Writer’s Block

Where Am I Going, Anyway?

William Sundwick

I can’t seem to focus these days. Is it Coronavirus quarantine fatigue? Or, is it a much deeper philosophical crisis? I must ask myself: what kept me going writing in Warp & Woof, for nearly three-and-a-half years, that is now missing?

The obvious answer: my Writers Group is missing. For all those years, I wrote under strict weekly deadlines (with breaks between sessions). Now there are no such deadlines. And, it doesn’t look like I can reconstitute the group in the near future. Not until in-person classes are again offered by Arlington Community Learning, anyway. Zoom classes do not allow the kind of feedback that was critical for my weekly production of posts and kept me going during breaks. I relied on the six to nine classmates and instructor reading my output – and I theirs. Each week they would give me spontaneous thoughts on my piece, as I did for their work, complete with notes written on print copies of the piece. It was a good system, at once conversational and well-prepared. It was Jerry Haines’ system.

But then Jerry left for health reasons. ACL tried to replace him but could not. I’ve been lost without him. Among other things, Jerry taught me to focus on my intended audience. Was that audience the Writers Group itself? Or, did I have a different, virtual, audience in mind? Friends and family? I promoted my blog via social media contacts and email, although I never paid for promotion.

Facebook discussion groups and chat rooms have fallen out of fashion these days, however. Do I need a different means of promotion? Do I need another ACL Writers Group?

And, I am beginning to question whether I have anything to say. Perhaps now is the time to re-evaluate the five basic themes on which Warp & Woof was built:

1.    .       The Past – “What Used to Matter,” I labeled it. This is my page for all pieces covering politics, history, and sociology. It has by far the most posts, after three-plus years of writing since launching the blog. The page reflects what I read.
2.       .    The Present – “What Matters for Sure.” It is the next biggest collection, where I have written about health and fitness, including mental health and my own life today, as well as several excursions into my grandchildren’s lives. Certainly, my family and friends appreciate this material, and the Writers Group often gave me positive feelings about these pieces, too.
3.           The Future – “What May Matter, Who Knows?” This page is decidedly thin on original content. Its only noteworthy topics have been related to economics, placed here as projections or explorations of consumer behavior. Originally, I thought I would cover more science and technology on this page, and maybe anthropology (enduring elements of the human experience). Alas, these never materialized after the inaugural year of Warp & Woof. Is it time to retire The Future?
4.            Beats – “Sounds that Matter,” as I tagged it in 2017. It is perhaps the most coherent of all my pages, except for The Past, but has recently suffered because I’m simply not listening to music during this pandemic lockdown. My gym has been closed! I would always crank up my iTunes playlist on my phone while working out – but I don’t workout anymore. Sad. Perhaps Beats will pick up again in the future. I still maintain an interest in classic rock, blues, and more avant-garde forms of rock (punk and metal). My music speaks to me. I should be able to put it into words.
5.            Totems – “Objects that Matter,” was really about car culture – something which apparently died (at least among potential audiences of Warp & Woof) more than twenty years ago. Beyond a planned piece on the decline and fall of General Motors, I’m not sure there is anything else in this realm that interests me enough to write about. If I were to write about EVs or autonomous vehicles, I could put it on The Future page, instead. Sigh.

If I seriously wanted to overcome my writer’s block, I think I would put more energy into writing on science and technology for The Future, and possibly launch a new page dedicated to political ideology (although I might keep covering elections and candidates in The Past). I used to be an information professional, so I ought to have a strong technology focus, right? But it may have been too long since I retired from that field. I could do some research, though! That might be fun.

If only I could recreate the feedback loop from that ACL Writers Group and Jerry. That would surely dissolve my writers block! But it would require collective reading and commenting, perhaps face-to-face in a classroom environment. This Spring, I had an unhappy experience with a Zoom writers’ class where nobody read anything, and all writing was limited to 250 words, only read aloud in a kind of “performance.” Not the experience I was seeking. Worse, I mistakenly chose Tara Reade and her accusation of sexual assault against Joe Biden as my topic – basing four short blurbs on that continuously breaking news cycle, with commentary about her reliability and “the truth.” It amounted to nothing, and my writing came across as shallow, given the constraining format of the class. Not my style.

Perhaps American politics, and media coverage of it, is too shallow? That alone could explain my writing doldrums lately. I need better subject matter!

Maybe this is my last word on Tara Reade, she has now established herself as a liar, in general, to the point of chasing away her attorney!

Tara Reade, Casualty

William Sundwick

No, she didn’t get the timing right. She knew she only had weak corroboration for her accusation that Senator Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993, when she was a young staffer in his office.

Alas, it was too late to keep everybody that mattered, including the bulk of the mainstream media, from anointing Joe Biden as the presumptive presidential nominee in 2020. Bernie Sanders, her favorite in the primary, remained silent following her public accusation in late March. He endorsed the former Vice-President anyway. Elizabeth Warren, and every woman being considered by Biden as a potential running mate or cabinet member, jumped at the chance for a full-throated defense of his categorical denial – especially after he appeared on MSNBC May 1 to tell Mika Brzezinski, “It never happened. Never. Period.” Tara Reade’s strongest defense was the withering fire from a retreating Berniecrat crowd, growing fainter by the day, and some more substantive feminist voices like Kate Manne.

