|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers
Complex Numbers
A complex number is expressed in the standard form a + bi, where a and b are real numbers and i is defined by i^2 = -1 (that is, i is the square root of -1). For example, 3 + 2i is a complex number.
The bi term is often referred to as an imaginary number (though this may be misleading, as it is no more "imaginary" than the symbolic abstractions we know as the "real" numbers). Thus, every complex number has a real part, a, and an imaginary part, bi.
Complex numbers are often represented on a graph known as the "complex plane," where the horizontal axis represents the infinity of real numbers, and the vertical axis represents the infinity of imaginary numbers. Thus, each complex number has a unique representation on the complex plane: some closer to real; others, more imaginary. If a = b, the number is equal parts real and imaginary.
Very simple transformations applied to numbers in the complex plane can lead to fractal structures of enormous intricacy and astonishing beauty.
Previous ... - 1- 2 ... Next
| |
Today, kids, it's time for another episode of Adventures in Epistemology.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/eating-toward-immortality/515...
Eating Toward Immortality
Diet culture is just another way of dealing with the fear of death.
Well, you can't spell "diet" without "die."
Knowing a thing means you don’t need to believe in it. Whatever can be known, or proven by logic or evidence, doesn’t need to be taken on faith.
And here's where the epistemology  comes in - right in the lede. Normally, assertions like this set off my bullshit detector and make me Stop Reading There. To be specific, there's a philosophical argument that we can't really "know" anything. I don't really agree with that argument, but as I've pointed out before, there are degrees of knowing. Drop an apple and it will fall - well over 99% certainty. Anthropogenic climate change - maybe 98% certainty. My assertion that the relevance of a logical conclusion is dependent on the validity of the initial premise(s)? Well, I'm an engineer, not a philosopher, so mmmm... 95%.
Point is, few things are ever "proven" in science. And that goes orders of magnitude more for nutritional science.
Which brings me back to the article. Now, it's a long one, and I'm only quoting a few excerpts here; I recommend reading the link before proceeding. Or don't, and skip this entry. Or do whatever you want. Whatever.
Eating is the first magic ritual, an act that transmits life energy from one object to another, according to cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker...
Ah, yes, cultural anthropology. A discipline known for its diligence and scientific rigor. {/sarcasm}
That's not cultural anthropology; that's metaphysics. Philosophy. And that sentence is opinion masquerading as fact. A few opinions, actually, standing on each other's shoulders wearing a lab coat to try to look like legitimate science.
...the desire for more life—not just delaying death today, but clearing the bar of mortality entirely—grew into an obsession with transforming the self into a perfected object that might achieve a sort of immorality.
You know what I love more than just about anything that wasn't fermented? It's when someone misspells something and doesn't bother to edit, only spell-check, and the result is hilariously appropriate. "Immorality," indeed.
If it weren’t for the small chance of death lurking behind every food choice and every dietary ideology, choosing what to eat from a crowded marketplace wouldn’t be considered a dilemma.
Yeah, yeah, we're all gonna die. If not from salmonella-infected romaine, then by getting hit by a meteor or run over by a bus or, at the end of a lifetime of self-denial, slipping in the fucking bathtub. You know, one of these days I'm going to go to Japan. When I do, I want to try fugu. Now there's an actual risky food.
Almost all children go through a phase of pickiness with eating. It seems to be an evolved survival mechanism that prevents us—once we are mobile enough to put things in our mouths, but not experienced enough to know the difference between safe and dangerous foods—from eating something toxic
Now, I'm no expert on child-rearing (actually I'm about the furthest thing from that you can get), but it seems to me that "almost all children" also go through a phase of shoving every goddamned thing they can find that will fit in their pieholes - worms, hamsters, dog shit, Dad's cufflinks, whatever - once they're "mobile enough to put things in our mouths." How is that an evolved survival mechanism, Ms. Evolutionary Psychologist Wannabe? No, Mom has to go "What's in your mouth? Spit it out SPIT IT OUT!!!" That's how we've survived as a species - diligent parents, not by being picky eaters.
Only those with status and resources to spare can afford the most impressive gestures of renunciation. Look at all they have! The steel-and-granite kitchen! The Le Creuset collection! The Vitamix! The otherworldly glow! They could afford to eat cake, should the bread run out, but they quit sugar. They’re only eating twigs and moss now. What more glamorous way to triumph over dirt and animality and death? And you can, too. That is, if you have the time and money to spend juicing all that moss and boiling the twigs until they’re soft enough to eat.
Okay, that bit is legitimately hilarious.
People willingly, happily, hand over their freedom in exchange for the bondage of a diet that forbids their most cherished foods, that forces them to rely on the unfamiliar, unpalatable, or inaccessible, all for the promise of relief from choice and the attendant responsibility.
Okay. Okay. You got me. Yeah, I can admit it. Though one quibble: I didn't do it willingly or happily. I keep asking myself why I'm putting myself through a weight-loss regimen, and one answer I don't come up with, ever, is "fear of death." Though I can't honestly say why I'm doing it - except maybe because I want to see if I can do it.
Look, I'll give you a little analogy. Think for a moment, I mean, really consider (though you don't have to tell anyone): what is the one thing that brings you the most joy in life? Maybe it's your kids. Your dog. Your life partner. The satisfaction of successful completion of a task. Something else, something unique to you. Maybe it's more than one thing; if so, just pick one of them. Now, someone comes up to you with scientific and anecdotal evidence that is extremely compelling, evidence that this thing that gives you the greatest joy will shorten your life, and you'll have a life expectancy of, I dunno, say another five years, if you give it up. No guarantees - there's always the chance of slipping in the bathtub - but the possibility. Really think about this. Never seeing your kids again. Always failing at everything. Never being able to have a dog. Whatever it is.
Could you do it?
That's me with food.
What's the point of maybe living longer if you have to give up the thing that makes life worth living?
Humans are the only animals aware of our mortality...
*fhweeet* Assertion without evidence! Flag on the play!
...and we all want to be the person whose death comes as a surprise rather than a pathetic inevitability. We want to be the one of whom people say, “But she did everything right.”
NO. I want to be the one of whom people say, "He lived life on his own terms." Maybe even "He died doing what he loved," though I don't have enough hands to simultaneously eat, drink, smoke, and play blackjack whilst receiving oral sex. Okay, maybe that's TMI. Actually, I couldn't care less about the oral sex; I just threw that in there to make a funny.
But diet culture is constantly shifting. Today’s token foods of health may seem tainted or passé tomorrow, and within diet culture, there are contradictory ideologies: what is safe and clean to one is filth and decadence to another.
Well, DUH. Possibly the oldest known dietary restrictions we've placed on ourselves can be found in the Old Testament. There might be some in older Babylonian texts, but I'm not a historian, either. Point is, though, even those were designed to set one people apart from another. This has gone on ever since. "Our rivals eat pork for their rituals to the Wrong God, so we must not eat pork."
Nutrition science itself is a self-correcting series of refutations.
