%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 My primary Writing.com blog. |
|
Logocentric (adj). Regarding words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality (especially applied as a negative term to traditional Western thought by postmodernist critics). Sometimes I just write whatever I feel like. Other times I respond to prompts, many taken from the following places: Thanks for stopping by!  |
 Prompt for September 24, 2025: What is the difference between actually living your faith or just professing it? Which one is where you stand? Are there any changes you need to make or ways to improve your current circumstances? This is a complicated question because it requires you to think about faith on two levels. 1. What even is your faith? 2. What does it mean to live your faith? I'd argue that the first question is more important and more often overlooked by many Christian believers, because they conflate their faith (i.e., the actual tenets of their religion) with their church (i.e., the organization that represents and expresses their religion). Given the depressing statistics about the very small number of believers who actually open and read their Bible outside of church services, I think it's safe to say that a large percentage of Christians get their theology from the pulpit. And while there's nothing wrong with following the tutelage of a trained ministry leader in a general sense, it's also important to be discerning about what you're hearing and make sure that it's in alignment with your religious texts. Christianity, for many, has become an identity not for its adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ, but for its adherence to political ideology. I oppose abortion and same-sex relationships and believe prayer should be allowed in public schools, therefore I am a Christian. Or worse, for its adherence to performative practice. I attend church and even give money to it, therefore I'm a Christian. The thing is, neither of those things are inherently Christian by themselves. There are plenty of faithful Christians support a woman's right to choose, and same-sex relationships, and the separation of church and state. Just like there are plenty of performative Christians out there who think going to church on Sunday and putting on a good show absolves them of anti-Christian behavior like immorality and hate. You can't begin to have a conversation about the difference between living your faith and professing it until you settle on what your faith even is. For me, I look to the Bible to define my faith. Which is not to say that I believe the Bible is inerrant (i.e., 100% free from any kind of error); I believe the Bible is absolutely divinely inspired and true, but that it's not always meant to be interpreted literally from a historical or scientific standpoint. And using that interpretation of the Bible, the narrative around faith is very clear: we are saved through Jesus who commands us to love God, love others, do unto others as we would have them do to us, and repent when we sin. We are to prioritize service, humility, selflessness, forgiveness, and following Jesus' example. The Bible doesn't say anything specifically about voting for candidates who are Pro Life, nor does it say it's okay to hate people because they're immigrants or Democrats, nor does it say that showing up to church a couple times a month and putting on a good show while tossing a couple bucks onto the offering plate checks all the boxes when it comes to your salvation. Other people's mileage may vary, but according to my faith, the difference between living my faith and just professing it is whether I just post the tenets of my faith in this blog post, or if I go out into the world and live them. It's easy to tell people that Christians are called to forgive; it's hard to actually stand up in front of tens of thousands of people and forgive the person who assassinated your husband, as Erika Kirk did just a few days ago. It's easy to tell people that they need to love one another; it's hard to face someone you genuinely dislike and still see the inherent value and beauty in them as a fellow child of God. It's easy to tell people that they should repent for their sins; it's hard to look at your own life and realize the level of idolatry you're committing to your reputation or your money. While understanding that Christians are saved through grace and that "good works" are not a requirement for salvation, given how easy it is to say something and how hard it is to actually live it out, I tend to believe that living your faith is where you need to stand. When I was younger, my dad would often tell me to do something and I would reply, "But you don't do that, why do I have to do that?" And his response would invariably be, "Do as I say, not as I do." Which, on the one hand, I can understand if you're admitting that you're too weak to do something and you're trying to teach someone to learn from your mistakes and be better. On the other hand, my dad wasn't a raging alcoholic struggling with addiction telling me to not drink; he would tell me to help my mom carry groceries in from the car as he sat on the couch reading the newspaper. Or he'd tell me to prioritize my school work and take it seriously even though he famously did not do either of those things all the way through college. So I'm admittedly I'm a bit programmed to side with deeds in the "words versus deeds" debate, but I don't think that makes it any less true. There are certainly places where words can be impactful and maybe even the better option, but I think most places in our lives benefit from how we show our faith, rather than just how we tell it. Like any Christian, I am certainly not perfect and have plenty of work to do on myself to live up to these ideals. (Beware any Christian who thinks that they don't!) But that's what makes the Christian faith so powerful. You don't need to be perfect, and your struggles become your testimony which can reach others. I just happen to think that your testimony shouldn't be a bunch of hollow words that you don't even follow yourself. |
