Who is Bill Evers?

For me, writing is a passion--always has been.  I can't imagine not having this creative outlet; without it I would go insane.  Sometimes, however, the creative channels shut down for whatever reason, leaving me in a state of flux and confusion.  What do I mean by that?  Like every one of you, there's a creative urge that gnaws at my brain, but there are also times that the creativity refuses to surface.  When the creativity doesn't flow, it leaves a void....an itch left unscratched, if you will, and this drives me crazy.


So, you can imagine my elation when I finished my first manuscript and sent it to publishers for consideration.  Just completing such an undertaking was an accomplishment in and of itself, but to have a publisher say "we want to publish this" made me want to do a cartwheel.  (Insert fat boy cartwheel jokes here.)


My protagonist is based upon numerous people I've met over the years, and personal interests that I've acquired.  Psychology plays an enormous role in character development, in my humble opinion.  Without really understanding your characters, it's difficult to convey to a reader who and what they are.  As simplistic as this sounds, it truly is a difficult thing to put emotion, morals (or lack thereof), desires, and the vast array of feelings and complexities that make us human into the written word. 


Bill Evers is, again in my opinion, quite an enigma.  He's a man trained in the combat arts, both military and martial.  The one thing he knows is killing.  Unfortunately, post combat and mercenary roles, he had little else to fall back on, which prevented him from getting out of "the life."  Further complicating things for him is the post-traumatic stress disorder that haunts his sleep.


Trained in Yoshukai Karate and judo, Evers sees people as "targets" or "non-targets."    He isn't a loose cannon, but he is emotionally disconnected from taking a life; that is, if that life was a target and not an innocent.  He believes in striking hard and fast.  Testosterone laden talk is for amateurs and bullies--combat, in his mind, was designed as a means of survival, both physical and economic.


Evers sees the world for what it is: a place ruled by the few, rather than by the many.  He has no sympathy for government officials, seeing each as the hand controlling the chess board, and a country's citizenry as the pawns awaiting their next move.  To remove a target serving the lesser good is fine by him...and it pays well too.


I hope you'll "like" and follow my Bill Evers page as his life becomes a strange reality once the words are finally put to paper.  Lastly, I ask each of you, should the urge strike you, to share the page with your friends and family to help me get the word out to the public at large.  Without you, this dream of mine would not have been made possible.  Thanks for the friendship and reading loyalty! 

https://www.facebook.com/BillEversAdventures

The Liberal Founding Fathers--A Mythos

For the past few years I've heard many espouse the "liberal" nature of our Founding Fathers.  I've scratched my head numerous times as I've read their assumptions and presumptions about the political nature of George Washington and the other British rebels who defied King George and his band of red coats. 

According to Webster's online dictionary, liberalism is defined as such:

1. the quality or state of being liberal

 

 

 2.  often capitalized: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

 

I found this Webster's definition especially enticing, not because I believe in the modern interpretation of those things "liberal," but because so many "liberals" believe in their alleged altruistic approach to government, life, and liberty as "liberal." 

 

First, you will notice that liberalism includes a specific alignment with Protestantism and direct tie to Christianity.  It also purports to believe in a self-regulating market and a gold standard.  Next, you'll find that liberalism is founded on the belief that the protection of political and civil liberties of all men and women should be adhered to under these principles.

 

Lastly, liberalism believes in the amelioration, or enhancement, of social inequities. 

 

What I find in Webster's definition of liberalism is one half of what the Founders intended (black men and women notwithstanding). 

 

With that, we must now look at Webster's definition of conservatism:

 

1

capitalized

a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party

b: the Conservative party

2

a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established

b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically:

3

: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

 

Should we look at the Founder's belief in a political system, and their desire to separate Church and State, then it's obvious, at least to me, that they were focused on economic and social anonymity.  They also understood the need for strong national borders and the ability to be self-sufficient. 

 

If we were all to base our beliefs on Webster's definition of these two party beliefs, there should be no doubt that we are all liberal/conservatives.  Unfortunately, there has been a serious bastardization in both parties, but mostly in the "liberal" or democratic party.  Why?  They have moved to the hard left...to the party of government sustenance and acceptance of all things once considered immoral or socially unacceptable.  When we look at issues like abortion, we must ask ourselves when life truly begins, what self-reliance means, and what a self-reliant/free market really means. 

 

How is it then that liberals think the Founders were somehow liberal?  Perhaps at the time Webster defined liberalism they really were!  But by today's standards, our Founders were wholly conservative and defined themselves as individual thinkers who wanted little change outside totalitarian control by England and King George (who, by the way, was a true liberal by today's definition).

 

Our Founders wanted slow change.  That's why they incorporated three branches of government into our government's creation.  By this standard and definition, they were very....even ultra-conservative.  They believed all men (everyone, less blacks and all women....we had to overcome that nonsense, which was a part of their liberal ideology) were created equal, and the system of government they set up should be one of debate and systematic slowness, with little intervention beyond the rights of the individual states.  Why is this so difficult for today's "liberals" to grasp? 

 

Fundamental freedoms from an overseeing Big Brother and imperialistic government is what the Founders wanted to escape.  Today's liberals want Big Brother to take care of them, rather than being self-reliant and capable. 

God bless our conservative Founding Fathers.