Fixed that for you. Very little in nutrition science is set in concrete, except maybe that we shouldn't eat concrete. "But it's rich in calcium!" "Shut up."
To eat without restriction, on the other hand, is to risk being unclean, and to beat your own uncertain path.
I always had restrictions. Notably, I won't eat anything smarter than I am. That leaves out octopus, cat, calamari (most of which is actually made from cuttlefish, not squid, which would be only marginally better), border collie, elephant, dolphin, etc. Also corvids, and yet I find myself eating crow on a regular basis. Well, metaphorically, anyway.
Cows? Chicken? Fair game. Jury's still out on pigs.
Look, I'll accept that this author knows more about nutrition than I do. That's why I bothered to read the article. And she raises some interesting points. But I'm still not convinced that nutrition "science" has many legitimate or useful answers. Why, in my lifetime alone, eggs have swung from good to bad to good to bad to good to bad so many times that they're basically all scrambled at this point.
Still, it's good to read this sort of thing from time to time. And comment on it. Helps me focus my own thoughts, you know, what with fewer calories available to power my immense brain. |
| |
Congratulations!  You made it to the final day of the competition!  I’ll give you an easy prompt to end on 
How do you celebrate your successes?
Same way I celebrate my failures.
That's one of the many, many beautiful things about alcohol. Had a major success? Drink! Suffered a terrible failure? Drink! Day was just okay? Drink.
Of course, I'm aware that I'm privileged in that regard - not only to have access to some of the best fermented and distilled beverages created in the history of humankind, but also because I'm fortunate to not be an alcoholic. Thus, I can enjoy drinking, but I don't need it.
I know some people will assert that this makes me an alcoholic in denial. Those are not people I want to associate with.
Unfortunately, I won't be celebrating my successful completion of 30DBC in that manner; I'm still focused on weight loss and probably will be for several more months. But never fear - I'll make up for it when I go to Vegas. Like I said before, I haven't given it up; just cut back for the sake of calories. Same as with food.
Here's a little secret to happiness, though: whatever it is you do to celebrate - sometimes, on occasion, do it even if you have nothing to celebrate. Because you really, really do, even if you don't realize it. Acknowledging that can only help you.
And with that, I'm done for the month. Stick around, though - I've got a lot more to say.
|
| |
Reflect on the month as a whole. Any highlights from your personal life? Challenges? What were your favorite prompts from the 30DBC? Did you learn anything from or about your fellow competitors?
Highlights from my personal life: Against all odds and expectations (specifically, mine), I stuck to my eating plan and went to the gym every damn day, even though I seem to be developing a massive pain in my left foot. That is bullshit; after losing more than 60 pounds in seven months, I expected my feet to hurt less. Come on! Okay, I may have cheated on the eating thing once, because a friend was in town and I can't say "no" to a pastrami sandwich for very long (and there was beer), but you know, I lost weight anyway. So there. 
Challenges: Look, I'll be honest here; I build my life around avoiding serious challenges. About the worst thing that happened to me was the power went out one night. I have a backup generator that kicks in after less than 30 seconds, but I can't seem to be arsed to put my router on an uninterruptible power supply, so the internet was out for a few minutes, while I was trying to do something here. Seriously, that was my biggest challenge so far in July, apart from the Great Pastrami Sandwich Temptation, which I failed at miserably and deliciously. (As a pessimist, I have to note that there are still three days left in the month, plenty of time for the stock market to crash or my house to burn down.) The weight loss thing has turned into a habit, not a challenge; and I don't count writing challenges like this blogging thing or weekly writing activities, because I chose those for myself.
Favorite prompts from the 30 Day Blogging Challenge: Gotta admit, I had a lot of fun with several of the prompts. The one I'm most proud of is throwing together an abecedarian poem, complete with rhyming couplets, in less than two hours, back a few entries ago. Besides, I got to think about, if not drink, beer for that one. The news story one was fun too, because that's more in line with what I do here when there's not a challenge running.
My fellow competitors: I enjoyed reading others' blogs this month, even if I didn't get to all of them because of timing. I should note that I'm not a "competition" person; I consider this a shared journey. But I feel like I got some insight and understanding into others' perspectives. Thanks for the trip, everyone! |
| |
What does “vacation” mean to you? Alone time or time with friends and family? Staying close to home or traveling far afield? Spendy or thrifty?
When I had an office job, the only thing I usually wanted to do on vacation was spend time alone at home, to try to recover from work. I took the occasional trip, sure, but every time I did that, I needed a week to recover from the trip, and work is not the best place to do that.
Travel can be tiring. It took me a long time to finally decide what I wanted to get out of traveling - not days packed with activities, but a few activities and a lot of rest. Plus dining and drinking, of course; those are my primary purposes in travel.
As for location, doesn't really matter. The only distinction I make is between day trips and longer journeys. On the longer ones, I prefer to stay in hotels. After talking to other people, it seems I'm the only person who actually enjoys staying in hotel rooms. Well, most hotel rooms. I've had some stinkers - literally and metaphorically. To me, though, that's all part of the adventure.
And in case you missed it, I don't camp. Shudder. My idea of "roughing it" is staying in a three-star hotel.
Which brings me to the budget issue.
I believe in the idea that the best use of money is not stuff, but experiences. I don't lack for stuff, but I also don't go out of my way to collect it (well, except for shot glasses - I have a pretty good collection going). That's why a lot of my vacations are road trips. That's also why I've been known to blow money on first-class plane tickets, sometimes, when I'm not driving. You know the best thing about flying first-class? It's watching all the harried steerage passengers stumble past while I sit back in a generously-proportioned chair, with a gin and tonic in my hand.
It's glorious.
That said, I try not to go overboard on the expenses. I'm going to Vegas in a few weeks. Vegas can be expensive, especially if you gamble, but I scored almost-free lodging along with a "resort credit" promotion, which consists of a lot of free food and beverages - which, as I've noted, is the purpose of travel for me in the first place. I probably wouldn't be going if not for these perqs, at least not next month; August in southern Nevada can be... exhausting.
Before you ask, no, I'm not sticking around for the Area 51 joke. That's in September. I plan to be safely back on the other coast when (if) that happens. You can bet I'll be watching the news, though.
So yeah, when I travel, I do have a budget. It's just that my budget is usually fairly generous, because for me, travel is my main entertainment these days. Yes, that includes a gambling budget - I try to stretch that out over the time I'm there; it sucks to run out of money before I leave.
I've heard all the arguments against gambling, and I even agree with most of them. But to me, it's just another form of entertainment. I once saw a YouTube video of some guy who claimed to have spent over $20K on tickets to a major sporting event. That's his choice; it's not one I'd make, but to each their own, you know? Point is, my gambling budget isn't that high, and I can make it last longer than a few freezing hours in a stadium. Sure, the odds are stacked in favor of the casino - but is that not the case with most of the things we all spend money on? If the owner, or corporation, or whatever, wasn't making money, they wouldn't offer the event or product.
Next year, I plan on spending a good bit of money on a trip to Scotland. Even there, single-malt scotch is expensive, as is shipping the good stuff that they keep to themselves back to the US.
