May is National Short Story Month (NaShoStoMo for all you NaNoWriMo-lovers). There is a fantastic tool out there for writers, and I'm going to try to start using it. It's called #FridayFlash.
The gist is to write a story of 1000 words or less and post it up on Friday. Then, put it on the Friday Flash Collector and post a link to the story on twitter using the hashtag "FridayFlash."
Now, I know it's Saturday. I'm late. I had meant to write it yesterday, but being a stay-at-home dad means you have little time, so it's easy to get distracted from all the other things you want to do when you find the time. And yesterday there really wasn't any time. So, I'll post it now. The following is my first! And I got the inspiration from a news article.
Saturday, May 4, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Chores
So I've been busy in the last week, but not in a fun way. Due to certain future events, I am definitely feeling the crunch to make sure the house is presentable. In addition, I've had more chores to do than usual. Just last night (after 8:30) I sorted and washed about a gallon of strawberries, put away dishes, washed dishes, did laundry, cleaned up, made bread, and wrote characters up for a game my sister is running (which is starting to feel a little like a chore). And that's on top of making plans, doing the calendar, folding laundry, making Addy's bed, doing more dishes, making dinner/tea, taking Addy out to pick strawberries, paying bills, etc. etc. etc.
I'm not trying to make you all think I do a lot of chores. But it still feels like a lot of chores to me. And if not chores, then responsibilities, such as scouting and taking Addy swimming. I've written very little in the last week, and in the last 3 days I've actually felt like writing is the last thing I want to do. I had to force myself to write up those characters, and I usually find that enjoyable (the only reason I did was because I didn't have the time to actually get into real writing).
So, no, I have not written much recently. I need to get back into the mindset of writing. It feels like I'm struggling with a combination of writer's block and writer's blockade. When I find a small time to write, I don't feel like it.
Having a toddler is not conducive to being an author.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Distracted Driving and Statistics
It is generally common knowledge that 90% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Of course, who knows what the actual numbers are (I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this), but it is true that a surprising number of statistics are wrong. But what's worse are the statistics that aren't wrong, but are used incorrectly. These statistics are used to influence people and are a terrible abuse of math and science. Math and science are supposed to be about truth, but what happens when the "truth" isn't what it sounds like? To quote Mark Twain,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
One example is from an article I read recently on daydreaming while driving. It turns out that Detroit has been busy using its copious extra money on useless studies instead of trying to make jobs and save its crumbling economy. According to this report, daydreaming while driving is the cause for 62% of fatal accidents caused by distraction, while only 12% of such accidents were caused by cell phone use.
Those in charge of this study then went ahead and claimed that "daydreaming is more dangerous than texting." Does anyone else see the gap in logic here, or is it just me?
While on the surface this may seem alarming, which is probably why the news has picked up the story. But let's just dig a little deeper.
What are the statistics for the percentage of people who regularly use cell phones while driving? What about those who text while driving? Or who use phones without hands-free devices? I do not know these numbers, but if I were to guess, I'd say something like.. oh.. 10% of people will text while driving.
Now, how many people daydream while driving? Again, I don't know the number, but my uneducated guess would be... 100%. Yes, I firmly believe that everyone at some point lets their mind wander while they are behind the wheel.
Now, let's put these two together. Again, I am making up the numbers to prove a point. Let's say the percentage of people who get into fatal accidents is 1%. That makes 0.62% of those caused by drivers who daydream. This means that if you daydream, you have a 0.62% chance of getting into a fatal accident, because 100% of drivers daydream. Now let's say you are texting. Although only 0.12% of that 1% of fatal accidents is caused by texting... only 10% of the drivers text. That means, if you text, you have a 1.2% chance of getting into a fatal accident. That's TWICE as dangerous as daydreaming.
Now, I do not know if daydreaming really is more dangerous than texting, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. However, the point I am trying to make is that you have to think about the statistics you are being told. Just because the news report or some study jumps to conclusions doesn't mean you have to. Particularly when it comes to statistics.
Of course, who knows what the actual numbers are (I'm sure someone has written a thesis on this), but it is true that a surprising number of statistics are wrong. But what's worse are the statistics that aren't wrong, but are used incorrectly. These statistics are used to influence people and are a terrible abuse of math and science. Math and science are supposed to be about truth, but what happens when the "truth" isn't what it sounds like? To quote Mark Twain,
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
One example is from an article I read recently on daydreaming while driving. It turns out that Detroit has been busy using its copious extra money on useless studies instead of trying to make jobs and save its crumbling economy. According to this report, daydreaming while driving is the cause for 62% of fatal accidents caused by distraction, while only 12% of such accidents were caused by cell phone use.
Those in charge of this study then went ahead and claimed that "daydreaming is more dangerous than texting." Does anyone else see the gap in logic here, or is it just me?
While on the surface this may seem alarming, which is probably why the news has picked up the story. But let's just dig a little deeper.
What are the statistics for the percentage of people who regularly use cell phones while driving? What about those who text while driving? Or who use phones without hands-free devices? I do not know these numbers, but if I were to guess, I'd say something like.. oh.. 10% of people will text while driving.
Now, how many people daydream while driving? Again, I don't know the number, but my uneducated guess would be... 100%. Yes, I firmly believe that everyone at some point lets their mind wander while they are behind the wheel.
Now, let's put these two together. Again, I am making up the numbers to prove a point. Let's say the percentage of people who get into fatal accidents is 1%. That makes 0.62% of those caused by drivers who daydream. This means that if you daydream, you have a 0.62% chance of getting into a fatal accident, because 100% of drivers daydream. Now let's say you are texting. Although only 0.12% of that 1% of fatal accidents is caused by texting... only 10% of the drivers text. That means, if you text, you have a 1.2% chance of getting into a fatal accident. That's TWICE as dangerous as daydreaming.
Now, I do not know if daydreaming really is more dangerous than texting, but I seriously, seriously doubt it. However, the point I am trying to make is that you have to think about the statistics you are being told. Just because the news report or some study jumps to conclusions doesn't mean you have to. Particularly when it comes to statistics.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tropes
I've been told that there are only 2 stories; A stranger comes to town, and someone leaves town. Really, there is only one story- change.
Now, I only have a degree in "creative nonfiction," and a bachelor's at that. Not storyboarding, fiction writing, screenwriting, or anything like that. So how is it that I am able to predict shows with such frequency? Is it because our TV shows and movies are lacking in their originality? Or is it something else?
Part of it, I'm sure, is that there is little originality, but if you look hard you can still find it. And part of it is that we've watched TV shows and movies our whole lives, so we've seen a lot of the formulae that producers and directors "know" work. But, that's not all. I think it has more to do with something called "tropes."
Tropes are tools that writers use. They are parts of stories, characters, etc. that work because we all have formed some expectation in our minds of how things are supposed to work, whether or not we are aware of them. And if you use them correctly, they can bring your story to life, give you an audience, and let you genuinely surprise people.
Perhaps the original study into tropes is a book called The Hero with a Thousand Faces. It goes into delicious detail explaining which characters work, which don't, and why. Granted, it's not really ABOUT tropes and it involves a lot of philosophy and mythology, but it also is about tropes if you keep an open mind.
There is a good source that I once in a while go to when I'm looking for a trope (but I find that the more I write, the more tropes are in my arsenal without needing to search). TV Tropes is a wiki page, so you need to take what you read with a grain of salt, but if you're stuck in a rut, this source may just be what you need to get out. But I warn you; once you start learning about tropes, you (and possibly yours friends) will never enjoy TV the same way again.
There is a good source that I once in a while go to when I'm looking for a trope (but I find that the more I write, the more tropes are in my arsenal without needing to search). TV Tropes is a wiki page, so you need to take what you read with a grain of salt, but if you're stuck in a rut, this source may just be what you need to get out. But I warn you; once you start learning about tropes, you (and possibly yours friends) will never enjoy TV the same way again.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
How not to lose weight
There is something that I've learned we are missing in the education of our children. I would say that it is "common sense," but it goes further than that. It has to do with a capacity for logic. It's "skepticism."
Why is this a good thing and not a bad? To start out, true skeptics are indeed open-minded. They just don't want to be made a fool of and believe something at face value. A true skeptic would be thrilled if it turned out psychic powers are real. But we do not want to just believe Joe Schmo on the street when he claims he's psychic - he has to prove it. Scientifically. There shouldn't be any doubt.