 Prompt #68: If you had to become a minimalist with only ten personal possessions (other than your home and its furnishings), what would those ten things be? Having only ten possessions would be really tough. I also realized in looking at the prompt that I should have indicated other basics (e.g., clothes and personal hygiene items), because I didn't intend for the prompt to make people take up slots with shoes and toothpaste and whatnot. So, going with the premise that we're talking about things above and beyond the basics... I think #1 and #2 would have to be my smartphone and my laptop, respectively. Not only to they represent the things that I spend most of my time doing, but if I were really going for a minimalist aesthetic, they would also be the tools that I would need to declutter my life of physical belongings without losing the essentials (e.g., I'd scan all of my photos and put them on my phone/computer in order to get rid of the physical photo albums, I'd still have access to my music and movies despite getting rid of the physical media, etc.). #3 would be a pair of good headphones. I love listening to podcasts, audiobooks, music, YouTube channels, etc. but I get very self-conscious when other people are around, and I don't want to disturb anyone else. So a pair of headphones would be essential for casual viewing/listening, as well as things like handsfree phone calls and the like. #4 would probably be my Kindle. Same reason as above, except for books. I suppose I could technically read ebooks on either my phone or my computer, but that's not really an enjoyable experience for me. So I'd have to keep a Kindle where I could store all of my books after getting rid of the physical volumes. #5 would be my car. Even though I know it's certainly possible to live without a vehicle, I'm the kind of person who enjoys the freedom of getting up and going somewhere whenever they need or want to. I could certainly get by with public transportation, calling an Uber when necessary, etc. ... I just wouldn't want to! #6 would be a backpack of some kind. I tend to be on the go a lot, so having a bag (ideally big enough to throw these few possessions in!) would be ideal in order to pack everything up and head over to a friend's house, or a coffee shop, or the office if I ever needed an escape from my spartan lifestyle. #7 would have to be some kind of notebook and pen. Although I don't handwrite things nearly as often as I used to, I always find having pen and paper nearby comforting, and sometimes just journaling my thoughts or jotting down some ideas without firing up the computer is the easiest thing to do. #8 would be a reusable water bottle of some kind. I hate the idea of using disposable water bottles all the time, so it'd probably be a necessity that I have a container to carry around water, iced tea, or whatever it is I'm drinking that day. #9 would probably be a Bible. It's the one book that I really try to read in hardcopy form whenever possible, to minimize distractions. And who knows, maybe if it's the only physical book in my collection, I'd read it more! #10 would be a personal item or memento of some kind. I honestly have no idea what that would be right now (and it would be agonizing to try and decide), but while most of the items on this list are functional, I'd want something that has personal significance to me. |
Prompt #130: Write about the moment you knew you were really good (or bad) at something. I've been writing since the fourth grade. I distinctly remember being in a fourth and fifth grade combo class and watching the fifth graders get a chance to write fiction for the first time. One of the kids in that class wrote a superhero story about a hero called "Molecule Man" (not the one from the Marvel Comics, just his own invention), and I thought to myself, "You know what would be cooler than a guy who could control every molecule of his body? A guy who could control every atom in his body." Even back then, I was better at adaptation and revision than pure creative output! But the point where I knew I was really good at writing was in high school. My junior year, I took an AP English class with a teacher who is still, to this day, one of my all-time favorites. He was a guy who was really good natured but also not afraid to hold kids accountable to his high expectations. Since the AP exam at the end of the year was heavily focused on essay writing, we basically practiced timed essay writing every class period, and then had essay assignments to take home and work on to improve our critical thinking skills when we weren't under pressure. Essays were scored from one to five, with one being terrible and five being technically perfect. We were told not to expect fives (or even fours) until probably the second semester. My first in-class essay received a four. In a class of super high-achieving classmates, I was the only one. There were a handful of threes, but mostly twos. The teacher asked me to stay after class; I thought I was in trouble, but he wanted to tell me privately that he thought I was a talented writer and capable of passing the AP exam without breaking a sweat. He said he wanted to spend the semester not teaching me how to pass the test, but how to improve my writing as much as possible. And he held me to that. Throughout the year, he routinely challenged me more than the other kids, often handing me back essays and telling me to redo them because even though he knew they'd get a four on the exam, he knew I wasn't pushing myself or was phoning it in on that particular topic. It was the first time I'd really had someone who saw potential in me and mentored me, and it gave me