Wait - what ?

soli :: @solisolsoli :: Oil painting by Alai Ganuza

* * * *

It is summer. It is spring. I am immeasurably, unbearably happy. I am three years old. I am sixty. I am six.

I am there.

“And then a man of forty or so, with a French accent, asked, ‘How do you achieve the presence of mind to initiate the writing of a poem?’ And something cracked open in me, and I finally stopped hoarding and told them my most useful secret. The only secret that has helped me consistently over all the years that I’ve written. I said, ‘Well, I’ll tell you how. I ask a simple question. I ask myself: What was the very best moment of your day?’ The wonder of it was, I told them that this one question could lift out from my life exactly what I will want to write a poem about. Something I hadn’t known was important will leap out and hover there in front of me, saying I am — I am the best moment of the day.

I noticed two people were writing down what I was saying. Often, I went on, it’s a moment when you’re waiting for someone, or you’re driving somewhere, or maybe you’re just walking across a parking lot and admiring the oil stains and the dribbled tar patterns. One time it was when I was driving past a certain house that was screaming with sunlitness on its white clapboards, and then I plunged through tree shadows that splashed and splayed across the windshield. I thought, Ah, of course — I’d forgotten. You, windshield shadows, you are the best moment of the day.”

[Thanks Ian Sanders]

''I always make the mistake of trying to force my way toward being, as if I could oblige being to appear. The opposite is true. It is being that constantly strives toward the light of consciousness. It needs a passage that allows it to radiate. But on the way it meets the hard crust of the ego and is blocked by it. In order for being to have an action, a void must appear before it in which a finer vibration can be sensed. Only in emptiness can its vivifying power be felt, only when there are no tensions or any disordered movements of the ego wanting at all costs to prove its identity, to affirm its authority. Each tension is testimony of my ego. In each tension the whole of me is engaged.

I now understand that conscious sensation is the first sign of obedience to something greater, the first step toward a true feeling. Here I glimpse the possibility of a direct perception. My tyrannical “I” submits and no longer dominates, no longer trying to show its strength. I feel another force, not a power that I possess but one in which I am. At this moment there appears an energy coming from a higher emotional current, irresistible so long as it is obeyed. It is this energy, a cosmic force passing in us, that all traditions call “love.”

David Hockney, Paper pools, 1980

* * * * * “I do not see emotions and feelings as the intangible and vaporous qualities that many presume them to be. Their subject matter is concrete, and they can be related to specific systems in body and brain, no less so than vision or speech.”

The misleading narrative of Democratic disunity.

August 5, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

As primaries in five states conclude on Tuesday evening, the leading narrative in the political press is that the Democratic Party is in crisis and disarray. Why? According to political commentators, it is because members of the Democratic Party disagree over the best path forward and are asking voters to decide between candidates advocating competing visions of the path to victory.

I remember the good old days when candidates campaigned for votes based on their policies. We used to call that “democracy.” Now, pundits use words like “disunity,” “division,” “chaos,” and a “fight for the future of the Democratic Party” to describe a process that is more commonly known as “a primary.”

It could be otherwise. Democratic candidates could seek votes based on which candidate is the most willing to debase themselves to win the approval of a narcissistic megalomaniac, adjudicated sexual abuser, convicted felon. The pundits think that it is just swell for the Republican Party to replace the very notion of political discourse with a cult of personality. But those same pundits descend into apoplexy when Democrats dare to admit disagreement and vigorous debate over ideas.

Are the contests between “progressives” (sometimes Democratic Socialists of America) and “moderates” important and instructive? Yes! But they are a sign of a healthy party trying to figure out what voters want. Rather than saying that the “progressive” or “centrist” candidate won, the correct framing is that voters chose a candidate who promoted policies relevant to voters in that district.

When voters speak, their parties and political commentators should listen.

If voters in different parts of the country choose candidates who promote different policies, that is a natural state of affairs for a nation as vast and diverse as the United States. Those differences are not a sign of disunity but instead demonstrate that the Democratic Party is a broad, tolerant, and inclusive coalition.

Will there be disappointment, frustration, resentment, and hard feelings over the outcomes of some races? Yes, because everyone involved in those contests is human. But again, natural human emotions are not a sign of dysfunction but a sign of life in the only party fighting to save democracy.