Skepticism, however, goes further than psychics. We run into situations every day where we should be doubting what we are told. Turn on the radio or the TV and you are bombarded with commercials whose sole purpose is to convince you to part with your money. They will make any claim they can legally get away with to persuade you, and that is the problem. Too many people don't realize that every word they are saying has been mulled over by a team of lawyers to make sure they can't get sued. Why would lawyers have to be worried about something like that if their claims were true at face value?
The worst case I've heard recently was a radio commercial. It is yet another "miracle weight loss" drug that will make you "lose weight, fast" without having to exercise, diet, etc. Here's the clincher. "These ingredients have been clinically tested to help you lose weight." Did you catch that?
Clinically "tested."
That doesn't mean they were scientifically proven, or that science even suggests that they can help you lose weight (and, by the way, "help" us lose weight? Shouldn't that be "make" you lose weight?). All this means is that the makers of this likely benign and inert chemical tested it themselves and didn't tell you what the conclusions were. For all we know, they make you fatter, or made lab rats grow a second head. And it claims that the ingredients were tested, but not the drug itself. Did you know that there is sulfuric acid in corn syrup? That apples contain cyanide? Or that bitter almonds can kill you? But in most cases the harmful parts have been removed/processed or are too small to affect you. And it's easy to make dangerous chemicals out of household ingredients that are, in and of themselves, benign. So testing the ingredients isn't doing any good.
Often the weight loss drugs in question use people's lack of scientific understanding to make spurious claims. My favorite was one that claimed that people who used the drug lost 10 pounds in 6 months, which was far less than the average person loses by just moderately exercising. One of these products, Sensa, claims that it actually makes you lose more weight than the average. But take a look at the ingredients and you'll find that all of them are benign or pass right through your system, doing nothing to you or your appetite. Look carefully and you'll see that they aren't claiming the drug Sensa makes you lose weight, by but that the Sensa System does. And what is that system? When you use Sensa, you are asked to count your calories and mark down what you eat. That simple act, keeping a food journal, makes you cognizant of how much you are eating and makes you eat healthier.
There, I just saved you a bunch of money.
Doubting everything you hear is not a bad thing, it is a cautious thing that can prevent you from losing money, or even keep you out of jail. As Descartes put it, "I doubt, therefore I am." If you are indeed looking to lose weight, first you should go to your doctor and ask him/her for advice. Then, you should start exercising (provided your doctor has given you the go-ahead). Finally, eat your food in moderation, and chose the healthiest foods you can. Don't eat until you are full - just eat until you are no longer hungry. And eat slowly. Give your brain time to realize that you're no longer hungry. I am not a nutrition expert, a doctor, or a weigh-loss guru. I'm just a guy who likes to think things through.
Why is this a good thing and not a bad? To start out, true skeptics are indeed open-minded. They just don't want to be made a fool of and believe something at face value. A true skeptic would be thrilled if it turned out psychic powers are real. But we do not want to just believe Joe Schmo on the street when he claims he's psychic - he has to prove it. Scientifically. There shouldn't be any doubt.
Skepticism, however, goes further than psychics. We run into situations every day where we should be doubting what we are told. Turn on the radio or the TV and you are bombarded with commercials whose sole purpose is to convince you to part with your money. They will make any claim they can legally get away with to persuade you, and that is the problem. Too many people don't realize that every word they are saying has been mulled over by a team of lawyers to make sure they can't get sued. Why would lawyers have to be worried about something like that if their claims were true at face value?
The worst case I've heard recently was a radio commercial. It is yet another "miracle weight loss" drug that will make you "lose weight, fast" without having to exercise, diet, etc. Here's the clincher. "These ingredients have been clinically tested to help you lose weight." Did you catch that?
Clinically "tested."
That doesn't mean they were scientifically proven, or that science even suggests that they can help you lose weight (and, by the way, "help" us lose weight? Shouldn't that be "make" you lose weight?). All this means is that the makers of this likely benign and inert chemical tested it themselves and didn't tell you what the conclusions were. For all we know, they make you fatter, or made lab rats grow a second head. And it claims that the ingredients were tested, but not the drug itself. Did you know that there is sulfuric acid in corn syrup? That apples contain cyanide? Or that bitter almonds can kill you? But in most cases the harmful parts have been removed/processed or are too small to affect you. And it's easy to make dangerous chemicals out of household ingredients that are, in and of themselves, benign. So testing the ingredients isn't doing any good.
Often the weight loss drugs in question use people's lack of scientific understanding to make spurious claims. My favorite was one that claimed that people who used the drug lost 10 pounds in 6 months, which was far less than the average person loses by just moderately exercising. One of these products, Sensa, claims that it actually makes you lose more weight than the average. But take a look at the ingredients and you'll find that all of them are benign or pass right through your system, doing nothing to you or your appetite. Look carefully and you'll see that they aren't claiming the drug Sensa makes you lose weight, by but that the Sensa System does. And what is that system? When you use Sensa, you are asked to count your calories and mark down what you eat. That simple act, keeping a food journal, makes you cognizant of how much you are eating and makes you eat healthier.
There, I just saved you a bunch of money.
Doubting everything you hear is not a bad thing, it is a cautious thing that can prevent you from losing money, or even keep you out of jail. As Descartes put it, "I doubt, therefore I am." If you are indeed looking to lose weight, first you should go to your doctor and ask him/her for advice. Then, you should start exercising (provided your doctor has given you the go-ahead). Finally, eat your food in moderation, and chose the healthiest foods you can. Don't eat until you are full - just eat until you are no longer hungry. And eat slowly. Give your brain time to realize that you're no longer hungry. I am not a nutrition expert, a doctor, or a weigh-loss guru. I'm just a guy who likes to think things through.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Matrimonious
It appears this blog has added an additional purpose to itself - that of a personal platform for my beliefs, be it religious or political. I know that not everyone shares my beliefs, and I am fine with that. I do ask that you read what I have to say before making a judgement, and then reflect on the logic of your own arguments, as well as mine. It may not make a difference in the long run, but at the very least it will make you entertain another point of view for a while, and that is never a bad thing.
As many of you are likely aware (and the rest of you should be), the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of marriage equality in our country. And it's about time. There have been many controversial cases involving marriage equality in recent years, from the entire California Proposition 8 fiasco, to DOMA, to Perry v Schwarzenegger. There are at least 4 cases the Supreme Court has to decide on, and this week may see an end to all of them.
Now, I've heard a lot of arguments for and against Same-Sex Marriages. After hearing them all, I've found that none of the arguments against it hold any water in a debate. In fact, some of the articles I've read, particularly this one, are so bad that even their analogies and metaphors make no sense. (Obviously this writer was never very good at checkers if he never tried to plan anything out). A brief run-down of the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1) You're "redefining" marriage! Or "undefining" it!
2) Marriage is about procreation!
3) Think of the children!
4) The Bible says it is wrong!
5) It threatens all marriages and the very fabric of our society!
6) God hates fags!
7) It will destroy the "sanctity of marriage."
To these arguments, I have this to say:
1) Yes, and it is not a bad thing. Just as we redefined what a "person" is (to include, for instance, blacks), what a "voter" is (to include, for instance, women), and what a "soldier" is (again, women on the front lines). In fact, our legal documents are meant to be looked at time and time again and changed according to how our society has evolved. Redefining something means the system is working. Refusing to means we are not progressing as a society.
2) Tell that to old people, infertile people, and people who don't want kids. Besides, with the abortion rates so high and the demand for adoption so high, I think procreation is not a problem in this country. Hollister v Perry showed that marriage in this country has NEVER been about procreation and that there is no legal wording or documentation to support this argument.
3) Children of same-sex couples lead happy, normal, lives, just like those of stable heterosexual couples. Children of single-parent homes can, too. It's not like being gay rubs off on others.
4) The Bible has surprisingly little to say about the kind of gay relationships we are talking about here. Almost all of the 6 (yes, 6) references in the Bible are talking about sodomy as an act of forced submission during war, not as a stable, loving relationship. The other references to it (none of which are from Jesus) are very ambiguous in their wording and meaning. Paul himself said you should only get married if your lust for each other is so great you would commit the sin of fornication otherwise. Why would he say this? Well, because he thought Jesus would be coming ANY DAY and we had no time to turn our love anywhere other than to God. Besides, so what? To an atheist, the Bible is just a work of fiction, so why should an atheist gay couple be bound by it?