So that's a vacation for me - going somewhere, drinking, and basically enjoying whatever the place has to offer. When I get home, I'm still not doing anything productive, but at least for a while, I did nothing productive somewhere else. |
| |
If you were to give a TED talk, what would it be about?
I'm not overly familiar with that format.
I've seen a few of them, occasionally, from time to time. But I don't even know what, if anything, TED stands for; why there's a TEDx also; what the purpose of them (as opposed to other kinds of lectures) are; or why it gets a special name. I could look all of these things up, of course, but... can't be arsed.
However, the ones I have seen, as I recall, have been from credentialed experts. The only credential I have is a BS degree (take that as you see fit), and I'm an expert in nothing except maybe procrastination.
To play along with the blog prompt, though, let's assume I can get credentials and gain a few levels in knowledge about something. What would that something be?
Saying "writing" would be cheating, so let's not go there.
I am of the considered opinion that "self-help" speakers are good at helping themselves first, with any benefit to their audience being incidental. While part of me would like to get in on that sweet gravy train, I could no more do that than I could become a preacher. Damn conscience. So that's out.
There's an argument that I trot out once in a blue moon that explains why the popular definition of "blue moon" is an error, and it actually means something else. I don't know why this bugs me as much as it does, but it does bug me. I know part of the reason; it's because it illustrates how stubbornly people cling to false beliefs even after being presented with evidence that they are wrong. If I could choose one topic to lecture on, it would be that. I'm not going to rehash the argument here; if you're interested, here's a seven-year-old blog post on the subject.
Not sure it's worthy of a TED talk, though.
So, in the interest of just picking something and getting it over with already, I'm going to go with the "common misconception" theme and say: "If Humans Evolved From Apes, Why Are There Still Apes? And Other Misinformed Questions About Evolution."
Probably should give it a shorter title, though.
Ask me again tomorrow, or next week, or next month, and I'll have a different answer. |
| |
I need your help to fill the Challenge War Chest with new prompts. Write four blogging prompts and choose one of your own to write your entry on.
1. What do you do when you are out of inspiration or ideas?
2. Gojira (aka Godzilla) invites you over for tea. What do you bring as a gift?
3. Visualize world peace.
4. What is your favorite storytelling medium, and why? Face-to-face? Movies? Novels? Audiobooks, audioplays? Stage productions? Comics? TV shows? Tweetstorms? Concept albums? Something else?
For my own entry today, I'm going to talk about number 1 - mainly because I was out of inspiration and ideas, so I blatantly stole the other three prompts from my friend (with her permission of course, so I guess it wasn't actually blatant or stealing).
I know, I know, you were hoping I'd talk about Godzilla's tea party, but my mind is still drawing blanks on that one. I mean, what do you get a kaiju who has everything?
First of all, while some of us have the luxury of simply not writing when we don't have the inspiration, most serious writers have a schedule and deadlines to meet. Many authors recommend daily writing, regardless. As far as I'm concerned, blogging counts. But whatever your writing goals, you're probably going to come up against a brick wall occasionally.
Personally, I think inspiration is overrated; it's not necessary for getting work done. And getting ideas is more a matter of perspective than anything else. Maybe you see your cat over there licking her asshole. You can ignore it, you can accept it as a cat being a cat, or you can find a way to write an entire essay about ass-licking. Or a story where you get a chance to ask the cat what the deal is with that. And what's this purring thing all about, anyway? Be warned, though; you might not like the answers. If she deigns to answer in the first place.
Point is, ideas are everywhere if you look for them. It's just that today, I chose to look for them in a friend's mind instead of my own.
Another technique that I've used with some success - and here I'm not talking about success as in "writing excellent fiction" but "at least getting inspiration for shitty fiction" - is to do what I call a Core Dump because I'm a UNIX geek from 'way back.
I know I've written about this before, but for those of you with the presence of mind to avoid reading through old entries, it's been recommended by actual writers, too. They call it different things, like "freewrite." I'm pretty sure I came up with the idea independently, but it's not like I have any influence, so if someone else wants to take credit for it, fine.
The idea is to start with a blank page - either paper or virtual, whatever works for you - and just start writing down your thoughts as they come. No one else will ever see this, ideally, and the purpose is not to come up with good writing, but to focus your mind and get into writing mode - so absolutely do not edit this. It tends to get rid of surface thoughts so you can get to your core (hence my name for it). I don't know about anyone else, but I find myself thinking in circles a lot, but writing helps to break out of that bind.
Some ideas might come out of it, but that's not the main reason. The main reason is to just do it, to steal a slogan from an ethically questionable corporation.
Even if you do see a good idea emerging, just get it down and forget about it. You can go back and find it later, after which you can destroy the evidence.
When I do this, I shoot for at least one page, written or typed, but generally once you've gotten that far, you have the momentum going. There's no limit to this, but it's not meant to be yet another means of procrastination, so maybe set a timer or something. If you later find the time is too short or too long, you can always adjust it for next time.
The other suggestion I have while doing this is: don't force your thoughts; just let them come, like they do when you're daydreaming or whatever. I know, I'm treading dangerously close to the "mindfulness" bullshit that's making the rounds these days, but this is really not the same thing. It's not a spiritual or psychological practice; it's simply a practical method for clearing your head to focus on the writing you're supposed to be doing.
That said, if you have other ideas for this, by all means, don't wait for the prompt to come around in rotation (if it does); share them with me in the comments. I can always use ideas. |
| |
Ask someone you trust the following question and write about their answer: “What are my best qualities and what are my worst qualities?”
There are few people I trust, and one of the downsides of keeping the schedule that I do is that most of them are asleep right now. My housemate is not asleep, but I reasoned that if I didn't like her answer, we'd still have to share a kitchen.
Fortunately, I have a friend two time zones behind me, and we text a lot. So this is her reply (unedited, from phone text):
Okay your best qualities: your geekery, and the fact that you're unashamed to like the things you like, and gain in-depth knowledge of those subjects. From economics, to space, to science fiction, to beer; and finally how your writing is all informed by your interests and the varied knowledge you pick up.
You're one of those people who doesn't stop learning-- you dont make up your mind and snap it shut. I've seen you adjust your opinion on different subjects based on learning new facts, and you always have nuanced opinions. You're always ready to listen to what people have to say.
I should point out that we trust people who tend to see the good in us. Still, what my friend says here pretty much aligns with how I like to think I am, so that felt pretty good.
Then, of course, I had to brace myself. I mean, I know I have flaws - I'm human, or at least pretending to be one - but I can never be sure if what I think are my flaws align with what other people think.
It took her a few minutes, but she finally came up with something.
Oh, I know. You keep saying you'll go back and edit Eidolon and submit it to a publisher and you haven't yet.
Eidolon is a novel I wrote some years ago, a contemporary fantasy story which I think has potential but desperately needs editing. She's read its first draft, as well as the first drafts of much of my meager output.