confidence, in a class full of overachievers where the Top 10 kids in the class all had GPAs above a 4.0, that I was at least really good at this one thing. As far as being really bad at something? That would also be high school, except with math. Like a lot of the kids in my class, I was enrolled in advanced classes across the board, and it turns out that math is just not something I'm "advanced" at. I struggled through Geometry my freshman year, and hit a wall with Algebra II where the concepts just didn't make sense to me. It was my first time having to drop a class because I would have failed otherwise, and when I went back to take Algebra I again, everything clicked into place so that when I took Algebra II again the following year, I did much better and understood the concepts. It turns out that I needed that extra year to wrap my head around some of the concepts in the class. |
 Day 2679: “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."― Theodore Roosevelt. Your thoughts on freedom of speech with all that has happened recently with Jimmy Kimmel. I'm not a constitutional scholar or attorney, so I'm not even remotely qualified to tell you what existing case law supports or refines the language of the Bill of Rights, my own personal interpretation of that foundational document in our country is one of moderation and common sense. The Second Amendment guarantees, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," which, were it up to me to define, would mean everybody has a right to own a gun, not that everybody has a right to own any kind of gun they want, in any quantity they desire. I think there's a common-sense middle ground to be found between "taking away someone's freedoms" and saying, "Hey, no one's saying you can't own a bolt-action hunting rifle, or shotgun, or a Glock 17 handgun. But maybe not everyone who wants one needs to have access to an AR-15 style assault rifle, or a .50 caliber sniper rifle, or other military-grade weaponry. And if you are an enthusiast of military-grade weapons, maybe there are some additional restrictions on those because, again, the Second Amendment's guaranteed right to bear arms is not the same thing as guaranteed right to assemble an unchecked, unaccountable armory that would make a Navy SEAL envious." Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees (among other things) that, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," which, were it up to me to define, would mean everybody has a right to say what they want within reason, not that anybody can say anything they want, full stop. I think there's a common-sense middle ground to be found between censorship and saying, "You're not allowed to use your speech to incite violence, or harm protected classes of people, or create mass chaos." While I generally believe that people should have the freedom to live their lives however they want without someone else coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do, I also believe that in order to live collaboratively in a productive society, we all have to sublimate our impulses for the greater good of the people and the society around us, and it's possible to have a good-faith argument about where to draw the line on any particular issue that will find a balance between complete and unfettered freedom and so much restriction that citizens feel like someone else is trampling on their rights and freedoms. As far as what happened with Jimmy Kimmel (and Stephen Colbert before him, and very likely Jimmy Fallon and/or Seth Meyers next), I don't think jokes and commentary from late-night talk show hosts comes even remotely close to being a reason for which someone's freedom of speech needs to be curtailed for the greater good. The Administration is clearly trying to silence voices of dissent and criticism, particularly among the opposition party, and that is a freedom which we should all be outraged at the thought of losing. For the eight years Obama was president, the right wing said some heinous things about him (and were allowed to). The four years after that, when Trump was president, the left wing said some horrible things about him (and were allowed to). The four years after that, when Biden was president, the right wing said awful things about him (and were allowed to). But now, when people are saying anything negative about Trump or his administration, suddenly those people's jobs are being threatened, they're being investigated by law enforcement, they're being subjected to frivolous lawsuits designed to punish them. Regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum, we should all be deeply concerned and outraged by a political dynamic where dissent, disagreement, and criticism are being actively silenced and punished by those in power. If we're not free to express our thoughts and opinions without fear of reprisal, we're no longer truly free. Prompt for September 20, 2025: If the rapture happened today, do you think you would be taken to live eternally with Jesus? Why or why not? The honest answer is, if the rapture were to happen today, I don't know what side of things I'd end up on. And I think it would be the height of hubris to assume that you know how you'll be judged at the end of your time on Earth. Believing for certain that you're guaranteed a free one-way trip to heaven is essentially substituting your judgment for God's, or at least presuming that you fully know God's intentions and his heart. On the one hand, Christian theology teaches us that we're all inherently sinful and, while some sins are worse than others, each and every sin means that we're guilty and deserving of God's wrath. On the other hand, Christian theology also teaches us that we have a loving and merciful God, and we're saved by His grace. Given those two biblical truths, I would hope that I'd be taken to live eternally with Jesus when the rapture happens, but I can't say for certain. In the television series The Good Place (which is about the afterlife), the initial premise claims that getting into Heaven is based on a "points system" that is so onerous that only a select few make it in, and nobody's been admitted to Heaven in years. Which I have a hard time believing would be the case with a gracious and merciful God... but again, I just don't know.  