Word Cloud

The following link takes the last 3 days posts from any site with an RSS feed and turns it into one of those word cloud things. I did one on 1000 & 1 things, but because it only covers 3 days, it was mostly text from my editing. Which got me thinking... you can copy and paste random text into http://www.wordle.net/.

Might it be cool to post your book - or a chapter of your book - and see how it came out. The neatness of the result warrants a visit, in my opinion.

http://www.wordle.net/

Better, Worse, Needs More Work?

Some people think they flirted with quiting; not to mention procastination and avoidance. However, the thin edge of quit they think they faced - a mere illusion. True quit remained a good ways off. I've tiptoed that line; stared down the vacuum-like abyss on the other side. I know.

Anyway, I've kinda decided that even if I get Falsley Accused edited, my Alpha editor may never lay hands on the Beta copy. Maybe it was the disappointment in not getting it read the first go around that led me to my decision. Maybe it was reading her copy that led me to it. I'm not sure. I reserve the right to change my mind and give her a second shot.

All of that notwithstanding, below are a couple pre-edited paragraphs from my book. Below that is a version as I edited it tonight. What thinks you?

Michael pulled out of his spot, turned around, and drove to the stop sign. He sat their a second, watching Officer Faris in his rearview mirror. Officer Faris seemed distracted in his car, so Michael inched into the intersction and made a right. He eased his car along, checking to see if Officer Farish noticed or intended to follow him, until he was behind the row of houses on the Apple Orchard Lane, the street running parrallell to Vine. Michael made it all the way to the middle of the block without seeing Officer Faris in his rearview mirror, so he turned down the small alley that ran between the row of houses. He pulled in just enough to avoid having Officer Faris see him when he pulled out and killed the engine. "Now what?" He thought.

Michael sat in his car pondering his next move when a movement at the end of the street caught his eye. Someone had come out of 92 Vine. Even as Michael looked up he could see the screen door banging shut behind the man. Michael watched for a moment more as the man walked down the steps and began to cross the alley. Even though he had been sitting in his car for almost six hours Michael had no idea what to do. The man continued his casual stroll across the alley. There were no cars. It was obvious he was on foot and appeared headed between houses to the next street over. Michael debated what to do. He couldn't drive his car to the end of the street. If the man ran into the woods or the next street over Michael would lose him. But he didn't feel comfortable backing up and going into the next street either. Too likely to tip off his position and he was in the same position. Him in car, man on foot. So Michael made the decision to be on foot as well. He opened his car door, left it open so as to not make noise shutting it, and started walking down the alley toward the man.
____________________________

Michael pulled out of his spot. Turned swung his car around and drove to the stop sign. He sat their a second. In his rearview mirror Michael could see the policeman's smug face. Officer Faris fiddled with something inside his car. Michael eased into the intersction. He looked back, checking to see if Officer Farish noticed or intended to follow.

When it appeared he didn't, Michael made a right and eased his car along. He coasted along until he found himself behind a row of houses. He was now on Apple Orchard Lane, which ran parrallell to Vine. Michael made it all the way to the middle of the block without seeing anyone follow. Michael turned down the alley running between the houses. It was more of a breezeway than alley; the houses packed so tight his car barely fit. He pulled in just enough to hide his car. He turned the key in the ignition, killing the engine. "Now what?" He thought.

Michael's eyes unfocused; his attention stopped on a broken piece of blacktop at the end of the alley. A movement beyond the end of the street caught his eye. Someone had come out of 92 Vine. Even as Michael looked up he could see the screen door banging shut. Michael watched for a moment more as the man walked down the steps. Jittery strides carried the man across the alley entrance. The man continued his herk-jerk stroll across the alley opening. There were no cars on the street. The man must be on foot, Michael though. Michael debated what to do. He feared driving to the end of the street. If the man from 92 Vine spooked he could quickly run into the woods or slip down another alley. Backing up would likely tip off his position. Either to the man or Officer Faris. So Michael opened his door and slid out. Careful to leave it open so as to not make noise. He began walking down the alley toward the man from 92 Vine.

Two signs/bumper stickers I hate

The first is the seemingly ever more onmipresent "Watch for Motorcycles" sign. Really?

Someone voluntarily takes to a road dominated by metal-caged vehicles on a dangerous vehicle without any impact protection and I'm supposed to "watch" for them? I'm willing to swallow that as a person, I have a duty to protect other people. That much I can understand. I would never willingly or intentionally go out of my way to hit a motorcyclist and I try to give them a wide area in which to operate. I'm aware of what my hitting them would do to them, and to me. I imagine you never get that image out of your head.

Having said that, I will begin "watching" for motorcycles when they stop riding down the shoulder in stalled traffic, riding down the center line in stalled - or moving - traffic, pulling wheelies while in highway traffic, jumping in and out of traffic on highways in excess of what must be 120 mph* and other fun stuff that, because they can do it on a bike, I should apparently "watch" for.

Hey you, yeah you in the small, unprotected, hard to see vehicle riding along dangerously on a road dominated by vehicles 200x your size: You may want to put the oneous of "watching" on yourself. Not to mention maybe not drive down the street at 1 a.m. revving your engine to top RPMs.

You have a bike; it is loud; you think you are cool; I get it.

The second isn't nearly as offensive: the "Children on board" signs. These seem to have waned in recent years. But honestly, what is that supposed to tell me? If I'm careering toward you, am I supposed to turn away because I see that sign? And do what, hit the guy next to you instead? Is that sign a "kill the other guy not me because I have kids" permission slip?