5) No, refusing to pass this law does. Our marriages are just fine, but if society can't move forward, we are moving backwards. This argument is nothing but fear-mongering.
6) Nice try, Phelps.
7) Ah.... 7...
Number 7 is the one I really can't stand. Argument-wise it is the love-child of "Bible" and "threatens us" arguments, with a bit of "procreation" thrown in for good measure. When someone uses number 7, I cringe inside. I was watching a video on facebook where this was brought up and the speaker, Senator Diane Savino, eloquently tears it apart. Watch it yourself to hear her case. She makes the same case that people have made for decades, essentially that the way our society treats heterosexual marriage is what is really destroying its sanctity. Only briefly does she get close to the true trump card against this.
The truth is, the word "sanctity" is defined as "holiness" or "godliness." It is an entirely moot point. The Supreme Court is not attempting to vote on whether or not marriages are holy, because the Supreme Court is a legal, secular institution, not a religious one. According to our laws, no deity or holiness enters into marriage at all. Marriage is nothing more than a legal institution, a procedure that grants certain benefits to two legally responsible adults (or at least close to adults; I personally believe we should ban marriage under the age of 18). The government has no right to deny two people from receiving those benefits, regardless of who they are. We have freedom of religion here, so it is wrong that any religion should be brought up in a legal battle like this. I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a couple on grounds of the marriage being against their beliefs. It is their right, as the government should not force a church to do something against its beliefs. Hell, I was married Episcopalian, where we have to wait 6 months after getting engaged, attend the church we will be married in regularly during that time, and go to marriage counseling before the wedding or else they will not perform it! How many marriages would happen if everyone had to go through that? No, there is no sanctity at risk here at all. If you're worried that "marriage" will be less holy, bring that concern up with your church. If you don't like their policy, change churches. Don't change the government to suit your bigoted worldview. Because it needs to accommodate everyone, even those whose religions don't think same-sex marriages are wrong.
As many of you are likely aware (and the rest of you should be), the Supreme Court has been hearing the case of marriage equality in our country. And it's about time. There have been many controversial cases involving marriage equality in recent years, from the entire California Proposition 8 fiasco, to DOMA, to Perry v Schwarzenegger. There are at least 4 cases the Supreme Court has to decide on, and this week may see an end to all of them.
Now, I've heard a lot of arguments for and against Same-Sex Marriages. After hearing them all, I've found that none of the arguments against it hold any water in a debate. In fact, some of the articles I've read, particularly this one, are so bad that even their analogies and metaphors make no sense. (Obviously this writer was never very good at checkers if he never tried to plan anything out). A brief run-down of the ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1) You're "redefining" marriage! Or "undefining" it!
2) Marriage is about procreation!
3) Think of the children!
4) The Bible says it is wrong!
5) It threatens all marriages and the very fabric of our society!
6) God hates fags!
7) It will destroy the "sanctity of marriage."
To these arguments, I have this to say:
1) Yes, and it is not a bad thing. Just as we redefined what a "person" is (to include, for instance, blacks), what a "voter" is (to include, for instance, women), and what a "soldier" is (again, women on the front lines). In fact, our legal documents are meant to be looked at time and time again and changed according to how our society has evolved. Redefining something means the system is working. Refusing to means we are not progressing as a society.
2) Tell that to old people, infertile people, and people who don't want kids. Besides, with the abortion rates so high and the demand for adoption so high, I think procreation is not a problem in this country. Hollister v Perry showed that marriage in this country has NEVER been about procreation and that there is no legal wording or documentation to support this argument.
3) Children of same-sex couples lead happy, normal, lives, just like those of stable heterosexual couples. Children of single-parent homes can, too. It's not like being gay rubs off on others.
4) The Bible has surprisingly little to say about the kind of gay relationships we are talking about here. Almost all of the 6 (yes, 6) references in the Bible are talking about sodomy as an act of forced submission during war, not as a stable, loving relationship. The other references to it (none of which are from Jesus) are very ambiguous in their wording and meaning. Paul himself said you should only get married if your lust for each other is so great you would commit the sin of fornication otherwise. Why would he say this? Well, because he thought Jesus would be coming ANY DAY and we had no time to turn our love anywhere other than to God. Besides, so what? To an atheist, the Bible is just a work of fiction, so why should an atheist gay couple be bound by it?
5) No, refusing to pass this law does. Our marriages are just fine, but if society can't move forward, we are moving backwards. This argument is nothing but fear-mongering.
6) Nice try, Phelps.
7) Ah.... 7...
Number 7 is the one I really can't stand. Argument-wise it is the love-child of "Bible" and "threatens us" arguments, with a bit of "procreation" thrown in for good measure. When someone uses number 7, I cringe inside. I was watching a video on facebook where this was brought up and the speaker, Senator Diane Savino, eloquently tears it apart. Watch it yourself to hear her case. She makes the same case that people have made for decades, essentially that the way our society treats heterosexual marriage is what is really destroying its sanctity. Only briefly does she get close to the true trump card against this.
The truth is, the word "sanctity" is defined as "holiness" or "godliness." It is an entirely moot point. The Supreme Court is not attempting to vote on whether or not marriages are holy, because the Supreme Court is a legal, secular institution, not a religious one. According to our laws, no deity or holiness enters into marriage at all. Marriage is nothing more than a legal institution, a procedure that grants certain benefits to two legally responsible adults (or at least close to adults; I personally believe we should ban marriage under the age of 18). The government has no right to deny two people from receiving those benefits, regardless of who they are. We have freedom of religion here, so it is wrong that any religion should be brought up in a legal battle like this. I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a couple on grounds of the marriage being against their beliefs. It is their right, as the government should not force a church to do something against its beliefs. Hell, I was married Episcopalian, where we have to wait 6 months after getting engaged, attend the church we will be married in regularly during that time, and go to marriage counseling before the wedding or else they will not perform it! How many marriages would happen if everyone had to go through that? No, there is no sanctity at risk here at all. If you're worried that "marriage" will be less holy, bring that concern up with your church. If you don't like their policy, change churches. Don't change the government to suit your bigoted worldview. Because it needs to accommodate everyone, even those whose religions don't think same-sex marriages are wrong.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
BSA
As many of you know, the Boy Scouts of America has been addressing the matter of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks. Under current regulations, it is not permitted, and a scout or leader will be removed from the program for being openly gay. This has been a controversial topic for many reasons - so controversial, in fact, that the BSA postponed its decision until May.
Some of you may support the current regulations. I, however, strongly oppose them. But before you bash the BSA for being bigoted, allow me to open your eyes a little to their dilemma. The BSA usually works through "chartered" organizations. That is, a troop is chartered to an organization, such as a church or school. The troop meets there, it gets money from there, and can even get its scoutmaster from it. Of course, just because a troop meets and is chartered by, say, a mormon or baptist church does not mean that the scouts or leaders have to be mormon or baptist or even religious. But if the BSA decides to allow openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks, many of these groups will turn the BSA away, and those troops will be left without a charter. With nowhere to meet, what will happen to them? With no money, how will they survive? So the issue of whether or not the BSA allows gays to join them is not so cut-and-dry as many people believe.
Well, today I received an email from the BSA asking for my opinion through a lengthy survey because I am an Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout. I most certainly let them know my mind, and I wish to share it with you.