Day 3949: “The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." — Bob Marley. Your thoughts! Over the years, through a combination of reading, therapy, and relationship-focused events like church marriage conferences and the like, I've come around to the general opinion that a lot of relationship troubles these days (e.g., the challenges with the dating scene, the divorce rate, etc.) can be boiled down to one or both people in a relationship not being willing to accept that things will be difficult sometimes, and/or not understanding that solid relationships are built on putting your partner first in a lot of circumstances. I think a lot of people have a tendency to bail on relationships at the first sign of difficulty. Coming up on our eighteenth wedding anniversary (and twenty-three total years together) this year, my wife and I were reflecting on all the hard things we've been through, from those early disagreements that blow up into full-fledged arguments, to really challenging circumstances like losing jobs and important people in our lives, to personal struggles with health problems and the pet peeves that develop after years of sharing a life with someone. And we wouldn't change any of that; it's what adds depth and connection to a relationship. But we were talking about how many people we know who have bailed on a relationship because it got too real or too hard. "What happened to all the romance and the excitement in the relationship?" "It feels like you're putting the kids and/or your job first instead of me." "I can't deal with you being depressed all the time." "You haven't been the same since your grandfather died." These are the kinds of things that happen all the time, and I think it comes from a place where people are increasingly unwilling to sacrifice (or in the words of Bob Marley, suffer) for one another. Where the priority is themselves and what they need, rather than what the relationship needs to thrive. I've been watching Formula 1 a lot lately, and one of my favorite drivers is Lewis Hamilton who is forty years old and has a dating history that includes Nicole Scherzinger, Gigi Hadid, Rihanna, Kendall Jenner, Rita Ora, Nicki Minaj, Shakira, and Sofia Vergara. Hamilton has been quoted as saying he's never tried to settle down with anyone because his entire life is racing and, in order for a relationship to work, his partner would need to understand that racing (including the time commitment and traveling around the world) is his priority. In a way, I think there's something honest and respectful about that, acknowledging that you aren't married or in a serious relationship with someone because you don't think it's fair to expect them to sacrifice their individuality to conform to what's important in your life. That said, I also find it incredibly sad that he's never met someone who, as a person, is more important to him than his job (even if it is a very, very cool job  ). But I feel like that's a prevalent mindset these days. People who go into a relationship and basically take the position, "This is great and all, but I'm not willing to sacrifice anything about myself or change anything in any way. If you can live with that, I guess this will work out." That's not a recipe for relationship success because both people have to sacrifice for one another. There will be times when you have to say, "I need this, and it's not fair to ask you to make that sacrifice." But there will also be times when your partner is saying that to you, and you have to be as willing to make the concession as you want them to be for you when it really matters. The cool thing about relationships is that "suffering" or sacrificing for other people develops the relationship. When you do something for someone else and understand why it's important and see the positive effect it has, your connection with that person deepens. The "sparks" that come with a new relationship are exciting and all; it's one of the greatest feelings in the world. But one of the other greatest feelings in the world is knowing someone so intimately that you don't even need to say anything to be understood and feel like you're being seen and prioritized. But in order to get there, you have to work at it. And working at it means putting the other person first at least as often as (if not more than) you do yourself. |
Prompt #109: Describe your dream writing retreat. Where is it? Who’s there? My answer to this question has evolved over the years. The two main criteria I'd look for in a writing retreat these days are things that probably wouldn't have even made my Top 5 list a decade ago: 1. Nature 2. Community Ten years ago, I would have told you that my ideal writing retreat was somewhere urban, just me and a hotel room. Get me a reasonably appointed, quiet hotel room in Manhattan to write in that has plenty of quality food options around for whenever I wanted to come up for some air, and I would have thought that's the perfect writing environment. Solitude and isolation. I've since come to accept that a fairly large part of me is connection-oriented, and I need time around other people to contrast with the time spent alone. I've also come to appreciate the natural world more than I have in the past. Maybe it's twenty-plus years of working in office buildings and living in a city; maybe it's all this climate change threatening to torch the planet before I get a chance to see much more of it's unspoiled splendor. Either way, I often find myself craving time to