Senate Judiciary Committee advances Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 12-10 to advance the nomination of Todd Blanche to the full Senate for a final vote on confirmation. See CBS News, Senate Judiciary Committee advances Blanche’s nomination for attorney general.

Senator John Cornyn capitulated to Trump when Blanche provided illusory promises that the $1.8 billion weaponization fund would not proceed. Cornyn gave a pathetic excuse for his capitulation, saying

Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter, it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances.

Talk about Profiles in Cowardice! Of course, there is something that the Article I branch of the government can do to rein in Trump. It can pass a law that prohibits any compensation for those convicted of crimes related to the assault on the Capitol on January 6. But that would require Cornyn and his fellow Republicans to do their jobs—something that they gave up trying to do long ago.

And Cornyn is flat out wrong when he says, “it’s dead.” To the contrary, Blanche rescinded his order implementing the fund but did not repeal the settlement agreement that creates the fund and authorizes the payments. For a detailed explanation of the gaping legal loopholes in Todd Blanche’s disingenuous statements issued on Sunday, see Philip Rotner in The Bulwark, Don’t Believe Todd Blanche About Trump’s Slush Fund From Hell.

Rotner begins,

Don’t be fooled by the weasel-worded statements that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche posted on the Department of Justice website and tweeted out late Sunday night. They are clearly intended to give a false impression that a stake has finally been driven into the fund’s heart. It hasn’t.

Rotner parses the language of Blanche’s statement regarding the slush fund and concludes,

If Senators Cornyn and Tillis are too dense to understand the difference between “not operative” or “not moving forward,” on the one hand, and “dead forever,” on the other, then maybe Trump stumbled on something true by branding them as no longer fit to be senators.

There is more to the analysis, so I recommend Rotner’s article in full for your review.

The vote on Blanche will take place sometime in the next few days, so there is still time to prevent his confirmation. And there are even more reasons than ever to do so. New reporting in Politico says that Blanche promised a conservative Christian organization, Intercessors for America, that he would work to make the Dobbs decision “the law of the land” in every single state. See Politico, Blanche assures anti-abortion supporters that Dobbs will be ‘permanent in every single state’.

Although just how Blanche would extend Dobbs to every state is unclear, since the essence of the holding is that “the people’s representatives” get to decide what law applies in their states. According to a recording of the call by Blanche, he suggested that the DOJ would attempt to block telehealth prescriptions and the use of the mail for delivery of medication to prevent women from accessing abortion healthcare.

Having an unelected, unaccountable, and corrupt Attorney General pledge to extend Dobbs to every state is the opposite of “allowing the people’s representatives” to decide the question for their respective states.

This disclosure should put reproductive health rights on the ballot for every GOP member of Congress who is running for re-election—especially for Susan Collins, who put Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.

Speaking of Senator Susan “I am concerned” Collins, she has announced that she will vote against Todd Blanche’s confirmation. Sadly, her announcement suggests that Blanche has enough votes without Collins to be confirmed. But, just in case other GOP Senators decide to vote against Blanche, he can afford to lose only two more votes. Here’s why:

Mitch McConnell is not expected to vote in the Senate ever again. With Collins’ vote against Blanche, the tally is 48 – 51. If one more GOP Senator votes against Blanche, the total is 49 against, 50 in favor, and Blanche is confirmed because a majority of the Senators “present and voting” will have voted for his confirmation. If two more GOP Senators vote against Blanche, the vote will be 50 to 49. Blanche’s confirmation is defeated because a majority of the Senators present and voting will have voted against his confirmation.

In short, one more GOP defection and Blanche will be confirmed; two more GOP defections and Blanche’s confirmation will be defeated.

Per Democracy Docket, the Texas GOP has backed down from a scheme to suppress the vote in the 2024 midterm elections after a wave of voter outrage.

Per Democracy Docket, Republicans were on the verge of drastically reducing the number of voting locations in a major Texas battleground county, including cutting early voting locations on college campuses.

Democracy Docket reports:

But that all changed at the last moment, when Republican officials were faced with a massive backlash from outraged voters who packed the meeting room — and two overflow rooms — to demand that their voting locations remain open.

See Democracy Docket, GOP backs down from suppression scheme in Texas after voter outrage.