Of course, like an idiot, I copied the thing I wrote and forgot to paste it before copying something else. So I will have to paraphrase what I sent.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does not adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
First of all, it is every American's right to be gay or straight, and in most cases discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is against the law. Secondly, a scout is brave. It is one of the twelve tenants of the Scout Law. What kind of message does it send to scouts and the nation if the BSA itself cannot stand up against bigotry and do what is right, regardless of the threats it faces? How can the BSA reprimand a scout who bravely declares he is gay without becoming hypocritical? Those who oppose gay rights are ruled by fear and ignorance. They believe that being gay necessitates that you are also a pervert and a pedophile, but that is not the case. These ideals stand in direct opposition to what Scouting stands for. Finally, history has shown that the oppressed are usually right. Today's youth overwhelmingly support gay rights. Does the BSA wish to stand in the way of progress and promote bigoted ideals, or does it want to lead the next generation of leaders through its own example? If the BSA refuses to allow equal rights within its ranks, it will either revisit this decision in coming years or be doomed to extinction.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
I am in full support of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into the organization. It is a good and right thing to do. However, I am concerned on two fronts. The first is that charters will threaten to separate themselves from the BSA and the BSA will cave in. The second is that at some point, one openly gay leader or scout WILL harass a scout and the media will blow it out of proportion. It will ignore the many straight leaders or already harass boys, and the BSA will rethink its policy based on this fear-mongering.
Do I know what is best for Scouting in general? No, of course not. I do not know what kind of threats the BSA has received or will receive because of this potential policy. If most of the charters leave the scouts hanging with nowhere to go, it would essentially end the scouting movement in America and prove that the USA has a *very* long way to go. On the other hand, if it doesn't adopt this policy, more and more young adults will steer clear of the organization (because they support gay rights), and when they have kids they will keep them out of scouting. Without any scouts or leaders, the BSA will fail. However, I believe that the BSA needs to take a chance and show its youth that we do not negotiate with bullies, even if those bullies have positions of authority over us.
Some of you may support the current regulations. I, however, strongly oppose them. But before you bash the BSA for being bigoted, allow me to open your eyes a little to their dilemma. The BSA usually works through "chartered" organizations. That is, a troop is chartered to an organization, such as a church or school. The troop meets there, it gets money from there, and can even get its scoutmaster from it. Of course, just because a troop meets and is chartered by, say, a mormon or baptist church does not mean that the scouts or leaders have to be mormon or baptist or even religious. But if the BSA decides to allow openly gay scouts and leaders into their ranks, many of these groups will turn the BSA away, and those troops will be left without a charter. With nowhere to meet, what will happen to them? With no money, how will they survive? So the issue of whether or not the BSA allows gays to join them is not so cut-and-dry as many people believe.
Well, today I received an email from the BSA asking for my opinion through a lengthy survey because I am an Assistant Scoutmaster and Eagle Scout. I most certainly let them know my mind, and I wish to share it with you.
Of course, like an idiot, I copied the thing I wrote and forgot to paste it before copying something else. So I will have to paraphrase what I sent.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does not adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
First of all, it is every American's right to be gay or straight, and in most cases discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is against the law. Secondly, a scout is brave. It is one of the twelve tenants of the Scout Law. What kind of message does it send to scouts and the nation if the BSA itself cannot stand up against bigotry and do what is right, regardless of the threats it faces? How can the BSA reprimand a scout who bravely declares he is gay without becoming hypocritical? Those who oppose gay rights are ruled by fear and ignorance. They believe that being gay necessitates that you are also a pervert and a pedophile, but that is not the case. These ideals stand in direct opposition to what Scouting stands for. Finally, history has shown that the oppressed are usually right. Today's youth overwhelmingly support gay rights. Does the BSA wish to stand in the way of progress and promote bigoted ideals, or does it want to lead the next generation of leaders through its own example? If the BSA refuses to allow equal rights within its ranks, it will either revisit this decision in coming years or be doomed to extinction.
The question:
What are you most concerned about if the BSA does adopt the policy of allowing openly gay members?
The answer:
I am in full support of allowing openly gay scouts and leaders into the organization. It is a good and right thing to do. However, I am concerned on two fronts. The first is that charters will threaten to separate themselves from the BSA and the BSA will cave in. The second is that at some point, one openly gay leader or scout WILL harass a scout and the media will blow it out of proportion. It will ignore the many straight leaders or already harass boys, and the BSA will rethink its policy based on this fear-mongering.
Do I know what is best for Scouting in general? No, of course not. I do not know what kind of threats the BSA has received or will receive because of this potential policy. If most of the charters leave the scouts hanging with nowhere to go, it would essentially end the scouting movement in America and prove that the USA has a *very* long way to go. On the other hand, if it doesn't adopt this policy, more and more young adults will steer clear of the organization (because they support gay rights), and when they have kids they will keep them out of scouting. Without any scouts or leaders, the BSA will fail. However, I believe that the BSA needs to take a chance and show its youth that we do not negotiate with bullies, even if those bullies have positions of authority over us.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Applebee's and the Stiffed Waiter
If you have been on the internet at all in the past week, you have doubtless heard of the now infamous waiter who got stiffed by a pastor while working at Applebee's. There has been a lot of misinformation, but I have taken particular interest in this matter because 1) I am a Christian, 2) I have waited tables for nearly a decade, and 3) I hate being misrepresented. So, allow me to put in my two cents. First, however, the facts as I have discovered them.
A waiter was working at Applebee's a week ago when a regular church group came in. This church group consisted of 15-20 people, including the Pastor, a woman named Alois Bell. They ran up a bill in excess of $200. Now, most people know that restaurants generally include an 18% gratuity when working with table of 8 or more. The waiter theorizes that in order to get around this, the pastor split the bill into many smaller tabs and picked them all up herself. If you've worked in the restaurant business, you'll know that this does not work. In order to do this, you would all have needed to be at different tables. When he waiter got the receipt back, the 18% gratuity had been scribbled out, there was a "0" under "additional tips" and a note was scrawled over it saying, "I give God 10%, why do you get 18?". The pastor then signed her name and it seems went back to add the word "Pastor" above her name, as if to point out her own humble religious background (note the sarcasm).
The waiter showed this to a colleague of his, one Chelsea Welch, who then went to Reddit and posted it on an atheist forum as a reason she is an atheist. From here, it exploded, and since Chelsea neglected to block out the easily legible signature, Alois Bell was inundated with negative comments, emails, etc. Her friend found out about it, showed Alois what was going on online, and in the spirit of Christianity (again, sarcasm; I use it frequently) called the Applebee's up and demanded that they fire the waiter, the colleague, and the entire managing staff. Applebee's responded by firing Ms Welch. They claim that she violated their customer's right to privacy by posting that picture online without blocking out the signature. After that happened, there was another huge backlash against Pastor Alois Bell. She later "apologized" by saying that she was not acting like she normally would have.
Then came the PR Nightmare for Applebee's. Apparently, they had violated other customers' information themselves on their own website, and hastily removed these pictures in the wake of this disaster. They then shot themselves in the foot by belittling their customers (although I have a feeling their PR staff had no idea that they were doing this) and not listening to what was being said. There is now a campaign to get Chelsea hired again.
Now for my two cents.
I'll start with Atheism. I have no problem with it. I live in a country where we have a freedom to believe whatever we want, even if that means not believing in God. One of my best friends is an atheist (or agnostic, he's not sure which), who regularly gets into intelligent debates with me over religion. Neither of us has ever gained ground on the other, and for a simple reason. You will never prove, nor disprove, the existence of God. I said it. It comes down to faith and faith alone. Sure, you may disagree with various religious institutions, or specific religions or religious practices, but you can never disprove nor prove the actual existence of God (though, I must say, I've heard much stronger cases for the existence of God than against it. Then again, I might be a bit biased). So, it irks me to no end when I see someone who claims to be a pastor, a shepherd of God, an example of the faith, blatantly straying from the principals of that faith. And it is even worse when that bad example is used as an argument against the entire religion or against God himself. It is patently ridiculous. I can guarantee you that I am far more upset about this pastor (and have every right to be) than any atheist, because that pastor is a travesty to everything I believe in. If I voted for Candidate A and he wins, I feel I have more reason to be upset if Candidate A does something stupid than if I had voted for Candidate B. The same thing works here.
What is worse is the ignorance. It is rampant and I fear it is intended. People WANT to be ignorant so they can continue in their own beliefs, however misinformed they are. This is not what Jesus taught or how He wants us to behave. Matthew 7:15 puts it quite clearly. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." It is our call as Christians to defend our faith against those who would lead us astray, and far too often Christians do not even try to do so. If you are a Christian (or really of any faith, including atheism), you need to seriously consider what your personal beliefs truly are, then inform yourself about what your religion actually believes and what your pastor/priest/etc. is saying. It may very well be that you don't agree. And you should read the Bible, and then study it, so that you know what it really says and what it really means. If you are going to try to attack the faith, any faith, first you should learn what the faith really is about, then you should see how it has been attacked before and where these attacks have failed. Chances are you have nothing new to add to the thousands of years of intelligent nay-sayers.