appreciate the great outdoors. To be clear, when I say "appreciate," I mean from a distance. I am not a camper, hiker, climber, birdwatcher, skier, cyclist, fisherman, or anything along those lines. I was "up close and personal" with nature in my youth more than enough to last a lifetime, so when I talk about appreciating nature, I mean the mountains from the comfort of a cabin. Or the beach from an ocean-facing balcony at a resort. Based on those two criteria, I could see doing an ideal type of writer's retreat at a place like The Inn at The Presidio  in San Francisco, California. (I actually have stayed there before, and it's delightful). I imagine there'd be some sort of program in place; one or two dozen writers having breakfast together, maybe a couple of optional seminars or discussion groups throughout the day, a walk around the Presidio in the afternoon to get the blood pumping, and then perhaps an evening chat around the fire pit once the day is done. Other than that, it's just you in your room with your laptop, typewriter, pen and paper, etc. Guests could attend as few or as many of the "group" activities as they wanted, dropping in when it was convenient for them, or keeping to themselves while the words were flowing.For me, talking about writing and creativity is what inspires me to write. I'll have a conversation with someone about screenwriting and think, "Oh man, I miss that. I want to be writing a script right now!" Or I'll help someone talk through a story structure or character problem and get the urge to work on something of my own. So plenty of opportunities to connect and converse with other writers (but not too many so as to provide a distraction!) would be an ideal writing retreat scenario for me, especially if it took place somewhere that I could appreciate the great outdoors (in small doses) when I need to get out of my room and stretch my legs for a bit. |
Day 3942: ON this day in 1952, Investigating the possible crash of a UFO, residents of Flatwoods, West Virginia, encounter a creature they describe as 10 feet tall, with glowing eyes and claw-like hands. Skeptics dismiss the “monster” as likely an owl. Try writing another possible scenario. Have fun! While an owl perched in a tree would probably be a likely scenario, can we ever truly rule out the possibility that maybe it was a "monster alien" after all? Or at least a government-engineered cover up like the moon landing? I can't think of what the government would be trying to cover up in Flatwoods, West Virginia, but hey, you never know!  #TheTruthIsOutThereDay 2672: Are your familiar with Hopalong Cassidy? If not, what westerns have you seen or read? Have you tried your hand at writing westerns? The character of Hopalong Cassidy was invented long before I was born (1904), and become popular even before my parents were born (1930s-1950s). When it comes to the westerns I grew up with, the first one that I distinctly remember watching was Back to the Future III as a kid. In film school, I got exposure to spaghetti westerns, some classics of the genre, and then-current films like The Last Samurai, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Open Range, and Firefly / Serenity. As an adult, it was No Country For Old Men, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma, True Grit, Django Unchained, etc. That was also around the time I started to get into Elmore Leonard and, while I tend to enjoy his crime fiction more, he's written some great westerns. I've written a handful of western short stories over the years, but I've never really tried my hand at longform westerns like in novel or screenplay form. I enjoy the genre as a setting or for its larger and more popular tropes, but I don't think it's a genre that I'm particularly passionate about to the point where I have something particularly original to add to it. Prompt: What are your thoughts about the passing away of Charlie Kirk and the reactions you have observed to it? On the one hand, death is a loss no matter who it happens to. Charlie Kirk was young, and left behind a wife and two very young children, and that's awful. I would never wish for someone to die, or a person to lose their spouse, or kids to lose a parent. It's a tragic circumstance that this family now has to process through. On the other hand, Charlie Kirk was someone who espoused vile ideology under the guise of supposed Christian values, who tried to normalize and advance the spread of racism, homophobia and an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, nationalism, antisemitism, white supremacy, and misogyny. While I don't think anyone should be killed over their political ideology, he was an outspoken proponent of gun rights, even telling people at an event in 2023 that, "I think it's worth it to have some gun deaths every year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." He has repeatedly shown callous disregard for the lives and wellbeing of countless marginalized groups and political rivals. When Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in his home and beaten with a hammer, after admitting the attack itself was "awful," Kirk called for an "amazing patriot" to bail out the attacker. I have been extremely irritated at the reactions to his death. Someone's death should never be celebrated, even if you don't like the person. But there is also an incredible amount of asymmetry in the response to Kirk's death as compared to, say, the assassination of Melissa Hortman (a Democrat who served as speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives), or the attempted abduction of Gretchen Witmer (a Democrat who serves as the Governor of Michigan). Charlie Kirk was a key figure in a movement that celebrated both of those horrific situations and blamed them on Democrats. And now that Kirk himself has been killed, that same movement is also blaming the Democrats for this. I find