I suppose the idea is that if you see the sign you may back off a bit. I honestly find it hard to believe. That idiot tailgating you isn't likely to stop and drive more conservatively simply because of that sign. This is true mostly because tailgaters fall into two categories, in my experience:

1) teens who don't know better, are oblivious, or doing what teens do and acting teenagery and;
2) douchebags.

The inherent nature of each group means neither is likely to alter their behavior soon or based on a simple sign. Teen behavior you can change by waiting it out. Teens grow up.

It's generally too late to do anything about D-bags .

* all things I've witnessed with my own two eyes in my almost 20 years of driving.

I wish I could write like this

This article by E.D. Kain pretty much nails how I feel about Libertariansim, including both its pros and cons. I highly recommend the article, which is very accessible, I think; even to those who aren't politically inclined. I wish I could write this well about my beliefs.

The whole thing is worth reading, but I liked the following:

Libertarianism, if we are to practice it honestly, requires as much self-denial as possible, as much abandonment of special interest as possible.

Only 37% of all people have a freezer; really?

Is that possible? According to this chart that I borrowed at the every fascinating Bleeding Heart Libertarians, it is:


That just jumped out at me as an odd stat.

The point of the post was that if you look at how the poor have fared since 1984, things aren't really so bad. Almost none of the poor had computers, cell phones, microwaves or clothes dryers and less than half had air conditioning. Not all of those are life changing. But computers almost certainly are. Computers - hand in hand with the internet - open a vast world of education and knowledge to the poor that they would have almost certainly been locked out of in the past.

Microwaves, clothes dryers, and cell phones, while not life changing in the same way, certainly are time savers, allowing the poor to work longer hours, or to have more leisure time while working the same hours. Air conditioning, although largely taken for granted, is a life-saving invention. And I'm not being dramatic. It literally saves lives.

The author of the post also notes that while many "experts" lament how wages have been largely stagnant over the last 20 or 30 years, that isn't the whole picture. As computers and cell phones and microwaves have become cheaper we now live better lives, even if we make the same money, than we did 30 years ago. Not only that, but thanks to microwaves, VCRs, the internet and things like dryers, we have more free time, and more entertainment options available to us.

So it's not really fair to simply lament that wages have largely remained the same over the last 30 or so years, because in the big picture, our lives are vastly easier than they were 30 years ago, and we have access to a much wider array of entertainment and educational options.

"The hardest job kids face..."

Fred Astair lived from May 10, 1899 to June 22, 1987. For the purposes of this post I'd like that 1987 to be a bit earlier (no offense Mr. Astair), but it will do.

At some point during his life, he said the following:

"The hardest job kids face today is learning good manners without seeing any."

It's important to realize that he died in 1987. So at the very latest, he must have been talking about "kids" in 1986 or 1987. Given this, the "kids" he was talking about would now be between 20 and 40 years old (roughly ages 0-20 in 1986). Again, this is assuming the latest possible date he could have made this comment.

Why is this important? Well, next time any one between those ages tries to tell you about the lack of "manners" kids have these days compared to their day, keep in mind that Fred Astair thought the same thing about them way back when they were kids. And any time some one over those ages tries to tell you how parents don't set good examples for their kids... well... guess who was "not setting" a good example for all those kids Astair is talking about.

Just another example of how things really aren't worse today than they were back then. The good old days weren't always good, and (today or tomorrow) ain't as bad as they seem.

SCOTUS (did not) Kill The Video Game Star

The SCOTUS gets it right. Video games, even violent ones, cannot be banned:

"This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that "interactive" video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its outcome, is unpersuasive."

It was an action no one would be fool-hardy enough to ever try to do with books. Becuase, well, books are old and fancy and respected and stuff. Old people remember when they used to read them, especially the paper kind. Way before anything fancy like "interactivity."

This ruling is the right one and I give hearty "boos" to Justices Thomas and Breyer for their dissent. There is no room, in my opinion, for dissent on this issue. It's cut and dried First Amendment stuff. "Congress shall make no law ..." No law. Not "sometimes might wanna make," or "could make" or "in special cases may make." No law. Period.

These types of cases provide plenty of potential for bad outcomes. A ruling against the video game industry pretty much forever relegates it as a second class citizen. At least until its so accepted as a medium that the point is moot and the court finally reverses path. Thankfully, that didn't happen here. Look, for instance, at TV, where swear words subject networks to fines, but not cable shows. All because networks are "free" to access. As if the First Amendment is phrased "Congress shall make no law limiting speech unless its readily available speech." Meanwhile, society picks away at the restriction bit by bit until its pointless, until "F" bombs are eventually allowed, so long as they don't reference the implied physical act.

But secondly, this is the type of ruling that, if it goes the other way, eventually ends up impacting all manner of things. If interactivity is the turning point, then "choose your own adventure" books eventually looped into the ruling. If not them - a childhood staple of mine, I realize they aren't tremendously popular now, then Dungeons and Dragons games. "The kids can create and commit violent acts against zombies, which in their imaginations look like people! Not to mention skeleton, which potentially WERE people, at one time!"

I'm not entirely against the idea of keeping kids from playing ultra violent video games. But I think the right way to go about it is to have parents police the games, and to a larger (and more important) extent to explain to kids that this is what you do in games, not in real life.

I won't be against my kids knowing or using curse words. I don't find it that corrupting. Most everyone I know is aware of curse words, and I can't find a correlation between the knowledge of them - or even their use - and the idiots I know. So I won't care if my kids use the words - so long as they use them in the right instances. You don't use them to your parents, or your grandparents, or in social settings, or especially in formal settings. But if you hit your thumb with a hammer, you have carte blanche just that one time to let one rip. I hope that level of permissiveness takes away the "shock" value of the word.