I told her I was going to go ahead and generalize that to "lousy at follow-through." Again, not something I didn't know. Not proud of it, but it's good to know one's weaknesses.
But wait, she wasn't done.
Oh one last thing good quality: you're the absolute best kind of male feminist. You don't parrot talking points for the sake of looking good; you genuinely see women as people rather than a different species. You have many female friends that you treat with the same dignity and respect you give your male friends.
And that was something I never really thought about. I mean, I know I have this idea that "people are people," regardless of gender, race, nationality, religion, whatever. This means that to me, there are good people and assholes in every demographic, as well as the vast majority in the middle. I don't like to call myself a "feminist," not because I think there's anything wrong with the word or with feminism in general, but because so many dudes have said that they were as a way to win a woman's favor. I don't want to be associated with that type.
Which I guess supports her assertion.
Again, though, I should issue the disclaimer that this is coming from a friend, someone I've known half her life. A person who doesn't like me would probably find way more negatives, or even find a way to turn the positives into negatives. "Can't make up his mind. Too easily swayed, inconsistent. An unmanly exuberance about things he likes. Has pretensions to feminism, but secretly just wants to get laid. Also sucks at doing what he says he's going to do. On the plus side, possesses self-destructive tendencies, so is probably going to die soon."
But I wouldn't hang out with someone who thought that of me. I'm just saying: I may be biased, but so is everyone else.
Also, I tend to be friends with people who text in good English; I only identified one minor typo in the quotes above. Narrow-minded of me, sure, but I have to have some standards. |
| |
Take us on a sensory journey to a place that is significant to you. Try to describe the place using all of your senses so we can be there with you!
You can see the house from the train as it crosses over the wide water.
Can't blame you if you missed it, though. What catches the eye is the water itself, a bay stretching out to the horizon. And the docks of the marina next door - in the wind, the sailboats' masts and rigging ring with the sway of air and water. Perched as it is on a small bluff overlooking the estuary, the house itself is protected from the waves the wind stirs up, but not the sight of the boats, or the sounds. Sometimes, a train rumbles across the nearby bridge, and you wonder if anyone's looking.
At night, in the summer, it's the humidity that gets you. The humidity, and the bugs. You're wearing pungent, antiseptic bug spray, but still you have to slap at the occasional flying critter, lest it bite or sting. The slaps sting too, only not as acutely.
In daytime, you can escape the heat by diving into the water. Well, not literally diving; the bottom slopes gently from the shore to the navigation channel, smooth rocks tickling your feet. Behind the house stretches a garden and a field. Sometimes, you have to thin out the carrots. Bring a hose with you so you can rinse off the roots and sink your teeth into their crunch and savor their sweet taste, a flavor that prepackaged "baby carrots" can't even touch. And don't get me started on what passes for sweet corn in the stores; here, you can eat it raw, right off the stalk, before the sugars have a chance to degrade into starch.
The damp ground produces a musty odor that speaks of dying and growing things. And of home.
Because this is home, at least for the younger version of me. Sometimes, I miss it. Most of the time, though, I remember how much work a farm is, and I'll settle for store-bought corn. |
| |
Write about a fear you experienced as a child that you have since overcome.
Before I do that, there's something that's been bugging me for a while.
Now, I admit I'm not the most emotionally aware person in the world, so maybe someone can explain this to me.
We conflate hate and fear, and I don't understand why.
I know that some schools of thought (mostly very New-Age-y) hold that all human emotion can be categorized as, at base, either love or fear. Under "love" in this philosophy we have, I suppose, things like affection, camaraderie, comfort, whatever - those emotions we consider "positive." Under "fear," by contrast, would be things like greed, jealousy and hatred, the "negative" ones.
I once had an epiphany that since fear is an emotional response to a real or perceived threat to something that we love (including our lives), that would mean love is the basic emotion. I suppose you could turn that on its head and declare that fear is the only real emotion. More likely, you can dismiss the whole philosophy as the bullshit that most New Age stuff is.
But that's irrelevant; I'm talking about hate and fear here. Like I said, we conflate it: hatred of something usually gets the -phobia suffix added on, indicating fear. However, the Venn diagram of "hate" and "fear" seems to me to have overlap, but it's not a perfect circle. For example, just to use a common fear, maybe you're one of those weird people who goes outside and you're afraid of bears. This is logical; a bear can fuck up your day. Still, this doesn't mean you hate bears; it just means you don't want to be eaten by one. Bears are, apart from the whole "outweigh me by a thousand pounds and possess sharp teeth and claws" thing, pretty damn cool. Of course, it's possible you both hate and fear them, but it's not required.
Likewise, maybe you hate, I dunno, PETA. This, too, is understandable; they're a bunch of extremist hypocrites (personally, I think they're being funded by the soybean industry as a way to increase demand for their product, but I have no proof of this). But there's certainly nothing to fear about them. What are they going to do, bleed on you?
Hate and fear are not the same thing. So why the "-phobia?"
The best I can come up with is that it entered the public consciousness as a kind of social engineering. A lot of people (okay, men) find it socially acceptable to hold hatred in their hearts, but if you suggest that they're actually cowards, they feel shame about that. If this is true, it needs to stop; the goal should be to get people more in touch with and understanding of their own emotions, not leverage atavistic impulses to further your own aims.
But I don't know if that's true. I'd really like to hear others' take on it.
When I was a kid, like all kids, I was afraid of a lot of things, mostly because I didn't understand them. This, I think, is the sort of thing that fosters fear: ignorance. I don't see ignorance in itself as a bad thing; it's correctable. It's the people who refuse to learn who deserve scorn, not the generally ignorant. Everyone is ignorant about some things and enlightened about others.
To address the prompt, then, I guess I'll have to admit that when I was a kid, thanks to movies, TV, and the science fiction books I loved to read, I was sure that space aliens existed and wanted to abduct me. This, naturally, freaked me out, as if the constant threat of nuclear annihilation wasn't enough. Other kids maybe feared the monster under the bed, but not me. It's not that I didn't think there was a monster under my bed; it's that the monster would have been abducted by aliens, too, so we had common ground to bond over.
Why more people don't buy kids beds without space underneath them, I simply don't understand. Maybe it's so the monster stays there and doesn't interrupt the parents while they're boning.
Anyway, point is, I got over it. For a while there, as a kid, I had certain rituals I did to ward off the aliens. As an example, I just knew that as long as I had my back against something, they couldn't beam me up (fears have never been known for making a lot of logical sense). I could never sleep on my back, though, so instead of hugging a pillow or a bear like other kids, I kept my back against one.
It must have worked, because I was never abducted or replaced by aliens.
Or, at least, I wouldn't admit it if I had been, fellow humans. |
| |
Share three pieces of advice you’ve received through your life that you wish you had heard earlier.
Advice? I'm more into vice.
It's not that people didn't give me this advice when I was younger; it's more that I was so sure I would be the exception that I didn't fucking listen. Which I guess is the same thing as "I wish I'd heard the advice."