Something is happening in Texas, and it is not good for the GOP. The people are taking back their state, which has been under minority rule for decades.

The people of Missouri vote decisively against the Republican legislature’s attempt to curtail the initiative process.

Republicans in the Missouri legislature grew weary of the people of Missouri using the initiative process to enact progressive legislation, including protection of abortion rights, legalization of marijuana, and a minimum wage increase. So, Republicans in the Missouri legislature proposed a constitutional amendment to make it harder for the people of Missouri to use the initiative process to enact progressive legislation and amend the state Constitution. New restrictions would have required that a majority in each of the state’s 8 congressional districts vote in favor for an initiative to pass.

On Tuesday, Missouri voters rejected the Republican legislature’s attempt to curtail the initiative process. And they did so by an overwhelming margin of 83% to 16%! See Missouri Independent, Missouri voters reject income tax phaseout, initiative petition changes.

Something is happening in Missouri, and it is not good for the GOP.

Concluding Thoughts.

After a 7-hour drive home through California’s Central Valley, I am calling an audible to end the newsletter early. As we drove through Bakersfield, CA, the temperature rose to 110°F, and yet there were workers in the fields picking crops that feed America! (California’s Central Valley produces 25% of America’s table food and is responsible for 8% of US agricultural production. See USGS, California’s Central Valley.)

Temperatures of 110°F are not uncommon during summer months in Bakersfield, but the long-term trend for average temperatures is increasing. Since 1895, average daytime temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley have increased by about 1.5 degrees, while nighttime temperatures have increased by about 2.5 degrees. See Western Regional Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, Air Temperature Data (2022).

The impact of climate change on food production in the San Joaquin Valley is a serious concern for America’s food supply. But there is another casualty: summer as a season of renewal and reflection. See Rebecca Solnit, The Guardian, We launched a war on nature. Now we are in a climate war zone.

Solnit writes,

It’s as if we launched a war against nature, and that has turned place after place into something that resembles a war zone. The climate movement is a peace movement, a movement to end this war and its casualties. We often talk about what climate change has wrecked in terms of what’s material, tangible, structures lost to fire, flood, or sea level rise, trees dying, species threatened, glaciers melting in warmer weather. But summer was an immaterial treasure and joy that belonged to all of us.

When I speak to grassroots groups, I always get this question: “Where are the young people?” While there are many responses to the question, one answer is, “They are involved in the climate movement; if we want them to join us, we must make climate protection one of our priorities.”

The corruption is endless. [Cartoon by Mike Luckovich]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 4, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson

Aug 05, 2026

On Friday night, a court filing from Capital One denied there was any political motivation behind the closure of more than 380 bank accounts in the names of Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Instead, it stated, the accounts were closed “for anti-money laundering reasons.” It said “transaction patterns” had triggered the review.

President Donald J. Trump has maintained that banks refused to do business with him after January 6, 2021, for political reasons. As Allison Morrow of CNN reported yesterday, Trump and his supporters, including cryptocurrency ventures, have used the idea that they were being “debanked” because of their political beliefs to claim they are victims. Last year, Trump and the Trump Organization sued Capital One in federal court in Florida, saying they had sustained “considerable financial harm” after the bank closed about 385 of their accounts.

Observers note that the story of Trump wanting immunity from IRS audits and the revelation that his bank activity mirrored that of money launderers might well be the same story.

That story recalls the work of national security specialist Natasha Bertrand in 2018, when she reported in The Atlantic that Trump’s rabid attacks on FBI and Justice Department officials centered on those with extensive experience in investigating money laundering and organized crime, particularly as they interfaced with Russia.

Trump went after officials he claimed were “Democrats” who were part of a “witch hunt” against him as they examined the ties of his 2016 campaign to Russian operatives. But Bertrand pointed out that his primary targets—Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Andrew Weissmann, Andrew McCabe—all specialized in investigations into organized crime and money laundering. She noted that the probe into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian operatives was primarily a counterintelligence investigation and that Russia’s criminal syndicates and intelligence services had become increasingly intertwined.

