom closet. My best friend for nearly a decade was an atheist. Matt, who has created all of the good artwork around A Pius Man, another atheist. Frankly, I think some of these people are better Catholics than I am, from an ethical viewpoint. As I have explained before, I don't think being an atheist is grounds for you to be in any serious danger of having a crappy afterlife.



Also, religiously, I'm a bit of a libertarian. I don't care if you go to Hell. If you are in serious danger of going to hell, then you're probably not someone I want to be within a ten foot radius of. Being a complete jerk who commits felonies for fun … yeah, I most likely don't want to talk to you.



If you are a different sort of believer, and actually would like to convert people, let's have a conversation, shall we?



Step one: realize that atheists have valid points. For example, Marx made the infamous comment that religion is the opiate of the masses. It's not particularly true for me. I've been to enough masses where I've wanted to throw the books at the priest because his sermon was more about him than about what was in the Gospel.



However, there are people who can read a Bible, and the words go through their eyes and out their mouths without it ever going through their brains. The words become rote, mantras without understanding.



Marx is right, some people use the bible as a drug, to avoid the pressures of THOUGHT. How many? I have no idea. Though they seem to get a lot of the press. (Paging Mr. Phelps.)



And more of us than we would like can see where Nietzsche had a point. His entire “God is dead, you killed him, and you haven't even noticed” riff … I would like a show of hands. How many people have gone to services, listened to a sermon about peace and love, and “everyone get along with each other,” only to go out into the parking lot and see all of the people you attended services with try to commit vehicular manslaughter?  God is dead, they "killed" Him, and no one noticed ... call it a metaphor for our behavior.



Step two: Rodney Stark, who has done a sociology of early Christianity, has come up with various reasons why the faith was such a success even before Constantine made it an official state religion. The number one reason is simple: people saw how Christians treated one another, and they wanted to be a part of that. One big example is that there had been an outbreak of plague during the first few hundred years of Christianity. The major caregivers were Christians. They didn't run, they didn't evacuate the area and save their own behind from the plague. They stayed, and they took care of the sick and the dying, even when doctors had fled. I believe the biblical passages you want involve bushel baskets.



If you are a great big believer in (pick your faith here), live out the principles to the best of your abilities. Set yourself up as an example, and not on a pedestal. If you seriously think that atheists are in danger of going directly to hell, and need to be targeted, can I suggest something?



Be passionate without being insane.



Be reasoned, and educated, and know what the hell you're talking about. Know what the latest counter-arguments are so you're not just yelling at them.



Otherwise, you're just a freak, and not one of the good kind....



And, if they're yelling at you for being reasoned and rational, just run. It'll be easier on everybody.



Anyway, eventually, I will discuss atheists a bit.  Just so I can be fair and mentally unbalanced.  As usual. :)

What Do You Mean There's Philosophy in A Pius Man?

I'm a simple fellow. Simpleminded, at times. Which is why there are a lot of people who know me and say, “I can't really believe you have a degree in philosophy. You don't spout out gibberish about how the table isn't a table..”

Hegel never looked

this good.

I understand that. I do, really. Try to read Hegel, and you get stuff about consciousness-- which is the key turning point of his entire philosophy-- and you basically get gibberish, since his terms are undefined. (If you are a science fiction fan, look up Minbari theology on Babylon 5, Hegel is the same babble, only without the reincarnation bit). Read Descartes, who basically said that you had to look at every little thing with a highly skeptical eye, and start with what you know for absolute certainty, concluding that the only thing you can ever really know for certain is that “I exist,” the rest is negotiable. (Popularly known as “I think therefore I am.” Does not cover instances of drivers during rush hour, who obviously don't think, but are real enough to get you killed.)



I'm sorry, Mr. Descartes, I'm slow and stupid. If I get hit in the head with a rock, I'm going to think that the rock is real. And that someone threw it at me. And that I will have to hurt someone.



Which is why I am a Thomist.



At which point the audience asks, “A what now?”



Short version: you are a follower of the philosophical thought of Thomas Aquinas. A lot of it is rather basic stuff that starts with, “Something is either A or not A. It cannot be both at the same time.” Tom is alive, or Tom is dead .....  or Tom is a zombie, which makes that neither “A” or “not A,” but B. Possible C.