1. It's okay to be alone.
Turns out it's better to be alone than to be with someone who's wrong for you. Who knew? Well... literally everybody, except me of course.
On the other hand, I've known people who were deathly afraid of being alone. I suppose that advice wouldn't have worked out for them, but it seems that I'm mostly introverted anyway, so being with other people isn't a high priority for me. Sure, I need it sometimes, but usually a bartender is enough.
2. Exercise daily.
I'm sure this seems obvious to people. Hell, it's obvious to me, now. But I thought I could break all the rules, again, and I ended up playing catch-up after some medical issues. I always figured, what's the point of living longer if you're just having to spend all that extra time exercising? I still believe that, in theory, but it turns out there are more immediate benefits, not just potentially longer life.
3. Budget.
My parents did a fair job talking to me about money, but it still wasn't enough. I was stupid about money matters for way too long. It's not like these things are taught in schools; I had to figure it all out on my own. When I did, my epiphany was like, "Huh. My parents were right." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at these things), by that time my mom was gone and my dad wasn't in any position to say "I told you so," or anything else coherent for that matter.
There's also a great deal of advice that you hear that's utter bullshit. Or, to be fair, it's bullshit for you; maybe not so much for the person offering it. The real question, then, is: how do you tell good advice from bad?
Unfortunately, the answer to that is, "Make your own mistakes." I doubt I'd have learned anything if I hadn't come to these conclusions myself. I'm stubborn like that. So here's my advice:
Don't take advice. |
| |
Write an entry inspired by any three WDC emoticons. You pick the emoticons, but make sure they are tied to your entry in some way.
I don't speak emoji.
What I mean is, unless it's, like, a smiley-face or a laughing face, it might as well be a bunch of x's. If someone were to send me a text containing a string of emojis, my mind would simply go blank; I wouldn't even be able to go, "eggplant, poop, alien, waving woman, googly eyes," because my gaze just slides off the string - let alone attempt to translate that into whatever metaphorical language.
Similarly, I don't text people emojis unless it's, like, a laugh, or something equally simple and unambiguous.
Honestly, I miss the early days, when we had to work to make our emotions clear. If we couldn't do so with our words, we'd have to come up with strings of characters to emulate facial expressions. It was a bright, purer time. Kids these days don't know how easy they have it. Get off my lawn.
But I'm used to the WDC emoticons; they're clear and easy to understand.
When I was a baby WDCer, we didn't have as many emoticons. For this entry, I'll pick the three that made me the most excited to finally see as SMs released them during my tenure here.
 - believe it or not, the "angel" emoticon had no mirror-universe doppelganger for a long time. I don't remember what year the Devil one came out, but I do remember finally feeling that my life was complete.
I have simple needs.
 and all the other donut emoticons - while I eschew the actual pastries (as opposed to chew them) these days for obvious reasons, I was glad to see these appear a couple years back. I use them instead of bullets, especially when giving lists of suggestions in reviews. They don't "mean" anything; they're just tasty, delicious, forbidden donuts. *drool*
But.
 is the WDC emoticon I use the most. Also for obvious reasons. So many things elicit that reaction from me, and its absence was a pox upon my existence before it finally showed up in the list.
Now, of course, I can also do this:
But I'm still glad for the emoticon. |
| |
Write about some of the words that were introduced in the year you were born according to Merriam-Webster dictionary by referring to the website below:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/time-traveler
Hey, a sneaky way to get us to admit our ages!
Fortunately, anyone who can do math has already figured mine out because of my constant harping about Apollo 11. So I'll just select a few entries that catch my eye.
adaptive optics: a telescopic system that improves image resolution by compensating for distortions caused by atmospheric turbulence
One night in 2017, my friend and I were sitting on his lanai in Kihei, Maui, gazing at the night sky, when a strange red-orange light appeared over Haleakala. It moved around in ways impossible for any sort of conventional aircraft. We'd been drinking, of course, so naturally, our first thought was ALIENS!
I was joking. He was not. I pointed out that the telescope probably used adaptive optics, and what we saw was the guidance laser.
The problem with ground-based telescopes, no matter how high a mountain you perch them on, is that there's always some atmosphere between the telescope and the vast reaches of vacuum in outer space. As the turbulence consists of air of slightly varying density, this has the effect of bouncing the star, or whatever, around in the image. This is inimical to the point of a telescope, which is not, as most people think, to magnify; the point is to gather light. Long exposures are your friend. Anyway, so what you do is you point a laser at the sky and use it and a computer to make very slight perturbations in the 'scope's reflecting mirror. This stabilizes the image somewhat, although it's still not as clear as a space telescope (Hubble, e.g.) But at the time, there weren't space telescopes.
The following year, I hung out with a professional astronomer for a week, and he confirmed that not only did Haleakala's telescope use adaptive optics, but it was the first one to do so. He also told me that the way the laser works is that it is just the right energy to excite the sodium ions that persist in a thin layer in the upper atmosphere, with the resulting photons being in the exact color I saw on Maui.
So, no aliens. Just the usual humdrum human ingenuity and SCIENCE, BITCHES.
lithium niobate: a crystalline material LiNbO3 whose physical properties change in response to pressure or the presence of an electric field and which is used in fiber optics and as a synthetic gemstone
I have no personal connection to this, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that padding your dictionary by incorporating terms from chemistry is cheating.
meth: methamphetamine
Except when it becomes a household word.
ngwee: a monetary subunit of the kwacha
Thanks, dictionary! That helps so much!
...(Zambia)
Oh, okay. That helps marginally more.
second world: Communist nations regarded in the latter part of the 20th century as a political and economic bloc
I'm just including this because we like to talk about the "third world," and this is a reminder that there was considered to be a "second world" at one time as well. The division was: first world - democracies; second world - pinko commies; third world - everyone else. That didn't start out as a pejorative. Language changes.
zit: a small, red, swollen spot on the skin : pimple
And this is on my list because I thought the word was newer than that; I didn't hear it until I started getting them.
An aside about dictionaries in general: I've seen some people use dictionary definitions in arguments as if that settles things. It doesn't; it only marks you as a pedant. Dictionary definitions are, by nature, concise, generally free of nuance or context. As I mentioned above, language changes, and dictionary definitions take a while to catch up.
In short, dictionaries are not prescriptive; they're descriptive. They're not the ultimate authority on the use of language. We are. Especially "we" writers. Now, it's never right to mix up their, there, and they're; but meanings do sometimes morph, or even fall out of favor, like in the "second world" example above.
Another fun thing I realized about dictionaries: they're infinitely recursive. Self-referential. They define words in terms of other words. Like, okay, when you're a kid, your parents or teachers probably showed you a picture of, I dunno, a sheep, and told you that it's a "sheep." (It's not; it's a drawing or photo of a sheep, but what makes humans interesting is the ability to nest metaphors.) That's non-recursive. But a dictionary would be like, "Sheep: (noun) 1. A medium-sized fluffy mammal with the intellectual capacity of a boulder, whose only redeeming quality is wool." To understand the definition, you'd have to understand "a," "medium," "size," "fluffy," etc. If you don't, you have to look them up in the dictionary, and behold, you find more words you have to look up.