Then, Reade’s friend in California, Lynda LaCasse, came forward later, apparently unprompted, with a reasonably powerful endorsement of Tara’s story, which she related a few years after the alleged incident.

Even if some of the details that Reade stumbles over cannot be corroborated (like the Senate complaint about harassment in Biden’s office), “absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,” as Kate Manne reminds us. This is not a legal proceeding, nor a civil case, but a classic case of survivors reliving trauma, after long simmering shame and embarrassment. This is what #MeToo was all about.

In any case, “Believe Women” never meant that all women always tell the full truth about their experiences, only that they be given the benefit of the doubt when they come forward. Tara Reade has been given that, and only a fringe has sought to defame her (notably, not Biden himself). Both she and her accused are presumed innocent.

But, as we know, truth often comes down to “he said, she said.” Some feminists have noted that Reade’s accusation accurately portrays who Biden really is – even if this specific case is dubious. Much in his public persona suggests he comes from an extreme patriarchal culture. His admitted “handsiness” and other behavior has made many women uncomfortable, even if falling short of sexual assault. Some have labeled him “creepy.” His presidential campaign is trying hard to focus on the alternate public image of “decent old Uncle Joe” – not difficult versus the twenty accusations his opponent faces!

And Biden’s defense is bolstered by a #MeToo postulate: “there’s never only one.” It seems that Reade is the only one, as no credible secondary victims have yet appeared -- after at least six weeks of non-stop media coverage of her allegation. But Christine Blasey Ford had no credible secondary victims either. The main difference between her case two years ago and Reade’s is that Blasey testified under oath and took a polygraph about what happened to her in high school. Reade has done neither.

Most of these ministrations about trying to determine the “truth” are irrelevant, anyway. The November election will be about far more critical issues. If proven true, Reade’s accusation would force the Democratic Party to tackle the unprecedented task of overturning duly certified primary results to replace Biden. The most likely result of that would be disarray and ultimate defeat for the Party in November. Is this Reade’s hope? It certainly is not the hope of her friend LaCasse – who still plans on voting for Biden.

If we conclude that Reade’s story is too flimsy to believe, she is still a casualty of the campaign. She should have anticipated this outcome. Maybe she did but chose her timing, regardless.

Power of Denial

William Sundwick

Under increasing pressure to deal with Tara Reade’s allegation of sexual assault, Joe Biden went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to reiterate his campaign’s official position – flat denial. “It never happened.” The campaign had already sent appeals to supporters to not stray from that line.

Tara Reade shared her 27-year-old story only with a few intimates, until this March, when she went public on a podcast to announce that she was sexually assaulted in the halls of the Senate by then-Senator Joe Biden, for whom she worked as a junior staffer. The charge was old, and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate it, but three friends and a brother have come forward recently, following interviews from multiple investigative reporters.

So far, the only “evidence” for skepticism of Reade’s story is vague suspicion of her motivations, and some inconsistencies in her accounts.

Yet, the response from Biden’s supporters, especially potential running mates and cabinet appointments, implies satisfaction with the denial, often citing Biden’s past legislative efforts on behalf of women, especially the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Where does that leave the #BelieveWomen trope now?

The oblique support for Biden will likely persist. Deny, deny, deny is a time-honored political strategy. If fewer women turn out in November, they at least won’t be voting for Trump -- considering his even more egregious past behavior!

Deniability is still plausible. Biden’s campaign can reason its margins will still hold for myriad other reasons.

Most importantly: Biden remains the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse!

Tara Reade and Truth

William Sundwick

Tara Reade worked briefly for then-Sen. Joe Biden in 1992-93. She came forward in March with an accusation of a 1993 sexual assault by the Senator, related in graphic detail on Katie Halper’s podcast. Only then did she file a police report.

She claims that she made a formal complaint to the Senate personnel office when it happened, but there is no record of it. One anonymous friend has corroborated her story, insisting Tara told her just after it happened.

Tara’s brother told the Washington Post that his sister had complained of harassment when she worked for Biden, including unwanted (but not necessarily sexual) touching by the Senator. After the initial interview, her brother elaborated via text message, giving partial support to her assault allegation. She claims she also told her late mother at the time, and there is a videotape of her calling the Larry King show in August, 1993 with vague reference to her daughter’s problems with the Senator’s office, but with no names or details provided. Her brother said in his text, “Mom thought she should go to police.” No other corroboration has been found, especially among any of Tara’s coworkers in Biden’s office. Hers is the only such allegation ever made against Biden.

Other women have made claims of uncomfortable, unwanted touching and invasion of personal space by Biden. He has acknowledged this, promising to be “more sensitive” toward women as his presidential campaign has progressed.

Reade has been a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, as is Katie Halper, where she first made the allegation.

So, where are we? Is the “#BelieveWomen” trope from the Brett Kavanagh hearings now a political weapon to be applied selectively only to opponents? Was there a secret payoff to fabricate this story? Given the lack of substantive corroboration, what else could have motivated Reade? Too late to boost Bernie!

That leaves the perennial #BelieveWomen question: if there is no identified benefit to the accuser, why not assume she is telling the truth?