Thomas Aquinas is basically Aristotle, the Catholic version. He's a little dry, and he's not colorful, but he's very straightforward and to the point. Aquinas works through some very common sense ideas, building up to metaphysical conclusions over many many volumes. It's very neat, very orderly, written by someone who reasoned his way up to his faith. He even tries to use the latest in science at the time …



Yes, Thomas Aquinas was a medieval philosopher, so his science kinda sucks at times. A lot of philosophers have come to the same conclusions while updating the science of Aquinas' day, but if I were to base my faith on the latest science, I'd change my faith every other year. (Right now, I think we're on Newton, revised by Einstein, revised by Quantum physics, should we ever fully understand that.)



However, Thomas Aquinas came up with the idea that “the universe is unlimited, but bounded.”



What the hell does that mean?



Simple: there is nothing outside the universe to limit it, but it only goes so far.



But, Thomas Aquinas was jettisoned five hundred years ago, so who cares … ?



Answer: Albert Einstein, who probably never even heard of Aquinas, came up with the same conclusions. About seven hundred years later. And, apparently, we can see the outer limit of the Big Bang, but there is nothing beyond that, so the universe is bounded … huh. Amazing what you toss away when you just ignore everything between Ancient Rome and the Enlightenment, isn't it?



At the end of the day, I think St. Thomas Aquinas should be the patron saint of Nerds, if we ever get a Pope who's been to a science fiction convention.



We have all sorts of oddballs in the rogues gallery of Catholic Saints. St. Augustine, who had a youth that makes Paris Hilton look like a nun; who later seemed to find no joy in anything but the Divine (sort of like a former smoker who has decided to ban smoking … then go after smokers …).



Then there was St. Francis of Assisi, who found joy in nature, and animals, and other people, and who was generally so happy and perky, he'd probably be a morning person, and who needs that, I ask you …?



But, like I said, this is Thomas Aquinas....



No, Charlton Heston did not play him in the movie. That was Thomas More, England, 1500s. A Man for All Seasons. Given the axe because he wouldn't put King Henry VIII before God.



No, Richard Burton didn't play him in the movie. That was Thomas Beckett, England, 1100s. Beckett.[See the sequel film, A Lion in Winter.] Killed because he wouldn't put King Henry II before God.



This is Thomaso di Aquino. Aquinas. He didn't go out and do things. You couldn't make a movie of his life if you wanted to ... unless you wanted a really boring movie.



When Aquinas said he wanted to go into the seminary, his parents locked him in his room and sent in a hooker to loosen him up. He talked one into converting, and, later on, he chased out a second prostitute with a bit of torch wood that he picked up from the lit fireplace. Depending on who you talked to, he was either built like a linebacker, or built like Friar Tuck (there are theories that he started all of the fat jokes about himself, including that the brothers at his residence cut a crescent into the dining table just to seat his stomach.).



He was a saint who would speed-walk around the monastery to think. Some have described his walking patterns as being akin to a train in motion.  Though he did come up with the moral justification of the Belfast Acquittal (also known as a jail break) -- he reasoned that the job of the guards was to keep the convicts in, it was not the job of the convicts to stay put.



And what does any of this have to do with A Pius Man?



Very simple: there won't be any deep, incomprehensible lines of thought. There is philosophy, theology, and history in the novel … but it is all about as deep as “a rock flew at my head. It is real. Someone threw it, and now I have to hurt them.”



I believe in black and white and shades of gray. It's called being a meliorist – which is a fancy way of saying I believe in black and white and shades of gray … theologically, it breaks down into “see everything, overlook much, improve a little.”



Though there are really no shades of gray in the case of Pius XII – the Pope either knew and did nothing, knew and did something, or didn't know. However, if a Pope who had been the former Secretary of State didn't know what was going on in the world at large, something is wrong somewhere. Shades of gray, removed. At some point, Pope Pius XII knew about the Holocaust.



However, I wouldn't even consider trying to compare Pius XII's actions to those of the other world powers of his day. Why? Because no one did anything about the death camps, and these were world leaders with whole armies. By that standard, Pius XII could have slept through the war and still have done more for refugees in Europe. (The United States, like most British properties at the time, closed its borders to new immigrants from Europe during World War II, so they were a negative)



The book has often been described as slipping in history, theology, and philosophy in between the gunshots. I would hate to have anyone put off by that. My philosophy and theology are tightly intertwined. This novel is not so esoteric that you will go cross-eyed reading it. If you fall asleep reading it, that would probably mean that I fell asleep writing it, and I stayed awake through the whole thing. Honest.

Philosophy, Religion, and Sex.

Dear Pope Benedict, I've been a fan of your career since you worked under John Paul II.  The press hated you because you were hostile to them, and for that I applaud you.  But you have to stop having statements come out so close together, it messes up my schedule.



Last week, I explained why the Catholic Church wanted to hire exorcists.