In July 2017, Trump told the New York Times that it would be unacceptable for those investigating his campaign’s ties to Russia to look at his or his family’s personal finances. That would be a “red line,” he said. “I have no income from Russia. I don’t do business with Russia.” (This denial contradicts Donald Trump Jr.’s 2008 statement that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross section of a lot of our assets” and Eric Trump’s 2014 boast, “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”) Bertrand noted that Trump’s links to “Russian oligarchs and mobsters” were “documented” and that his Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey, “was repeatedly cited by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network for having inadequate money-laundering controls.”

Financial irregularities surrounding Trump associate Jeffrey Epstein are also in the news today. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is famous for following money trails doggedly, released a report saying that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank held off on filing required suspicious activity reports in transactions associated with Jeffrey Epstein.

The report, titled “Looking the Other Way: How Wall Street Banks Enabled Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking,” came out of a multi-year investigation. Investigators “found significant evidence that JPMorgan Chase (JPMC), Deutsche Bank, and Bank of America violated anti–money laundering laws by failing to screen and report Epstein’s suspicious financial transactions in a timely manner.”

It describes how top banks enabled Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation by ignoring suspicious financial transactions by those associated with him, appearing eager to use Epstein’s connections to other wealthy individuals. The report explains that Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke and his accountants Richard Kahn and Harry Beller “executed thousands of suspicious cash withdrawals and wire transfers, potentially in furtherance of human trafficking. Disturbingly, federal prosecutors have never even questioned them in connection with criminal investigations.”

Federal law designed to prevent money laundering requires banks to notify the Treasury with a suspicious activities report (SAR) within 60 days of detecting activity that raises red flags. The investigators found that the three banks most closely associated with Epstein put off reporting suspicious activity for years, filing reports of more than $1.4 billion retroactively only after Epstein was arrested for the second time in 2019 on charges of sex trafficking. The suspicious transactions included “thousands of wire transfers, major withdrawals of cash, payments to women and girls, and correspondent banking in high-risk foreign jurisdictions (including Russia). They also include tens of millions in payments to his conspirator and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.”

The report concludes that “top executives at major Wall Street banks were aware of Epstein’s suspicious financial activity for years but withheld information from the U.S. government, protecting Epstein from federal scrutiny” as they sought access to his money, which generated millions in fees every year, and to the money of his friends.

Top of the list of those friends was billionaire Leon Black, the former chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management Inc. The report concludes that Black “was overwhelmingly the largest source of funding for Epstein’s sex trafficking,” providing Epstein’s primary source of income between 2012 and 2017. Those payments amounted to about $166 million.

Bank of America took five to seven years to report those transactions even though bank officials thought they had “no apparent economic, business or lawful purpose.” Black told the Republican-dominated House Oversight Committee that he paid that money to Epstein for “tax, estate planning and other related services” and was not aware of Epstein’s “nefarious activity.”

The report concludes that “Bank of America likely violated federal anti-money laundering laws by failing to properly screen and report” those payments.

The report also covers already-released SARs from JPMorgan Chase, showing that the bank waited years to file those SARs despite the fact that bankers flagged more than $1 billion of transactions as suspicious, including payments to women in many countries and large cash withdrawals. It explains how Deutsche Bank AG, as well, delayed for years reporting more than $250 million in suspicious transactions tied to Epstein.

The report notes that JPMorgan Chase cut ties to Epstein as a client in 2013 out of concerns he was engaged in money laundering. This is an interesting mirror of the recent news from Capital One, since Trump also sued JPMorgan Chase and its chief executive officer Jamie Dimon for $5 billion, alleging they “debanked” him after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Wyden, who is the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, chastised Republicans for not working with him on this project. He noted that Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) who is currently running for governor, refused to join him in subpoenaing records in the Epstein banking matter even as she publicly complained that Democrats were hampering the investigation into those records.

The report also pointed out that Republicans have blocked Wyden’s measure that would require the Treasury Department to produce copies of all suspicious activity reports related to Epstein and his co-conspirators for congressional committees, and it singled out U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for refusing to produce those records to the Senate Finance Committee.

The report called for the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and the Comptroller of the Currency to “conduct thorough investigations of the activities laid out in this report and…levy fines or criminal penalties, as appropriate.” The report emphasized that such an investigation should include looking at the behavior of individual bankers, as well as the banks themselves.