Now that I have that over and done with, on to the main course. First, I would like to point out that the pastor did indeed pay the 18% gratuity. Although she scribbled it out, if you know anything about waiting ables, you'll know that said gratuity was included in the total. Applebee's was actually being a bit underhanded by listing what the gratuity was after posting the total on the receipt (and not the bill), because most people will just add that in not thinking, thus giving the waiter a 26% tip. Dick move there, Applebee's. So, although she intended to pay a 0% tip, she still ended up paying the 18% that was included. I also feel I should inform you, my readers (all... 20 or so of you), of how tipping works in America.
When you are served in a restaurant in America, you are expected to tip. The waiter makes between $2.13 and $2.15 an hour, which is just barely enough to cover taxes. Usually waiters don't even see this money, because by law they are required to declare their tips so they can be taxed. In practice, they declare 10%-15% of their sales, and they still won't see more than a buck or two out of their "paycheck." I have known waiters who did not even bother picking up their checks - it wouldn't have been worth the gas to take them to the bank. Now don't get me wrong, waiters can make a lot of money, depending on where they work, if they are good, and which shifts they take. The standard tip in America is 15%. People say this changes, but it is a lie. It is a percentage, so it does not need to change. Learn math, people. A good tip is 20%. Anything higher is indicative of exemplary service. 10% is an insulting tip, an indicator that you did not do your job well. Anything lower is just a slap in the face. If you tend to tip low, or not at all, remember that servers (as well as pizza delivery boys, but I won't go into that fiasco) remember and talk. Don't be surprised if your food takes a lot longer to get to your table the next time you go out.
Waiters work HARD. It takes about 6 months of working every day to really get into the swing of things. I remember when it happened to me. I was the only waiter and we only had the head cook. Some local event ended and what was supposed to be a slow night became about 10 tables in the course of 15 minutes. After handling that, I could do anything. It takes multi-tasking, memorizing ingredients in food, memorizing the menu, being quick on your feet for hours, having good customer service skills, being observant, and doing it all with a smile. You may have to clean, bus tables, serve customers, expo, make desserts (almost all desserts are made by your waiter), handle problem customers, and make sure the kitchen staff gets the order right. So if you think your waiter is lazy and looking for a quick buck, think again.
A word to Pastor Alois Bell. You are called to act as God's representative here on Earth. Calling to complain and demanding that people are fired is not the right course of action for someone of God. You may be perfectly within your rights as an American citizen to do so, but you aren't just a citizen, you are a pastor and an example to your community. Pettiness should be below you. Jesus taught us to forgive, to turn the other cheek. Instead of demanding her resignation, you had a chance to make a real impact against that girl and the atheist community that read her post. If you had instead apologized and given her a huge tip, she just may have thought twice about what she said about theists. And much more importantly, it would have shone in Christ's eyes as a wonderful act of contrition. But do not think that it is too late. Please, Pastor Bell, you can still do the right thing. Give the girl money to help pay for her bills. Find her a job. Don't be sorry because you got caught (and your apology screams of such guilt). If you are truly sorry, back it up with actions and not just hollow words.
And now a word to Applebee's. First of all, there have been a lot of people attacking Applebee's for firing Chelsea. Frankly, they did not have a choice. It was the right thing to do. She did indeed violate the terms of her employment and was caught doing so. I do not fault Applebee's at all for firing Chelsea. Sure, they could have ignored it as I'm sure businesses do frequently, but once it went viral online, ignoring it would have been a message to other employees that they could post their customers' information without fear of penalty. And after getting a call from Pastor Bell, their feet were to the fire and they simply had to act.
The problem is not the fact that they fired Chelsea or why they fired her. It is their attempt at Public Relations afterwards. Several times on their facebook page, they claimed that people "do not have all the information." Now, I'm sure that many people didn't, but Applebee's should not assume this and use it as a defense. Besides, this is the internet. Find or MAKE a site that HAS all the information and guide people to it. If only there was a way to link to another site... They did a poor job at damage control, to say the least. There shouldn't even have been any damage control to do! Here is how they Applebee's should have handled it.
There should have been a special page on their website, one that looks like company letterhead. It should state something similar to this:
We here at Applebee's take our customers' rights very seriously. After learning that a customer's signature was posted online freely for the world to see, we were forced to take action and terminate the employee responsible. We are very sorry to see Ms Welch go, but we cannot allow such blatant violation of our employment agreement to go unpunished. It has also come to our attention that we have erred in the past, and we apologize for it. Never again will we allow a customer's information to be shared without that customer's express written permission first. We have always strived to be a part of your community, and hope to serve our communities for many years to come.
This should then have been signed by Julia Stewart, CEO of DineEquity Inc (their parent company) and Mike Archer, the President of the company. When it comes to social media, they should not get into semantic fights with people posting comments. They should not belittle the intelligence of their customers. They SHOULD have put up a similar apology, or a link to the apology, possibly included a printable coupon (a good one, not just some appetizer with purchase of meal... make it a free appetizer just for coming in!) as their way of showing that they care about their community, and then let it go. Haters will hate, fans will be fans. Keep the response simple, professional, and official at all times. Do not delete or move posts or comments, do not comment at 4 in the morning (anywhere here in America, keep it during business hours), and do not comment on anyone else's comments! I would not be at all surprised if Applebee's sees a huge hit in their profits this quarter.
All in all, this simple little act, something that happens hundreds of times every day (yes, we waiters get stiffed all-too-frequently), got blown out of proportions because of several bad mistakes by many people. The waiter should not have allowed the receipt to be photographed, Chelsea should not have posted it online, Paster Bell should not have called to get her fired (or made such inflammatory comments in the first place), and Applebee's should have acted more professionally than it did. Frankly, I hope some aspiring, intelligent professor sees this entire fiasco and uses it as a life lesson in how to live in the modern world. And I hope you all do, too.
A waiter was working at Applebee's a week ago when a regular church group came in. This church group consisted of 15-20 people, including the Pastor, a woman named Alois Bell. They ran up a bill in excess of $200. Now, most people know that restaurants generally include an 18% gratuity when working with table of 8 or more. The waiter theorizes that in order to get around this, the pastor split the bill into many smaller tabs and picked them all up herself. If you've worked in the restaurant business, you'll know that this does not work. In order to do this, you would all have needed to be at different tables. When he waiter got the receipt back, the 18% gratuity had been scribbled out, there was a "0" under "additional tips" and a note was scrawled over it saying, "I give God 10%, why do you get 18?". The pastor then signed her name and it seems went back to add the word "Pastor" above her name, as if to point out her own humble religious background (note the sarcasm).
The waiter showed this to a colleague of his, one Chelsea Welch, who then went to Reddit and posted it on an atheist forum as a reason she is an atheist. From here, it exploded, and since Chelsea neglected to block out the easily legible signature, Alois Bell was inundated with negative comments, emails, etc. Her friend found out about it, showed Alois what was going on online, and in the spirit of Christianity (again, sarcasm; I use it frequently) called the Applebee's up and demanded that they fire the waiter, the colleague, and the entire managing staff. Applebee's responded by firing Ms Welch. They claim that she violated their customer's right to privacy by posting that picture online without blocking out the signature. After that happened, there was another huge backlash against Pastor Alois Bell. She later "apologized" by saying that she was not acting like she normally would have.
Then came the PR Nightmare for Applebee's. Apparently, they had violated other customers' information themselves on their own website, and hastily removed these pictures in the wake of this disaster. They then shot themselves in the foot by belittling their customers (although I have a feeling their PR staff had no idea that they were doing this) and not listening to what was being said. There is now a campaign to get Chelsea hired again.
Now for my two cents.