This week, because no one in the Vatican can shut up, I'm going to try explaining something else that was recently in the news.



The New York Times recently reported that, "Yippie, the Pope is giving in and endorsing condom use."



The old gray hag of The New York Times has, once again, gotten it wrong.  One day, they may actually try to get a theologian to explain theology to them.  Unfortunately, given most theologians, that may not help much.



Let's start at the beginning: Why does the Catholic Church have an issue with condom use?  Or any contraceptives?



It basically involves philosophy ... bare with me a minute, I'll keep it short and comprehensible ... and what is the function of "a thing."  In the case of sex, the mechanism of sex is "insert tab A into slot B."  The "function" of sex is procreation, and a darn good time, if you're doing it correctly.



Contraceptions mess with the natural function of sex by removing elements that are inherent to the act -- procreation comes with sex.  The Vatican position is, that if you mess around with it and start taking out elements, then you are messing around with things that are not yours to mess with.



If you are pondering what the Catholic church's advice is on STD prevention when you have sex with your boy/girlfriend, the Church's position is that you should be having sex with your spouse, only with your spouse, have a nice day, thank you.  Under this rubrick, STDs are not a problem, since if you only ever insert one tab A into one tab B, STDs are not an issue; pregnancy remains in effect, but in the Catholic church, marriage is a contract to have sex, have kids, and spread the spawn around the globe, carrying the faith with it.



You are currently up on previously held positions.



The NY Times said, on November 21st .....

“Pope Benedict XVI has said that condom use can be justified in some cases to help stop the spread of AIDS . . . .”

However, George Wiegel, papal biographer and general Vatican busybody, corrected the Times report.  You can find the full text online, but since that will take forever for you to read, I'm going to translate it for you, gentle reader, into something easily comprehensible.



The pope's actual statement, in context, was during an interview.  The pope mentioned how the Catholic Church runs more AIDS hospitals, and stresses "prevention, education, help, counsel, and accompaniment."  IE: The pope pointed out that, unlike pontificating reporters, the Church actually does something,



The pope even stressed that "we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease."





The pope continued:

.... people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence–Be Faithful–Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality .... the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.

Short version: sex is important, has an effect on a person, and is also for the purpose of expressing love.  Throw in a condom, and you just make it another way to drug yourself into a stupor.




The part where the NYTimes gets confused is probably in the following section:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

When asked if "the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"  Pope Benedict XVI answered that "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality."



Short version: If it's someone infected with AIDS, yes, the Church would rather that they NOT KILL PEOPLE by infecting them further. 



Basically, it's like robbing a bank -- if you rob a bank, the Church would rather have someone use an empty gun; it'll lessen the risk of someone getting their head blown off.



So, despite news reports, the Catholic Church's position hasn't changed.



With luck, we can all move on to something important now.

The Politics of A Pius Man.

Irony sucks.



In my life, I have written nearly two dozen novels. Science fiction. Hostage novels. Comedy thrillers. Plain old, simple, straightforward shoot-em-up thrillers. One vampire novel. Murder mysteries set at a high school summer camp (title: Summer Death Camp).



And then there's A Pius Man. It was strange for a number of reasons. It basically took every single character I ever created and threw them together in a sprawling, two-pound, eight hundred page epic. There was theology, philosophy, liberty, love, marriage, death, and a fairly large war somewhere in the middle.



It was also the most political novel I had written.



Seriously, this book was all over the place with political topics. Racism, homosexuality, globalization, secularization, warfare, a just peace, when peace is just another word for surrender, torture, the International Community, terrorism, abortion … you name it, it was in the book.



Here's the irony: I hate politics. Hate 'em to death with a fiery passion. I think it's narrow-minded, more dogmatic than the Vatican, and more hypocritical than Voltaire saying “destroy the Church” on one hand, while taking daily communion in his private chapel. Look at the list above: racism and homosexuality are political topics. It should be simple: racism bad; who cares who you have sex with, have a nice day. But, no, they must be politicized.



Like I said, I hate politics, and what it does to normal, sane people the moment someone brings it up.



So, of course, when I finally come close to having something published, it's A Pius Man.



Like I said, irony sucks.



Unfortunately, politics are unavoidable when looking at the discussion of Pope Pius XII during the holocaust. [For those of you just tuning in, the “discussion” is summarized here]



No matter what side of the Pius discussion one finds themselves on, politics follows. While not perfectly uniform, the discussion breaks down along political lines.



Leftists take the anti-Pius side, right wingers take the pro-Pius side. Leftists use it to bash a centralized church with a strong hierarchical structure, with a goal of making the Catholic church like, say, the Unitarians (only a slight exaggeration, depending on which Leftist one is talking about).