“Investigations into the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein have thus uncovered an important finding that extends beyond Epstein himself: Wall Street banks have been willing to turn a blind eye to the suspicious transactions of ultra-wealthy clients, even if the failure to scrutinize and report these transactions runs directly afoul of federal law,” the report said. “If federal prosecutors are serious about preventing the next Jeffrey Epstein, they must hold Wall Street accountable.”

Congress passed federal securities laws and banking regulation in the 1930s after it became clear that a small group of wealthy investors had manipulated the markets and misused bank funds. Pressure to clean up Wall Street came from entrepreneurs and small investors, who knew they could not do business or make gains in the market if the system was rigged against them. A healthy economy depended on a level playing field for everyone.

Now, it appears, we are watching the dismantling of those protections and not only the long-term skewing of our system toward the very wealthy, but also a dramatic skewing in real time. On Saturday, Trump began selling access to his social media posts to Wall Street trading firms milliseconds before they go public, permitting them to buy and sell with insider information. The cost for this service, according to Marina Dunbar of The Guardian, is up to $100,000 a month.

Kathleen Clark of Washington University School of Law, an expert in government conflicts of interest rules, told Bernard Condon of the Associated Press that this scheme is “yet more brazen corruption, an improper exploitation of government power to enrich himself.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

‘Symbols fill the writer’s dreaming’ , from ‘The hour of magic and other poems’ by W.H. Davies, 1922.

* * * * “I had one trip that I really loved. I was convinced that I was a minor character in someone else’s dream. The feeling was intensely relaxing. I didn’t have to do anything, because everything I did was just a metaphor. And since it wasn’t my dream, I didn’t have to decode the signs. Nothing made sense but nothing had to. It was the greatest experience I’ve ever had; for an entire afternoon I didn’t have to exist. And I came back.” — Season Butler, Cygnet [jacobwren]

The Grief Iceberg

And a writing workshop in October.

Cheryl Strayed

Aug 02, 2026

Hello friends,

The simple question how are you? has become complicated for me since my dear husband Brian died in May. I am wrecked. I’m blasted to smithereens. I am so very sad. I’m either crying myself to sleep at night or lying in my bed not crying, frozen in pain. I’m waking and thinking okay Cheryl, let’s survive another day. I’m shaking with sorrow at the grocery store. I’m empty inside. I don’t know if I’ll ever be happy again. I am profoundly, unendingly devastated that my children will have to live the rest of their lives without their magnificent father. And I will too. I’m achingly lonely, even when surrounded by people who love me and whom I love. I’m bereft and ruined. I’m staggered and sunk. There is no part of my life that is untouched by Brian’s death. I feel physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually wounded, maimed and eviscerated.

I’m in full saturation grief.

When I was twenty and first beginning to think of myself as a writer, I didn’t know that full saturation grief would be my primary subject. I had no idea that writing about loss would be my most meaningful work—the work that is both the closest to my heart and the work that has traveled the most deeply into other people’s hearts. It wasn’t artistic curiosity that took me there, it was my life. My mother’s death at 45. My devastation.

And now, thirty-five years later, life has taken me there again, to ground that is both horrifyingly familiar and wrenchingly brand new. Now, for the second time, the most epic, essential person in my life (not counting my children, who are in a different category) has been ripped from me. Now, for a second time, the person who made me feel the most safe, known, held, and loved is forever gone. Bobbi. Brian. Their deaths were different and yet, in the swift onset and cruel prognoses of their respective diseases, strikingly similar: no treatment, no cure, no mercy, no kidding.

I’m hanging in there is what I usually say when asked how I am. I even went so far as to practice this reply in the mirror several weeks ago because coming up with a reasonable answer to this seemingly harmless question was giving me such anxiety. Hanging in there is the only phrase I could think of that would convey neutrality alongside a melancholy dash of the truth. I am dangling between the old life I loved and the new life I do not want to make, but must.

And the truth is, I am hanging in there. Of all the many shocking things about the wretched turn my life has taken over these past several months, the fact that I’m functioning like a normal human is among the most shocking. I have remained upright and in near-constant motion. In the 80 days since Brian died (as of this writing), I have not spent a single one of them in bed.