double-standards and hypocrisy incredibly frustrating. So I don't have a lot of patience for people celebrating political violence when it happens to the opposition party, but then finger-wagging and crying impropriety when the opposition party celebrates political violence that happens to "their team." If someone wants to scold others for not being sufficiently sorrowful over Charlie Kirk's death, I want to see some evidence that they were also scolding right-wingers over not being sufficiently sorrowful over the tragedies and injustices being inflicted upon members of the left. Or even those inflicted on normal residents of this country without any specific political affiliation. In my opinion, you don't get to celebrate cruelty toward others and then demand sympathy for yourself. To be clear, I don't think that any political violence should be celebrated, and political violence won't recede so long as there are people on either side of the political divide willing to turn the tragedy of someone's death into a talking point to rile up the opposition, or a mechanism for scoring points with the most extreme elements of their own base. The one thing Charlie Kirk and I do agree on is that politics should be a civil discourse and not a violent one. Where we differ though, is that I think the partisanship has to stop. I don't think you can fan the flames of intolerance and then be surprised that violence is the end result. I sincerely hope that we all get to a place where we prioritize each other's inherent humanity and value; when we can realize that our commonalities are more important than our differences. We shouldn't play politics like it's a team sport. I won't celebrate Charlie Kirk's death. And I do pray for his family and those sincerely mourning his loss, who now have a very difficult road ahead. But, at the same time, I won't spend a lot of time lamenting the passing of someone whose death was likely caused — or at least indirectly contributed to — by his own political project to ramp up partisanship and rancor in this country for financial and political gain; who made a living by preying on people's anger, fears, insecurities, and prejudices, and weaponizing them for use against marginalized communities. |
| To qualify for my Watch List every month, the following has to be something that I've watched that's new to me. It doesn't necessarily have to be a current show, but it can't be reruns or rewatches of something I've already seen. So if I'm including it in this list, it means this month is the first time I've watched it. I'll put "DNF" (Did Not Finish) next to anything that I stopped watching and have no immediate plans to finish. Movies  The Amateur The Bad Guys 2 Caught Stealing Freakier Friday Highest 2 Lowest Jurassic Park: Rebirth K-Pop Demon Hunters Relay The Smurfs MovieI've been seeing a lot more movies in theaters lately, thanks to a new Regal Crown Club Unlimited membership and a friend of mine who got one too, so now we see the late showing of a movie almost every weekend, after the kids are in bed one night. That's how I ended up seeing Caught Stealing, Highest 2 Lowest, Jurassic Park: Rebirth, and Relay, all of which I generally enjoyed for different reasons. Relay was probably my favorite of the bunch, which was a decent thriller starring Riz Ahmed about a corporate whistleblower mediator who gets in over his head, but Highest 2 Lowest (a Spike Lee remake of a Kurosawa film) was really engaging as well. There were also quite a few movies I saw with the kids and, other than The Smurfs Movie, they were all pretty good. The Bad Guys 2 was a great sequel to the first movie (which I really enjoyed), and Freakier Friday was a lot better and more heartfelt than I was expecting. But the real surprise was K-Pop Demon Hunters which was actually really, really good. The songs are incredible, and the movie itself is pretty good with a solid message. My kids are obsessed with it right now and have watched it a dozen times... and honestly, I'm right there with them rewatching it. Television The Bear (Season 4) Better Caul Saul (Season 1) Countdown (Season 1) — DNF On Call (Season 1) Paradise Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man (Season 1)I was pretty disappointed in the fourth season of The Bear, which didn't really work toward anything. The entire season was presumably about the restaurant trying to get a Michelin star... but then they spent the entire season on "character development" episodes and by the end of the season, there was no mention (let alone resolution) to the restaurant storyline. It felt kind of like they were just stalling for time and telling everyone "come back next season and maybe we'll move the story forward!" Countdown and On Call were a pretty generic action/thriller and procedural, respectively, and Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man was a solid series from my employer that I finally got around to watching the finished episodes of, and I finally started watching Better Call Saul, which was really entertaining and well done. My favorite show of the month, though, was Paradise, a post-apocalyptic murder mystery from Dan Fogelman that was really well acted and well produced. TOP PICK: K-Pop Demon Hunters |