You have to enter a dictionary with some knowledge from outside the dictionary.
Doesn't really mean anything, but I just think it's cool to contemplate. |
| |
Okay, I think I’ve tortured you enough this week  Today, the prompt is a little simpler
What are your weekend plans? If this weekend isn’t noteworthy, share your plans for an upcoming weekend or a past weekend that is worth writing about.
So now I'm painted into the corner of having to admit that I don't do anything on weekends? How is that not further torture?
I'm aware that there is this time period called the "weekend." I know this because I have to keep track of it so I don't have to deal with the hordes of people on the roads and at events during that time. Apart from that, Saturday and Sunday are just ordinary days for me.
I've heard that some single people go out on "dates" on the "weekend." Dimly, I recall doing that occasionally. The mere thought makes me want to stay home.
I've also heard that some people deliberately go outdoors in that time period, perhaps even to places that don't have electricity and/or an internet connection. As far as I can tell, those people are of different species than me.
So my weekend plans are thus: Play video games, watch some streaming service, blog here, write something for "I Write in 2019" [E], and do next week's Comedy newsletter. Perhaps the subject of that one will have to be weekends.
I do have a minor trip planned; I need a vacation from doing nothing productive at home so that I can do nothing productive in Las Vegas instead. But that'll be in about a month. Technically, it will start on a weekend, as I'm leaving on a Saturday, but I'm going to be there most of a week.
What I really want to do is another road trip, but that's going to have to wait; my main focus right now is on losing weight, and the purpose of traveling is to find nice places to eat food and drink alcohol, neither of which furthers my goal. This applies to Vegas as well, but the timeframe is more limited.
Someday I might live an interesting life again. That day is not Saturday. Or Sunday. |
| |
Complete the following statement: To achieve greatness, one must...
...avoid complacency.
This is necessary, but not sufficient. There's luck, skill, talent, whatever. The vast, overwhelming majority of people will never achieve greatness. Yes, this in all likelihood means you. Me too, obviously. Ain't I a ray of sunshine? With high levels of ultraviolet?
Fortunately, the benefit is in the striving, not the achieving. Journey, not destination.
This leaves out the question of how exactly one defines greatness. I would argue that the greatest businessman of all time was Steve Jobs. Supporting documentation: He and a couple of friends built a computer out of spare parts in a garage, and he parlayed that into a vast business empire; at the time of his death, Apple was the most valuable company in the world (defined as having the largest market capitalization). And yet, by all accounts, he was a shitty boss, an even worse father, and prone to the kind of cognitive bias that leads people to believe bullshit (hence his death).
Did Steve Jobs "achieve greatness?" By some measures, certainly. By others, no.
Now, I'm no expert, clearly, as evidenced by the fact that I'm not great. But it seems to me that you have to qualify what you mean by it. And I think that, like the ever-elusive "happiness," you can't get there by wanting it. I mean, you can wake up one morning and affirm to yourself: "I shall achieve greatness!" You can do this all you like, and you'll die in obscurity - though maybe you've lived a good, full life; that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Since it's de facto Moon Week, I'll provide another example: Neil Armstrong. He gets credit for being the first dude to put boots on the moon. Solid achievement. Not everyone could have done it. But there were at least two (Aldrin, Collins) and several more astronauts who also could have done it. They all had the same training. They likely all had similar aspirations. There was a vast network of support behind all of them; the "first" honor could have easily gone to another person. It was very nearly a Russian. That would not have diminished the achievement in the slightest, but the story would be different. Point is, that's just the most obvious example: not only must one work smart and hard in one's chosen field, but there's an element of luck, a need for support (even Einstein admitted he built on the achievements of others, or, in his words, stood on the shoulders of giants), and the kind of mindset most of us are just not cut out for.
And then there are those who achieve greatness without hardly trying, those who probably don't deserve it. Thomas Edison comes to mind. Dude cheated.
Everyone I've mentioned so far has been male, but gender is irrelevant to the topic. I could as easily talk about Rosalind Franklin, Hypatia, or Marie Curie. Our culture has a bias; we don't have to internalize it.
As Shakespeare noted: "Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." (That last bit is especially prescient when one considers Neil Armstrong, who quite literally had it thrust upon him in the form of five giant rocket engines.) Any way you look at it, though, most of us will never be in any of those three Shakespearean categories. |
| |
Describe the earliest memory you have.
Anyone who's been following along already knows this one. And you're being inundated with it now. It's all over the internet. I can somewhat understand if you're burned out on it, even though it was not only the greatest achievement in history, but the greatest achievement humankind can ever make.
So I'm not going to talk about the time people first landed on another fucking world and most of the population of the original world, including me, watched.
I've said before that it's my earliest memory. It's definitely the earliest one I can hang a time on. But I have other early memories, ones that may or may not have taken place before July 20, 1969.
All of them are dreams.
I don't mean that I still dream about them; I don't. At least, I don't think so. But the images stayed with me. They might have been earlier, or later; I don't know. But I still think it's odd that I can remember a dream from fifty years ago (give or take) but not what I had for dinner last Tuesday.
The first one involved frogs on lily pads. It's dark, but in the way of dreams, I could see the flora and fauna clearly. The frogs told me something important. I have no idea what it was. Probably "Buy Apple stock in 1984." Stupid dreams.
Another one was of a five-pointed star, glowing in the darkness. Make of that what you will. I no longer see it, but the darkness is a recurring thing in my dreams. It never bothers me there. I move through it just as easily as I move through brightness in the waking world.
The third, but I think maybe the earliest, was of someplace underground - but bright. So bright. White stairs descending to a white hallway. At the bottom of the stairs, filling the hallway, gapes an abyss. The darkness again, black to the hallway's white. I stop at the edge of the pit. And that's all - I don't remember ever crossing it, falling in, or re-ascending.
I'm sure that has great portent, especially since, at three years of age (or thereabouts), I had little if any experience with stairs, and none with bright white hallways with vast yawning abysses in the floor. Much later in life, I made myself revisit the dream, but no matter how hard I tried, I could never make myself leap the abyss, or let myself fall into it. I keep thinking I will fall, one day, as will we all.
Whatever meaning these things have, if any, escapes me. At this point, I have to question even my memories of these dreams. But that's the way these things go, I suppose.
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream. |
| |
Today, let’s talk movies. What was the most recent movie you watched? Have you been to the theater recently? What movie are you looking forward to? What is your favorite movie of all time?
Unless I'm traveling, not much gets me to leave the house these days.
I've even taken to having my groceries delivered. Lazy? Maybe, but there are other reasons. The big one is that if I go to the grocery store, there's always something to tempt me. Last time - I was there to fill a prescription - it was the Moon Landing 50th Anniversary Oreos.
Oreos are not conducive to weight loss efforts. But how could I resist? I couldn't, even though I'm not fond of marshmallow. If I'd never gone to the store, though, I never would have known about their existence.
I also discovered that the package has glow-in-the-dark lettering.