Like most people whose lives have been blasted to smithereens by the death of someone they love deeply, I’ve had no choice but to go on doing what life demands of me. I’ve had to see to the business of being a mother, widow, pet owner, homeowner, breadwinner, and citizen. I clean, cook, shop and do the laundry. I haul the garbage, recycling, and compost bins to the curb every Tuesday while chatting pleasantly with my neighbors. I call the plumber and the dentist to make appointments. I pay the bills and take the car to get its oil changed and get my hair cut and have discussions with veterinarians about the various ailments of my seven thousand (actually five, then, sadly, suddenly, four) cats and dogs. I go to the gym and lift weights and try to get serious about meditating every day. I spend time with my sweet kids and see my incredible friends and share meals and outings during which I manage to spend only about 63% of the time talking and crying about Brian.

I’m also working. Writing (this, as well as a book all about this). I’m back to interviewing people for my podcast. I even taught a writing workshop in Alaska a couple of weeks ago. I stood before a room full of the lovely, bright, wonderful workshop participants and I told them I didn’t know how I was doing this, standing before them, sharing the sacred work that is teaching creative writing. But I was doing this. I did it. And I did it with all of my heart and intelligence, like I always do. I did it, even though everything is different for me now.

One of the great, isolating addlements of grief is the lack of language to describe that difference—that ability to function and be “okay” and back to things, while suffering tremendously. We don’t have a word for that state of being, perhaps because we’re assured by dichotomies. We don’t want to make a word for the awful land of living/suffering, where the bereaved are forced to live. It is reassuring to believe there is this or that and nothing in between. It is clarifying to stand on one shore or the other. But grief has no shore, as every honest account of the experience tells us. Grief is sinking into the depths of the muddiest waters and trying to swim to the surface and eventually float.

After my essay The Love of My Life was published in The Sun magazine some twenty-four years ago, a few of my friends who knew me in my early twenties said they hadn’t understood how profoundly I was suffering over the death of my mother at the time. It wasn’t entirely their fault. I didn’t have the words to tell them about how so much of grief is hidden in those muddy waters. They only knew what they saw above the surface. Me, hanging in there.

Times have changed a bit. So many writers—yes, me among them—have told murkier, more complex truths about grief and, in great part because of that, our understanding of it has become more nuanced (though there’s still much progress to be made). When my mother died in 1991, I felt like the only young motherless daughter. When my husband died in 2026, I need only to log onto Instagram to see I am not alone in widowhood. One meme that has appeared on my feed again and again in different versions is that of The Grief Iceberg, a deeply consoling illustration of this thing that we don’t have a word for. Here’s mine:

When Brian got his diagnosis and we knew he was going to die one of the things that kept me going was knowing I’d get back to work. That my writing would, as it always has, save me. I think of writing as the unbroken thread of my life. The thing that has filled the emptiness, helped me make sense of the incomprehensible, glimmered the ugliest things with at least some aspect of beauty. Writing is such a sturdy and stabilizing force in my life that thread isn’t really the right word for it. Writing is my rope. The one I’ve used to pull myself upward over and over again. The one that tethers me to meaning and possibility.

I’ll be teaching writing and sharing a good portion of what I know about the art and practice of doing it on October 9-11th at the Omega Institute in Rhinebeck, New York. You can sign up to be there with me on the spectacular Omega campus at a glorious time of year or you can sign up for the livestream and participate from where ever you are (or watch the video of the workshop later, at your leisure). I’m quite a bit behind on promoting this workshop, as I’ve not had the heart to post much online or send out this newsletter for many months, but I hope you’ll clickity click on the above links and register now so we can fill the place to the gills with our beautiful words and maybe also our suffering and maybe also our smiling and maybe all of those things that are both above and below the surface, seen and unseen.

The workshop is for everyone and every time I teach it, my heart is filled with joy and wonder by the magic we make together. You don’t have to be any kind of writer to be there—published, not published, experienced, inexperienced, beginner or advanced. You don’t even have to be a writer at all. You only have to want to see what you find when you write.

I hope you’ll come hang (in there) with me.

Love,

Chelsea Gustafsson

Allen Ginsberg ·

I love this graphic

* * *  *

“Time is not a straight line but rather a labyrinth, and if you press yourself against the wall in the right place you can hear the hurried steps and the voices, you can hear yourself walk past on the other side.”