Day 3936: “Scars have the strange power to remind us that our past is real.” — Cormac McCarthy. What do your scars say about your past? As I get older, the more scars I develop. Not just physical ones on an aging body that has seen it's share of nicks, scratches, surgical incisions, etc., but also emotional scars that come from loving and losing people, life throwing you curve balls, etc. There was a time when I used to lament the scars I'd built up. Having dental cavities that needed to be filled, or an imperfection on my side where my appendix was taken out; these are the kinds of things that society often teaches us that we have to be self-conscious about. Imperfections that should be covered up, or concealed, or at least never spoken about as we pretend they don't exist. But like the scene in Lethal Weapon 3 where Martin Riggs and Lorna Cole are exchanging battle scar stories, scars tell a story of where we've been. The same is true of emotional scars. That said, I don't know that I fully agree with the McCarthy quote that they "remind us that our past is real." I don't think I've ever had an issue accepting the reality of the scars I've carried; I've just previously had an issue with thinking of them in a positive light. Prompt: What are your thoughts about forgiveness of sin? Are there any unforgivable sins? According to the Bible, if I'm not mistaken, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ("Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.” —Mark 3:28-29). That said, forgiveness of sin is not a question I ultimately spend a lot of time thinking about because it's not ultimately up to me to make that decision. Christian theology posits that we're all sinners and we're saved by grace, and since the grace we need is not mine but God's, there's not a lot I can do in terms of the forgiveness of sins (except for those sins against me, which I believe we're called to be merciful about). That said, I would imagine God is more concerned about the state of our hearts rather than the specific deeds we've done during our time on Earth. If someone commits a murder and is genuinely repentant and dedicated to changing their life for the better in the aftermath, I have a hard time believing that a kind and graceful God would tell someone that they're denied entry to Heaven because of something they did (and learned from) earlier in their life. By the same token, if someone maintains an appearance of piety on the outside but has hate in their heart for any of God's creations (especially their fellow man), I have a hard time believing that a just and fair god would tell someone that they get a pass into Heaven because they went to church every Sunday and put on a good show. At the end of the day, other people's salvation is not ours to determine, so it shouldn't be of concern to us. What we should each be concerned with is the forgiveness of our sins, and forgiving others who have sinned against us. And since I can't seems to find any sins against other people that are unforgivable as per the Bible, I think that means we're tasked with finding a way to forgive anything another person can or has done to us, no matter how difficult or painful it may be, or how reluctant we may be to let go of our grudges and resentments. |
Day 3934: On this day in 1998 The American search engine company Google Inc. was formally established as founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page filed incorporation papers. Do you feel Google is a reliable search engine? Did you know Google discriminates against some content, and in favor of other content, and maintains guides and tools that favor some websites in search results ranking? Is Google a reliable search engine? Sure. If you go searching for something, chances are very low that you'll get something just completely unrelated to the topic you're searching for. But is it a good search engine? I'd argue it's become a victim of its own success and the quality has been deteriorating for some time as a result. Case in point, yes, I'm aware that Google has been the subject of (and has lost) numerous lawsuits about their unfair business practices of deprioritizing some content (i.e., the content that doesn't pay to advertise our use their web tools) and favoring others (i.e., the content that does pay to play). I'm also aware that the quality of search results has degraded significantly in the past couple of years, thanks to two specific choices that Google has made. First, it's expanded the presence of its advertising, to the point where it's difficult to even tell which results are organic anymore. When you search for something on Google, the first four to six results are sponsored links. Plus there are the "Find related products & services" links. And the integrated local businesses on Google Maps that have paid to be associated with that keyword. Maybe, maybe half the content on the search results page is organic. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual number were much lower. Second, the integration of AI has been a real disappointment. Now, whenever you search for something, at the very top of the page is an "AI Overview" which attempts to predict what information you need and summarize it for you. And while I'll admit that the feature is handy in some cases, the AI is still wildly inaccurate at times. Some of the search results that Google's AI Overview feature has returned include: Advising people to include their name and birthdate for passwords to make them memorable. Recommending boiled mint leaves and a high-fiber diet to treat appendicitis. Reporting that gasoline can be used in cooking, the only caveat being that it's flammable. Adding non-toxic glue to pizza sauce to help the cheese layer not slide off the pizza. Chewing tobacco and smoking cigarettes can improve performance in sports. When asked which U.S. Presidents attended the University of Wisconsin, it listed several presidents who never attended the school, and in some cases cited graduation dates that occurred after their deaths.And, look, I understand that AI is an emerging technology and is bound to have some kinks that need to be worked out. But putting those kinds of results right at the top of the Google search results is creating a dangerous precedent where you're bound to have people just look at those topline results and assume they don't need to read any further. And while I don't necessarily worry about Darwin Award eligible people who are dumb enough to take AI's advice to treat appendicitis with a bran muffin or mix some