I'll start with Atheism. I have no problem with it. I live in a country where we have a freedom to believe whatever we want, even if that means not believing in God. One of my best friends is an atheist (or agnostic, he's not sure which), who regularly gets into intelligent debates with me over religion. Neither of us has ever gained ground on the other, and for a simple reason. You will never prove, nor disprove, the existence of God. I said it. It comes down to faith and faith alone. Sure, you may disagree with various religious institutions, or specific religions or religious practices, but you can never disprove nor prove the actual existence of God (though, I must say, I've heard much stronger cases for the existence of God than against it. Then again, I might be a bit biased). So, it irks me to no end when I see someone who claims to be a pastor, a shepherd of God, an example of the faith, blatantly straying from the principals of that faith. And it is even worse when that bad example is used as an argument against the entire religion or against God himself. It is patently ridiculous. I can guarantee you that I am far more upset about this pastor (and have every right to be) than any atheist, because that pastor is a travesty to everything I believe in. If I voted for Candidate A and he wins, I feel I have more reason to be upset if Candidate A does something stupid than if I had voted for Candidate B. The same thing works here.
What is worse is the ignorance. It is rampant and I fear it is intended. People WANT to be ignorant so they can continue in their own beliefs, however misinformed they are. This is not what Jesus taught or how He wants us to behave. Matthew 7:15 puts it quite clearly. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." It is our call as Christians to defend our faith against those who would lead us astray, and far too often Christians do not even try to do so. If you are a Christian (or really of any faith, including atheism), you need to seriously consider what your personal beliefs truly are, then inform yourself about what your religion actually believes and what your pastor/priest/etc. is saying. It may very well be that you don't agree. And you should read the Bible, and then study it, so that you know what it really says and what it really means. If you are going to try to attack the faith, any faith, first you should learn what the faith really is about, then you should see how it has been attacked before and where these attacks have failed. Chances are you have nothing new to add to the thousands of years of intelligent nay-sayers.
Now that I have that over and done with, on to the main course. First, I would like to point out that the pastor did indeed pay the 18% gratuity. Although she scribbled it out, if you know anything about waiting ables, you'll know that said gratuity was included in the total. Applebee's was actually being a bit underhanded by listing what the gratuity was after posting the total on the receipt (and not the bill), because most people will just add that in not thinking, thus giving the waiter a 26% tip. Dick move there, Applebee's. So, although she intended to pay a 0% tip, she still ended up paying the 18% that was included. I also feel I should inform you, my readers (all... 20 or so of you), of how tipping works in America.
When you are served in a restaurant in America, you are expected to tip. The waiter makes between $2.13 and $2.15 an hour, which is just barely enough to cover taxes. Usually waiters don't even see this money, because by law they are required to declare their tips so they can be taxed. In practice, they declare 10%-15% of their sales, and they still won't see more than a buck or two out of their "paycheck." I have known waiters who did not even bother picking up their checks - it wouldn't have been worth the gas to take them to the bank. Now don't get me wrong, waiters can make a lot of money, depending on where they work, if they are good, and which shifts they take. The standard tip in America is 15%. People say this changes, but it is a lie. It is a percentage, so it does not need to change. Learn math, people. A good tip is 20%. Anything higher is indicative of exemplary service. 10% is an insulting tip, an indicator that you did not do your job well. Anything lower is just a slap in the face. If you tend to tip low, or not at all, remember that servers (as well as pizza delivery boys, but I won't go into that fiasco) remember and talk. Don't be surprised if your food takes a lot longer to get to your table the next time you go out.
Waiters work HARD. It takes about 6 months of working every day to really get into the swing of things. I remember when it happened to me. I was the only waiter and we only had the head cook. Some local event ended and what was supposed to be a slow night became about 10 tables in the course of 15 minutes. After handling that, I could do anything. It takes multi-tasking, memorizing ingredients in food, memorizing the menu, being quick on your feet for hours, having good customer service skills, being observant, and doing it all with a smile. You may have to clean, bus tables, serve customers, expo, make desserts (almost all desserts are made by your waiter), handle problem customers, and make sure the kitchen staff gets the order right. So if you think your waiter is lazy and looking for a quick buck, think again.
A word to Pastor Alois Bell. You are called to act as God's representative here on Earth. Calling to complain and demanding that people are fired is not the right course of action for someone of God. You may be perfectly within your rights as an American citizen to do so, but you aren't just a citizen, you are a pastor and an example to your community. Pettiness should be below you. Jesus taught us to forgive, to turn the other cheek. Instead of demanding her resignation, you had a chance to make a real impact against that girl and the atheist community that read her post. If you had instead apologized and given her a huge tip, she just may have thought twice about what she said about theists. And much more importantly, it would have shone in Christ's eyes as a wonderful act of contrition. But do not think that it is too late. Please, Pastor Bell, you can still do the right thing. Give the girl money to help pay for her bills. Find her a job. Don't be sorry because you got caught (and your apology screams of such guilt). If you are truly sorry, back it up with actions and not just hollow words.
And now a word to Applebee's. First of all, there have been a lot of people attacking Applebee's for firing Chelsea. Frankly, they did not have a choice. It was the right thing to do. She did indeed violate the terms of her employment and was caught doing so. I do not fault Applebee's at all for firing Chelsea. Sure, they could have ignored it as I'm sure businesses do frequently, but once it went viral online, ignoring it would have been a message to other employees that they could post their customers' information without fear of penalty. And after getting a call from Pastor Bell, their feet were to the fire and they simply had to act.
The problem is not the fact that they fired Chelsea or why they fired her. It is their attempt at Public Relations afterwards. Several times on their facebook page, they claimed that people "do not have all the information." Now, I'm sure that many people didn't, but Applebee's should not assume this and use it as a defense. Besides, this is the internet. Find or MAKE a site that HAS all the information and guide people to it. If only there was a way to link to another site... They did a poor job at damage control, to say the least. There shouldn't even have been any damage control to do! Here is how they Applebee's should have handled it.
There should have been a special page on their website, one that looks like company letterhead. It should state something similar to this:
We here at Applebee's take our customers' rights very seriously. After learning that a customer's signature was posted online freely for the world to see, we were forced to take action and terminate the employee responsible. We are very sorry to see Ms Welch go, but we cannot allow such blatant violation of our employment agreement to go unpunished. It has also come to our attention that we have erred in the past, and we apologize for it. Never again will we allow a customer's information to be shared without that customer's express written permission first. We have always strived to be a part of your community, and hope to serve our communities for many years to come.
This should then have been signed by Julia Stewart, CEO of DineEquity Inc (their parent company) and Mike Archer, the President of the company. When it comes to social media, they should not get into semantic fights with people posting comments. They should not belittle the intelligence of their customers. They SHOULD have put up a similar apology, or a link to the apology, possibly included a printable coupon (a good one, not just some appetizer with purchase of meal... make it a free appetizer just for coming in!) as their way of showing that they care about their community, and then let it go. Haters will hate, fans will be fans. Keep the response simple, professional, and official at all times. Do not delete or move posts or comments, do not comment at 4 in the morning (anywhere here in America, keep it during business hours), and do not comment on anyone else's comments! I would not be at all surprised if Applebee's sees a huge hit in their profits this quarter.
All in all, this simple little act, something that happens hundreds of times every day (yes, we waiters get stiffed all-too-frequently), got blown out of proportions because of several bad mistakes by many people. The waiter should not have allowed the receipt to be photographed, Chelsea should not have posted it online, Paster Bell should not have called to get her fired (or made such inflammatory comments in the first place), and Applebee's should have acted more professionally than it did. Frankly, I hope some aspiring, intelligent professor sees this entire fiasco and uses it as a life lesson in how to live in the modern world. And I hope you all do, too.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Getting Over Writer's Blockade
I posted about a condition I like to call Writer's Blockade back in July of last year. I promised that I would make a later post about how I got around it over Father's Day weekend. Well, unfortunately, I cannot remember the specific scenario. But, there are some tools that you can use to break the blockade.
To recap, Writer's Block is when you have a lack of muse, an ennui, a lack of motivation, or some other similar internal issue that prevents you from writing. A terrible thing. Writer's Blockade is when you have an external issue that prevents you from writing, such as having a baby, working too long, a power outage. In general, Writer's Blockade does not last as long as Writer's Block can, but it can be more frustrating because you still have that drive to write. In some situations, however, Writer's Blockade could last for years.
In general, a short blockade is going to solve itself. If the power is out, it will eventually come back on, or you can go somewhere where there is power. These small problems have two solutions.