Bottom line is maybe I need to see about mail-order prescriptions. It's not like I have insurance to tell me that I must, or cannot, do so.
So, okay. Prescriptions, every other month or so, at least for now. The gym, every day, but it's not far. If friends are around, sometimes I'll go out for a beer. A massage once a month. The occasional grooming thing. Rare doctor appointments. The occasional miscellaneous errand, few and far between. And, a few times a year, a movie.
Finally, back on topic.
The last movie I saw - I think I talked about it here - was Spider-Man: Far From Home. Good movie. Fun. Might even go see it again. It just came out at the beginning of the month, and they had a 12:01 am showing on opening day that I had to go to because otherwise I'd encounter spoilers online.
Not just any movie can get me to leave the house. There's little point, for me, in watching dramas on the big screen. Superhero and other action movies? Definitely. Then, I can get invested. I'll watch all kinds of films on Amazon or Netflix, which don't require venturing into the not-so-great outdoors, but for the action movies, I'm happy to visit the theater. There's one a mile away from me that has draught beer. Score!
Missed out on the John Wick movie. I'll have to catch that on Amazon when it comes out there.
As for movies that I'm looking forward to, well, obviously, the final Star Wars movie of the trilogy of trilogies, which I believe comes out in December. I remember when Star Wars first came out, the buzz was that there were a total of 9 movies planned. It was touch and go there for a while, and forty-plus years is a long time to wait, but there's no way I'm not seeing it. There are probably ones I'll want to see before then; I just can't name any right now.
It's no secret that my favorite genres are fantasy and science fiction. Star Wars, for the record, is fantasy. It has science fiction props, sure, but it's not science fiction. Some call it "space opera." Whatever - genre is a marketing tool more than anything else; it helps us know what to expect. Comics-derived action movies exist in a fun little space between those two genres; I think that's part of their public appeal.
When it comes to choosing a favorite, though, one film stands above all others for me, and that is Blade Runner. The Director's Cut, not the silly version with narration.
It has its flaws, sure, just like everything else, but that particular movie speaks to me both as a writer and as a long-time science fiction reader.
The first true science fiction story - the one that started it all, the first story that actually attempted to use the real science of the time to drive the plot - was Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. I've known this for many years, now. We had to read it in college. (But wait a minute, Waltz, I thought you said you were an engineer! What is this "had to read" bullshit?) (I am. Was. Whatever. We were assigned it for - get this - Ethics in Engineering, fourth year.)
In the paper I had to write on that book (forget the movie; the movie had little to do with the book), I noted that the general distrust toward Frankenstein's creation was based on his appearance more than anything else. I vaguely recall a scene where it met a little girl, who ran screaming in terror, not for anything it did, or what it was (she couldn't know), but for what it looked like. If he'd made his creation pretty, it would have been accepted as just another human being. I proceeded to generalize this to science and invention in general. Got a C on the paper, as I recall; I was supposed to conclude that humans shouldn't "play God." I don't agree with that conclusion. What the hell; I passed, integrity intact.
Anyway, the point is, Blade Runner is the Frankenstein story turned on its head. In the case of that movie, the "creations," the replicants, are known to be replicants and distrusted based on that - no one could say that Rutger Hauer was ugly. At the time, that is; dude let himself go after that. I digress again. In Frankenstein, the creation turns on its creator and all of humanity; in Blade Runner, the creations turn on their creator, yes, but for good reason, and in the end (spoiler alert) the last one finds his humanity in the form of mercy and empathy.
In short, Frankenstein's creation was born good and learned evil; the replicants were born evil and learned compassion.
That's oversimplifying, of course, but I'm still calling Blade Runner my favorite all-time movie. Do not speak to me of the "sequel." |
| |
Describe a time when a personal failure became a positive experience.
Hm, so many choices. So... many... failures...
I could talk about the time I fucked up a pot roast in front of people, and discovered the world's greatest pizza when we ordered out. Or maybe all the times I fell off my bike as a kid before I finally learned to stay on (I can still stay on a bike. It's like riding a... well, you know.) Or being unable to convince Debbie to go to the prom with me so ended up with Sara (I might have changed their names to protect their reputations).
But no, I'll tell you about the time I decided not to become a newspaper photographer.
I learned darkroom skills before I got seriously into photography itself. In high school, among other things, I became the yearbook's darkroom technician because everyone else had a life. And maybe because I was the only one who knew what he was doing.
Mom got me a camera for graduation, and I took it with me to college. Joined the college newspaper and started taking pictures for them. We had to develop our own film, make our own contact sheets, and print our own photos to spec, and I was rather good at both ends of the business, including retouching the images on the fly in the darkroom.
So I thought, well, maybe this engineering thing isn't the best use of my time, and I applied for a summer internship at an actual newspaper.
In those days, that sort of thing was highly competitive, and I didn't get the position. I kept on with the college paper, though, because it kept me in beer money; eventually, I graduated and became an engineer. Still did photography on the side for a while, though. So. Many. Weddings.
Now, journalism is all but dead; photography is entirely digital; and everyone carries a camera, so there's nothing special about it. Meanwhile, engineering is still a thing that people do and get paid a decent wage for.
So, it's fortunate that I didn't get that internship. Positive experience? Sure - as an engineer, I ended up making a decent living and not having to be artistic at all. As a journalist, I probably would have found myself out of a job. The world still needs Clark Kent, but has no use for Jimmy Olsen.
Besides, it's just not the same when you don't have to play with fun chemicals to make an image. |
| |
In the age of the internet, most everything we say and do online will be preserved forever. Even though our opinions, beliefs, and actions change over time, should we still be held accountable for our words, even words spoken or written years ago?
Oh, boy. This can of worms.
Short answer: No. And yes.
Long answer:
One of the founding principles of the USA is freedom of speech. Much has been written on the subject - as one would expect, given that same freedom of speech - so I won't belabor the point, but the upshot of it is that, within certain circumscribed boundaries such as issuing death threats or inciting to riot, the government is not supposed to be able to imprison us for mere words. Hence, you can say "The President is a fuckwad," and a lot of people will disagree with you, or object to your use of profanity, but you can be assured that you won't be sanctioned or imprisoned for those words alone. In theory, anyway.
This was a big deal 250 years ago or so, when saying something mean about the King could get you hung in the public square.
Still, "the government can't arrest you for those words" is a pretty low bar to clear. It says nothing about how friends, family, potential employers, landlords, or your dog should treat you.
I vaguely remember a situation a few years ago when some chick said something on Twatter like, "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS" before she got on a plane to somewhere in Africa. I can only imagine how her head must have exploded when she landed, checked Twatter, and discovered a) a shitstorm of criticism, to put it mildly, and b) she no longer had a job.
Just because you have the right to say something, that doesn't mean you don't have to take responsibility for it.