Elmer's in with their tomato sauce for "added texture," I do worry that some of the more subtle errors will start to pervade the general consciousness (and in some cases already have). AI doesn't do a great job of making weighted value determinations. It scrapes data from the internet and presents it all equally. So when you get some of these wonky results, a lot of times it's because it'll take multiple conflicting sources and present them as equally valuable, saying things like, "Some believe that Barack Obama was America's first Muslim president while others believe that there have been no Muslim presidents," when there is overwhelming evidence and reliable third party sources that confirm Obama is Christian, but one nutty conspiracy theory website claims that he's Muslim. I think Google is a remarkable company that has developed some incredible products and technologies. Unfortunately, I think the quality of their search results is quickly becoming an afterthought as they continue to pursue new ventures. Day 2663: What is your idea of a cozy home? Write about this in your Blog entry today. For me, a cozy home is one where everything has a place, there's plenty of room to spread out and give people privacy, and there's a clear sense of personality to the home without going overboard on decor or furnishings. I spent a lot of time looking at houses online. As a fan of architecture and someone who just finds interior design interesting, I like to see what types and styles of homes are out there. Some of the features that I would want in my cozy home include: Work and entertaining spaces that are separate from the sleeping spaces. I've been and lived in too many homes where it's a pain to do anything after the kids' bedtime because their rooms are directly above the dining room where you're having a dinner party, or where the living room is sharing a wall with a bedroom so you can't play the TV too loud after someone goes to sleep. I would love to have one of those houses where there's a basement or detached room for entertaining (or even on the other side of the house from the bedrooms) where you can be loud after hours and not disturb anyone who chooses to go to bed early. Extensive organized storage areas. I refuse to pay for an offsite storage unit, so I need everything I own to fit in my house. And while we certainly do our best to try and keep things pared down to a reasonable amount, I've only ever lived places where every closet is packed full because it's holding the winter coats and the suitcases and the board games and the vacuum cleaner. I'd love to have enough space to have a game closet, a cleaning closet, a storage room in the garage for occasionally-used items like the suitcases, etc. Creative places for personal effects. I get really tired of hanging pictures on flat walls. As someone who likes some personalization but not too much clutter, I'd love a variety of spaces that can be accented with things that make a house feel like a home. Some built-ins, shelves, nooks, etc. where I can put the souvenir I bought on that one vacation, or the treasured gift I got that one year at work. Plenty of parking. Granted, I live in a very urban area, but I've lived sooo many places where parking is impossible to find. The kind where you can't invite anyone over after 5pm because they'll spent an hour hunting for a parking spot and end up parking six blocks away, or where you can't park a car outside, or have to move it for street sweeping. My dream would be either ample street parking, or a long driveway that can accommodate several cars so that when we host, people can park right at the place they're supposed to be. Natural light and a view. Last but certainly not least, a big part of a "cozy" vibe for me includes natural light and some kind of a view to enjoy from inside the house. Living in a city, I've had my fill of tiny windows on one side of the residence only which mean you have to have your lights on all the time. And of windows that look out on an exterior wall of another building, or worse, into someone else's apartment. I'd love a little bit of space, and to work some elements of the natural world into the ambience of the home. Prompt: How has WDC affected your Spiritual journey? I don't really know that WdC has had a huge effect on my spiritual journey. I attribute that mostly to my wife, my pastor, and a few key relationships in real (offline) life that have heavily influenced my beliefs. Not that WdC is lacking for groups and activities that do a great job with that; it's just that the reason I'm here on the site has more to do with my interest in writing, being creative, etc. I know some members here see WdC as a "one stop shop" for all their needs and get their socializing, their writing, their faith, their other interests, etc. all poured into in the same convenient place, but I've never really lived my life that way. For me, it's more like WdC is where I go for my writing needs, my church is where I go for my spiritual needs, my weekly game group and my movie-watching friends are who I go to when I just want to be entertained, etc. I'm generally okay with the fact that there isn't a ton of crossover between different areas of my life. Which is not to say there isn't any... my game group, for example, is mostly Christians and we often talk about faith-related topics when we're chatting before and after the games... but that just kind of highlights why WdC isn't really necessary for the spiritual journey that I'm on. That said, I do really enjoy the spiritual and religious community on this site, as it's a chance to get to know people all over the world with both similar and radically different faith traditions. While not strictly connected with my own spiritual journey, I do enjoy the sense of community that comes from sharing and learning from others. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