The first is perseverance. Do not stop trying to write, do not give in to the potential excuse. If your power is out, go to the library! If their power is out, grab some paper and write by hand starting from where you last remember!
The second is preparedness. Now you can't be prepared for everything. It's just not possible. But you can be prepared for likely scenarios, like a Boy Scout. If you write on the computer, back-up your work in more than one location. Keep it on your computer, on a cloud (I use drive.google), on an external hard drive, and on a thumb drive. Sure, it'll take a while to back up (remember to do so periodically), but if your computer ever crashes (or is stepped on by a toddler), your novel is still mostly intact. If you use a laptop, keep it more or less charged. Take simple steps to ensure that your work will not be lost and you will be able to work on it when you need to.
Working on a novel when you need to is another very important step, and is useful in overcoming both Writer's Block and Writer's Blockade. Set aside a time to write, at least 2 hours at once (to really get into the flow of things), as often as you can afford to. Set aside a place to write that is relatively free from distractions. This is getting harder and harder to do with the internet so readily available and sometimes essential to our writing processes. In some cases it will take discipline. It is best not to chose your bed (it can mess with your brain and sleep schedule if you work where you sleep), or where you normally work. It works even better if you are comfortable, but not too comfortable (you don't want to fall asleep). It should also be the same place or the same two places every time. Make a routine. Stick to that routine as often and as rigorously as you can. Leave your work and your home at your work and your home. Again, this is a very difficult task in today's world. If you are worried about work, either handle it quickly before you start (and don't touch or even think about it after you start), or try to wipe it from your mind. This is time for writing! Some techniques that work include writing down a list of things to do tomorrow, listening to your favorite music, or taking a moment to mull over the situation in your mind before letting it go. What works for one person may not work for another, so just keep trying. Finally, don't go into it with certain expectations in mind. This will put undue stress on your own creativity. Instead, keep an open mind. This is not to say that you should let your writing flow wherever it wills. But should your mind present an opportunity or an option you didn't see before, you should take a moment to entertain that option and see if it goes somewhere you like. (This is more appropriate for Writer's Block, but I feel it is part of the entire Writing Time experience).
I have a writing time every week that lasts between 3 and 4 hours in one big chunk. I go to a local coffee shop/ice cream place, and set up in the same general area in the shop each time. I invite some friends so we can encourage each other, though at times we are also distraction. However, I feel that the expectation they have that I will show up will keep me going and in the long run is helping me continue to write. I tend to choose the music that interests me at the moment (sometimes more distracting than others depending on how ADHD I'm feeling. For me, I need a certain level of distraction to keep myself focused). I first go online and deal with all the emails and junk that I didn't get to while watching Addy, and then I leave it all behind and delve into the writing. I keep an outline open at all times, but I have strayed from it on many occasions, so the outline is more of a guideline that I can return to when I need to. That is my regular writing schedule. Of course, I try to write at home as well, and I am still working on my routine for that, but it is coming along.
This little trick will not solve ALL Writer's Blockade problems. If I am too tired after running after Adelaide, I may not want to drink something with caffeine because it might keep me up half the night. There are some cases where you simply have to surrender to the Blockade and let it win that battle, but you can never let it win the war. You must attack it like you're a general, planning and strategizing to get that free time you need. No, you cannot "make" time, but you can steal it from other things in your life. There have been times when I spent the week staying up late to write because I knew (or at least hoped) that my wife would be home on the weekends and I'd get to sleep in on Saturday to make up for the loss. I've sometimes given up other interests of mine so that I will have more time to write. For example, I've all but stopped playing games of any sort, I do not read as often as I would like to, my cross-stitching has gone untouched for months (yes, I cross-stitch), and I haven't practiced the guitar since Christmas. Even a little bit of TV takes a large amount of time that can be spent writing.
Granted, the writing time you eek out of daily life is not long, so you will not get that leisurely 2-hour chunk that is so useful, that lets your mind really start to get creative. But if you write half an hour here and 15 minutes there, then go back when you have 2 hours to write and proof-read yourself, it works out fairly well. This is an exception to the rule that you should never edit while you write (which is a rule I think should be applied loosely. I believe everyone's writing style is different, and some require a certain level of active editing).
Finally, some people are simply too busy to write. This is the realm where serious sacrifices and choices must be made. How badly do you want to write? Is it worth giving up something else that is terribly important for you to have a chance to write? If the answer is no, do not despair! Never stop thinking, jotting down ideas, and working through plots. Never stop dreaming. You are a writer at heart, and perhaps you do not have the time now, but you may have the time later, be it in a month, a year, or several decades. Eventually, you will work around that block, just as long as you keep trying to.
To recap, Writer's Block is when you have a lack of muse, an ennui, a lack of motivation, or some other similar internal issue that prevents you from writing. A terrible thing. Writer's Blockade is when you have an external issue that prevents you from writing, such as having a baby, working too long, a power outage. In general, Writer's Blockade does not last as long as Writer's Block can, but it can be more frustrating because you still have that drive to write. In some situations, however, Writer's Blockade could last for years.
In general, a short blockade is going to solve itself. If the power is out, it will eventually come back on, or you can go somewhere where there is power. These small problems have two solutions.
The first is perseverance. Do not stop trying to write, do not give in to the potential excuse. If your power is out, go to the library! If their power is out, grab some paper and write by hand starting from where you last remember!
The second is preparedness. Now you can't be prepared for everything. It's just not possible. But you can be prepared for likely scenarios, like a Boy Scout. If you write on the computer, back-up your work in more than one location. Keep it on your computer, on a cloud (I use drive.google), on an external hard drive, and on a thumb drive. Sure, it'll take a while to back up (remember to do so periodically), but if your computer ever crashes (or is stepped on by a toddler), your novel is still mostly intact. If you use a laptop, keep it more or less charged. Take simple steps to ensure that your work will not be lost and you will be able to work on it when you need to.
Working on a novel when you need to is another very important step, and is useful in overcoming both Writer's Block and Writer's Blockade. Set aside a time to write, at least 2 hours at once (to really get into the flow of things), as often as you can afford to. Set aside a place to write that is relatively free from distractions. This is getting harder and harder to do with the internet so readily available and sometimes essential to our writing processes. In some cases it will take discipline. It is best not to chose your bed (it can mess with your brain and sleep schedule if you work where you sleep), or where you normally work. It works even better if you are comfortable, but not too comfortable (you don't want to fall asleep). It should also be the same place or the same two places every time. Make a routine. Stick to that routine as often and as rigorously as you can. Leave your work and your home at your work and your home. Again, this is a very difficult task in today's world. If you are worried about work, either handle it quickly before you start (and don't touch or even think about it after you start), or try to wipe it from your mind. This is time for writing! Some techniques that work include writing down a list of things to do tomorrow, listening to your favorite music, or taking a moment to mull over the situation in your mind before letting it go. What works for one person may not work for another, so just keep trying. Finally, don't go into it with certain expectations in mind. This will put undue stress on your own creativity. Instead, keep an open mind. This is not to say that you should let your writing flow wherever it wills. But should your mind present an opportunity or an option you didn't see before, you should take a moment to entertain that option and see if it goes somewhere you like. (This is more appropriate for Writer's Block, but I feel it is part of the entire Writing Time experience).
I have a writing time every week that lasts between 3 and 4 hours in one big chunk. I go to a local coffee shop/ice cream place, and set up in the same general area in the shop each time. I invite some friends so we can encourage each other, though at times we are also distraction. However, I feel that the expectation they have that I will show up will keep me going and in the long run is helping me continue to write. I tend to choose the music that interests me at the moment (sometimes more distracting than others depending on how ADHD I'm feeling. For me, I need a certain level of distraction to keep myself focused). I first go online and deal with all the emails and junk that I didn't get to while watching Addy, and then I leave it all behind and delve into the writing. I keep an outline open at all times, but I have strayed from it on many occasions, so the outline is more of a guideline that I can return to when I need to. That is my regular writing schedule. Of course, I try to write at home as well, and I am still working on my routine for that, but it is coming along.