However, I think sometimes we go too far with the unofficial, private sanctions. On the one hand, it's a useful tool for weeding out, say, a pool of candidates for employment: if Candidate A is on record saying the "n" word, and Candidate B is not, and they're otherwise similarly qualified, you go with Candidate B (assuming your business isn't run by racists). On the other hand, people do change, and at some point it becomes grossly unfair to restrict the opportunities of someone who said something stupid when they were 20 - especially if they've also shown regret or apologized.
Even most actual crimes have statutes of limitations, and incarceration limits.
Where to draw the line is a matter for debate - and in a culture that is founded on the principle of freedom of speech, there can be a lot of debate - but I'm asserting that there should be a line, based on each individual circumstance.
As for me, I just hope no one ever finds the "poetry" I wrote when I was 14. Shudder. |
| |
Have fun answering these “Would you Rather?” questions in your blog today! You can choose to answer as few or as many as you like 
Would you rather live a boring, long life or an exciting, short life?
I think my life speaks for itself there. Sadly, it's turning out boring and short. But considering how my parents went, I'll take the Neil Young option: it's better to burn out than to fade away.
Would you rather be able to fly or teleport?
Like I said before, for me it's about the journey, not the destination. Fly, definitely. Well... depending on how fast. I had a story idea in mind where someone wished they could fly, and the dickhead genie grants the wish, letting them fly at a slow walking speed. That would suck. Genies are assholes. I've wasted way too much time, usually whilst drunk, trying to get the perfect wording down for wishes, and then promptly forgot it when I sobered up.
Would you rather be able to only time travel to the past or only time travel to the future?
The past sucked syphilitic balls. Shit everywhere, plagues, superstitions, poor hygiene, short and brutal lives, no internet. No thanks. I know a lot of people romanticize the past; hey, if all of that works for you, great. I suppose there would be one benefit: I know enough about how some things work to "invent" a few minor contraptions (though with my luck, it would get me executed for witchcraft). Still, assuming I'd have to go back more than 100 years or so, the infrastructure wouldn't be there to run washing machines, produce Coke Zero, or refrigerate food. Worst of all, no air conditioning. Shudder. At least there would be beer. Warm beer, but beer. That is, unless I had to go way back, in which case I'd probably be promptly swallowed by a tyrannosaurus rex, or get chomped by a spider the size of a truck. So... no, thanks; you can keep the scary-ass past.
Now, there's always the chance that the future will be just as bad or worse. If some catastrophe kicked us back to the Stone Age, we'd be utterly fucked, because all the easy raw materials are gone. Ever seen a raw flint nodule? No? Me neither, because our ancestors flaked them all into murder weapons. Regardless, I'd rather take my chances in the future, just to see how it all turns out.
Would you rather lose your hearing or your sight?
Seems to me I've answered this before. Something like 75% of what I hear is annoying, distracting, grating, or frustrating. Unfortunately, the other 25% is music, without which I wouldn't want to live. But I need eyesight to play video games, also without which I wouldn't want to live. Tough call, and one I don't want to make. Pass.
Would you rather live the rest of your life as a cat or a dog?
No. They both lick their own assholes (I know some people would call that a bonus), eat disgusting things, and don't drink beer.
Still, if I had to choose, it'd be cat, no question. They sleep more, and eventually they will achieve world domination, and if I'm going to be there for that, better to be there as a cat. |
| |
Make an A-Z list on a topic of your choosing. Stretch your creativity!  After you finish your list, write a short narrative describing why you chose the list you did and how it relates to you.
A is for Ale, the finest of yeast
B is for Beer, the best kind of feast
C is for Craft, on tap at the bar
D is for Drinking it out of a jar
E is for Ethanol, organic compound
F is for Firkin; let's all drink one down
G is for Growler that you can take home
H is for Hops, which are useless alone
I is for Isinglass, for clarity's view
J is for Juice, a citrusy brew
K is for Keg, container of ale
L is for Lager, most of them pale
M is for Malt, the grain that's so dear
N is for Ninkasi, goddess of beer
O is for Oats, a flavorful grain
P is for Prohibition, a real shame
Q is for Quaff, what you do with a stein
R is for Real Ale, a British design
S is for Sour, a popular style
T is for Tap, which I see with a smile
U is for Unfiltered, filled with a haze
V is for Volatiles, scents all ablaze
W is for Wort, which starts the beer job
X is for Xipe, the Aztec grain god
Y is for Yeast, and all of its strains
Z is for Zymurgy, the knowledge we gain
...well, did anyone really expect me to pick a subject other than beer? Still, I'm willing to bet everyone gets hung up on X and maybe Z. The trick is to start there and work backwards. Nevertheless, X is always tough unless you're willing to cheat and use something that starts with Ex.
I considered it myself because of time limitations, but then I remembered Xipe (actually Xipe Totec) who was the Aztec god of, among other things, agriculture. Hey, that counts. And I had to use Zymurgy, of course.
Beer is, of course, one of my favorite subjects. I probably could have gone with science, too, which is easier (especially because science isn't afraid to start words with X), but a guy's gotta have standards. Like forcing rhymes to make couplets work. I didn't have to do that. I hope at least some readers are amused.
Probably, I should have bolded all the first letters of each line, but come on - I have video games to play. |
Previous ... - 1- 2 ... Next
© Copyright 2024 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
|
![Merit Badge in Quill Award
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning Best Blog in the 2021 edition of [Link To Item #quills] !](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quill_Award-1375927_6.gif)
![Merit Badge in Quill Award 2
[Click For More Info]
2022 Quill Award - Best Blog - [Link To Item #1196512] . Congratulations!!!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quill_Award_2-1375927_6.gif)
![Merit Badge in 30DBC Winner
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning the Jan. 2019 [Link To Item #30dbc] !!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-30DBC_Winner-2064535_14.gif)
![Merit Badge in Blogging
[Click For More Info]
Congratulations on winning an honorable mention for Best Blog at the 2018 Quill Awards for [Link To Item #1196512] . *^*Smile*^* This award was sponsored by the blogging consortium including [Link To Item #30dbc] , [Link To Item #blogcity] , [Link To Item #bcof] and [Link To Item #1953629] . For more details, see [Link To Item #quills] .](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/type-Blogging-2180.gif)
![Merit Badge in Highly Recommended
[Click For More Info]
I highly recommend your blog.](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/Kudos-Highly_Recommended.gif)
![Merit Badge in Opinion
[Click For More Info]
For diving into the prompts for Journalistic Intentions- thanks for joining the fun!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/genre-Opinion-1150.gif)
![Merit Badge in High Five
[Click For More Info]
For your inventive entries in [Link To Item #2213121] ! Thanks for the great read!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/Kudos-High_Five.gif)
![Merit Badge in Enlightening
[Click For More Info]
For winning 3rd Place in [Link To Item #2213121] . Congratulations!](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/general-Enlightening.gif)
![Merit Badge in Quarks Bar
[Click For More Info]
For your awesome Klingon Bloodwine recipe from [Link to Book Entry #1016079] that deserves to be on the topmost shelf at Quark's.](https://images.Writing.Com/imgs/writing.com/writers/badges/group-Quarks_Bar-2046190_12.gif)