On the right, you have a lot of conservative folks who make a case for Pius XII's sainthood.



I know what you're thinking: if this breaks down along political lines, you can tell exactly how the book will end depending on what my personal politics are. What are my politics?



That depends on where the jury is sitting.



In New York I'm a right-wing, blood-thirsty maniac because ... I think a blanket gay marriage license is a bad idea. Mainly because, in the first wave issued in the Northeast, there were a large segment that took the newly issued licenses, and went to their local church and demanded to be married –whether or not the church in question allowed gay marriage.



In the South, I'm a blood-thirsty left wing psychotic because … I think “marriage” is a religious term. Atheists go to a justice of the peace and enter into civil unions, NOT marriages. A civil union is a state function. Issue licenses for civil unions to BOTH atheists and gays, then the latter group can take it to a church that allows gay marriage, and they can all live happily every after and leave my church the hell alone. I'm not interested in burning gays at the stake, and I don't care if one is gay, straight or “flaming,” have a nice day.







In New York, I'm an evil righty because … I supported G.W. Bush going into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general.



In REALLY red states I'm an evil Leftist because … I would have supported Clinton going into Iraq. And I wanted someone to go into the Sudan before Darfur became a buzz word. And I hated almost everything else President Bush ever did.







In New York, I am conservative because … I think abortion and contraceptives are generally a Bad Idea.



In Pat Robertson's district, I am a bleeding heart Liberal …. because I'm not going to say “You had an abortion, therefore you are immediately going to Hell! MUAHAHAHA”







In New York, I am a psychotic Conservative … because I think the government should get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.



In the more bleeding red states, I am an evil Liberal … because I'd want a Republican government to get the hell outta my life. Just protect my stuff, my neighbor's stuff, and leave me the hell alone.







My politics boils down to, “There are things I don't like, wouldn't recommend, but I'm not issuing automatic condemnations.”  Politically, I'm somewhere in the middle. Which, in politics, means I'm in the middle of the crossfire.



So, what does this mean about A Pius Man? Don't be mistaken, I do take a side. I believe my conclusions are obvious basic on the facts I have researched. However, the political portions of the book are discussions, not rants. And the politics are driven more by the characters than by me.



And the politics of the characters in A Pius Man?







Sean A.P. Ryan. Mercenary. Believes in the free market system, heavy weaponry, and grew up in Hollywood. When queried on his political affiliations, he would say, “I believe people should be able to own marijuana and machine guns. I will laugh at the marijuana crowd, but if I have my guns, I'm happy.”



Scott “Mossad” Murphy. He works for Israel, usually among Palestinians. Moved from America to join the Mossad after 9-11. His politics: “I believe in the power of waterboarding. But I'd sooner talk terrorists to death. It's more painful in the long run. When you can talk them into revealing everything they know, kill them, move up the chain of command. Repeat until they're willing to be peaceful, or they are peacefully dead.”



Giovanni Figlia. His father was blown up by a Red Army faction in the 1980s, so he has a grudge against extreme, gun-toting Leftists. Aside from that, his politics are: “I have to protect the most powerful religious leader on the planet, and he insists on pissing off nearly one-third of the world's population. Leave me alone and let me do my job.”



Pope Pius XIII (Born: Joshua Kutjok): Hard right-wing. Has all but declared war on the Sudan. Thoroughly dislikes tyrannies, which means North Korea and China dislike him right back. “I am against abortion, gays being married in my church, and contraceptives are against the religion. Then again, you should only have sex with the person you marry, so abortion and contraceptives shouldn't be needed. However, my homeland of Sudan is going through thirty years of religious and ethnic warfare, I have better things to do than deal with whining hedonists!”



Father Francis Williams, S.J.: “I'm a Jesuit who is trying to transfer into the Opus Dei. I speak six languages and I can kill people with my rosary beads … what was your question?”



Maureen McGrail. Interpol. “I'm too busy being shot at to have a political opinion. Leave me alone.”



Secret Service Agent Wilhelmina Goldberg: As a special adviser to anyone who wants the Secret Service to audit their security, she has been all over, and her political opinion is simple. “At the end of the day, America looks good by comparison.”



Hashim Abasi: Oxford Educated in global politics. Egyptian police officer. His name translates into “Stern Crusher of Evil.” His father died while tinkering with a vest for a suicide bomber. He mentions having a wife, but it sounds like she was stoned to death. No one asks what his politics are.







The above characters have more influence over how the political discussions go than I do. So, the topics will be... interesting.