This little trick will not solve ALL Writer's Blockade problems. If I am too tired after running after Adelaide, I may not want to drink something with caffeine because it might keep me up half the night. There are some cases where you simply have to surrender to the Blockade and let it win that battle, but you can never let it win the war. You must attack it like you're a general, planning and strategizing to get that free time you need. No, you cannot "make" time, but you can steal it from other things in your life. There have been times when I spent the week staying up late to write because I knew (or at least hoped) that my wife would be home on the weekends and I'd get to sleep in on Saturday to make up for the loss. I've sometimes given up other interests of mine so that I will have more time to write. For example, I've all but stopped playing games of any sort, I do not read as often as I would like to, my cross-stitching has gone untouched for months (yes, I cross-stitch), and I haven't practiced the guitar since Christmas. Even a little bit of TV takes a large amount of time that can be spent writing.
Granted, the writing time you eek out of daily life is not long, so you will not get that leisurely 2-hour chunk that is so useful, that lets your mind really start to get creative. But if you write half an hour here and 15 minutes there, then go back when you have 2 hours to write and proof-read yourself, it works out fairly well. This is an exception to the rule that you should never edit while you write (which is a rule I think should be applied loosely. I believe everyone's writing style is different, and some require a certain level of active editing).
Finally, some people are simply too busy to write. This is the realm where serious sacrifices and choices must be made. How badly do you want to write? Is it worth giving up something else that is terribly important for you to have a chance to write? If the answer is no, do not despair! Never stop thinking, jotting down ideas, and working through plots. Never stop dreaming. You are a writer at heart, and perhaps you do not have the time now, but you may have the time later, be it in a month, a year, or several decades. Eventually, you will work around that block, just as long as you keep trying to.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The 3 Laws
Anyone who is a sci-fi lover knows about Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics. These three laws are as follows:
1) A robot cannot take the life of a human, or through inaction cause a human to die.
2) A robot must obey all orders given to it by humans, except when those orders violate the first law.
3) A robot must preserve itself, except when doing so violates the first two laws.
There are many, many flaws in these laws. What if I was a less-than-scrupulous person who told a robot that wasn't mine that it now belongs to me and must follow all of my orders and only my orders? Robot theft/slavery would be rampant. What if I didn't like someone, so I told their robot to kill itself? Easy way to have revenge. What if I attacked the robot's owner and told the robot that if it does anything, I'll kill its owner? The robot would probably have a meltdown as it bounced between laws and tried to interpret them.
Most of these issues can be solved with some simple bi-laws, things such as "A robot must obey all orders given to it by its owner or any confirmed law enforcement officer..." and, "A robot cannot take the life of a human, or through inaction cause a human to die, unless doing so would save at least as many humans as would die or be killed." And, of course, this has other problems, as we see in the movie "I, Robot." In this film, a sentient A.I. of vast intelligence decides that the best way to save humanity is to enslave all of humanity, preventing them from killing each other. And in the anime Casshan: Robot Hunter, we learn that the "evil" robots which were programmed to save planet Earth did so by killing all humans, the things causing Earth's destruction. It is feasible a robot would murder everyone it deemed capable or likely to kill another human, would would eliminate everyone in the military, every police officer, every spy, every world leader, etc. not to mention every violent criminal. It would take just one glitch to cause havoc. This is why it was decided that if these laws ever came to be, there would be a 0th Law (similar to the 0th Law of Thermodynamics).
0) A robot cannot harm humanity, or by inaction cause humanity to come to harm.
This would, of course, also change the other laws so that it would take precedence over them. But still, this offers many flaws that can be exploited. The most major flaw of all is the purpose of robotics. In today's world, robots are usually used in industry, to do work humans do not wish to do, and these laws are perfect if robots continue to do such work, and such work alone, in perpetuity. But we've already started to enter the realm of drone warfare
. If we want robots to take the place of our men and women on the front lines, they had better be willing to kill humans, otherwise the first human that steps on the field wins by default. They had better be programmed to not listen to the orders of anyone other than their superiors, or they'll just be told to kill themselves by their enemies. And they had better not think of "humanity" in the same way as the other side does, or they'll simply freeze in combat. If we want robots to gain the rights and freedoms of humans (an idea played around with in many stories, including Bicentennial Man, Star Trek, Blade Runner, Metropolis, and countless more), then we would need to give them the same abilities as us, even if those abilities include breaking the law.
Obviously, the Three Laws of Robotics are not meant as an actual, universal working model. They can be used as a guideline, or used as a plot device in a story. In truth, Asimov was a writer and a biochemist, not a roboticist or a computer programmer. He was more interested in the story, and as a writer, so should you be. These laws can be played around with, or they can be taken as is and brought to their various logical conclusions.
I, for one, have come up with an interesting new set of laws. Behold, the Three Laws ofRobotics Americans!
1) An American has the right to live and cannot take that right from any other American.
2) An American has the right to liberty, freedom, and choice, provided exercising such rights do not impinge on any other American's right to life or right to liberty.
3) An American has the right to pursue happiness, provided doing so does not violate any other American's rights to life, liberty, or to pursue happiness.
Violating any of these rights will strip you of all rights of the same rank and below.
What do you think? Plot-worthy?
1) A robot cannot take the life of a human, or through inaction cause a human to die.
2) A robot must obey all orders given to it by humans, except when those orders violate the first law.
3) A robot must preserve itself, except when doing so violates the first two laws.
There are many, many flaws in these laws. What if I was a less-than-scrupulous person who told a robot that wasn't mine that it now belongs to me and must follow all of my orders and only my orders? Robot theft/slavery would be rampant. What if I didn't like someone, so I told their robot to kill itself? Easy way to have revenge. What if I attacked the robot's owner and told the robot that if it does anything, I'll kill its owner? The robot would probably have a meltdown as it bounced between laws and tried to interpret them.
Most of these issues can be solved with some simple bi-laws, things such as "A robot must obey all orders given to it by its owner or any confirmed law enforcement officer..." and, "A robot cannot take the life of a human, or through inaction cause a human to die, unless doing so would save at least as many humans as would die or be killed." And, of course, this has other problems, as we see in the movie "I, Robot." In this film, a sentient A.I. of vast intelligence decides that the best way to save humanity is to enslave all of humanity, preventing them from killing each other. And in the anime Casshan: Robot Hunter, we learn that the "evil" robots which were programmed to save planet Earth did so by killing all humans, the things causing Earth's destruction. It is feasible a robot would murder everyone it deemed capable or likely to kill another human, would would eliminate everyone in the military, every police officer, every spy, every world leader, etc. not to mention every violent criminal. It would take just one glitch to cause havoc. This is why it was decided that if these laws ever came to be, there would be a 0th Law (similar to the 0th Law of Thermodynamics).
0) A robot cannot harm humanity, or by inaction cause humanity to come to harm.
This would, of course, also change the other laws so that it would take precedence over them. But still, this offers many flaws that can be exploited. The most major flaw of all is the purpose of robotics. In today's world, robots are usually used in industry, to do work humans do not wish to do, and these laws are perfect if robots continue to do such work, and such work alone, in perpetuity. But we've already started to enter the realm of drone warfare
. If we want robots to take the place of our men and women on the front lines, they had better be willing to kill humans, otherwise the first human that steps on the field wins by default. They had better be programmed to not listen to the orders of anyone other than their superiors, or they'll just be told to kill themselves by their enemies. And they had better not think of "humanity" in the same way as the other side does, or they'll simply freeze in combat. If we want robots to gain the rights and freedoms of humans (an idea played around with in many stories, including Bicentennial Man, Star Trek, Blade Runner, Metropolis, and countless more), then we would need to give them the same abilities as us, even if those abilities include breaking the law.
Obviously, the Three Laws of Robotics are not meant as an actual, universal working model. They can be used as a guideline, or used as a plot device in a story. In truth, Asimov was a writer and a biochemist, not a roboticist or a computer programmer. He was more interested in the story, and as a writer, so should you be. These laws can be played around with, or they can be taken as is and brought to their various logical conclusions.
I, for one, have come up with an interesting new set of laws. Behold, the Three Laws of
1) An American has the right to live and cannot take that right from any other American.
2) An American has the right to liberty, freedom, and choice, provided exercising such rights do not impinge on any other American's right to life or right to liberty.
3) An American has the right to pursue happiness, provided doing so does not violate any other American's rights to life, liberty, or to pursue happiness.
Violating any of these rights will strip you of all rights of the same rank and below.
What do you think? Plot-worthy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
