These are a few of my...

Okay, springboarding off a Julie Andrews musical, here's a few things that really irk me.

TO/TOO/TWO

We're all familiar with the concept of synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms. In actual practice, however, I see a lot of egregious usages.

Here's an examples:

Rein, rain, reign. Sounds alike, but different meanings. And I've seen many abuses of these words.

Rein is a line used on a halter to control a horse or other mount. Rain is water dripping frim the sky. And reign? You rule!

I've read westerns where a cowboy reigns his horse. 

These are errors anyone is capable of making. And it requires careful editing to correct the usage.  

When I see these as I'm reading, my first thought isn't that the author should know better. It's that their editor let them down. And that's a shame.

A few years ago I edited an anthology dealing with the newly instituted Space Force. https://www.amazon.com/Space-Force-Doug-Irvin-Editor

I did intensive edits (proofing and copy/content editing) on the stories before I passed the mss on to the publisher. And still a few slipped by! But far fewer than might have otherwise.
It wasn't carelessness. It wasn't a lackadaisical approach (Oh, I know how to spell that! I don't need to check it!)

I just double checked my spelling of lackadaisical. And I usually forgo spell checkers except to catch typos.

But spell check programs do not look at grammar (2 a's, no e's) They don't look at word usage in a context (okay, Grammarly claims to, but it is clumsy to use). And spell or grammar checkers cannot check content. 

Having beta readers helps. Hey, any self-check effort is worthwhile. Make sure you do the corrections.

Ultimately, it is your reputation on the line. Writers and Editors -- Words are your business. Don't market a shoddy product.

I know several writers who tell dynamic stories, but have lousy grammatical skills They aren't proud of their lack. But they spend lots of money getting exhaustive editing done. 

Do a workman-like production. You owe it to yourself.

A new direction

 This blog started out as a ramble of different thought. While the new diection is looking back over my 71 years of life, it will be a plethora of topics. Often disjointed, but seasoned (hopefully) with lessons and experiences from my life and lessons learned on the way.

I hope this will be an assist to others.

DANEGELD

“It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation

To call upon a neighbour and to say: —

“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,

Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

So begins Rudyard Kipling’s poem, Danegeld. It was a foreboding lesson, and all too accurate of today. What began as raids in the 10 century continues on today. A different group demanding it, but the strategy is the same.

Today’s Danes use shame, intimidation and ridicule to gain their gold. The threat of actual violence is not mentioned – in fact, the rules of the game seem to indicate that actual use of violence robs you of points. Instead, the leaders threaten boycotts, protests and – worse – damning headlines in local and national press.

Often the victims of this attention are bewildered and befuddled. What did they do? Often there isn’t any actual guilt to assign; they are just a convenient wall to paste the message on.

Appeasement never works. Appeasement. Never. Works.  APPEASEMENT. NEVER. WORKS.

A little hesitation. A little waffling. A little committee study. And the game is lost.

If ever you are faced with such demands, cry not to lawyers. Lawyers, by their very training seek to smooth issues, to compromise – often to capitulate with misdirection. “Ha Ha! We’re giving in, but let me make it look like we’ve won!”

Don’t seek advice from the book keepers. Thier job is simply to tell you if you have the money for tribute; not to advise for or against paying it.

Instead, you need to Man up; Cowboy up; Put on your Big Girl panties.

You need to say no. And not just no, but HELL NO!! WE WON”T PAY!

An early American president, faced with ransom demands against American shipping, replied by sending a squadron of war ships. A leading newspaper of the day supported the presidents actions, with the banner headline, “Millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute!” 

That headline needs to fly again.

America was born of a pugnacious people, a rebellious rabble who demanded that their right to self-determination WOULD be recognized around the world. We’ve fought wars on that premise, and lost millions of citizens – some before they could even vote – supporting that ideal.

And when modern-day brigands shout in our faces, demanding retribution (whether in cash or recognition), our response had best be NO!

Otherwise, you’ve lost before you can even begin to fight.

This started with the first stanza of a poem: it’s only fitting to end it with that same poem. Pay particular attention to the last stanza. It is a harsh, but necessary reminder.

Dane-Geld by Rudyard Kipling

A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation

To call upon a neighbour and to say: —

“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,

Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,

And the people who ask it explain

That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld

And then  you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,

To puff and look important and to say: —

“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.

We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;

But we’ve  proved it again and  again,

That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld

You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray;

So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to say: —

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that pays it is lost!”

This I Know

What is the fundamental difference between science and faith?

In Psalm 56: 9 David states, "When I cry out to You, Then my enemies will turn back; This I know, because God is for me."

This I know. That statement is used only three times in scripture, but in each place it refers to a positive evidence based knowledge.

The first place is 1 Kings 17: 24, when the Widow of Zarephath rejoices that God has raised her son.
'Then the woman said to Elijah, "Now by this I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is the truth." '

Her son was dead. Then he was alive, by the power of God working through His prophet. It wasn't theory; it was fact.

Then again, in Ps 41:11, David again cries out to the Lord for deliverance, and cites a sure knowledge that He will provide it. Further, he states that God will set him before His face.

Science, in it's basic form is a seeking for knowledge. It presupposes that the seeker does not currently have that knowledge or truth. By definition, science is never satisfied. It must seek.

Faith, on the other hand, is not based on hypothetical searchings, but empiric facts. The writer of Hebrews states that it is evidence, factual. As the saying goes, a hundred theories are trumped by one fact.

People are in error when they refer to faith in such a way as to instill doubt.
"You must have faith!" is a despairing cry. But it shouldn't be so.

There's nothing wrong with using science to discover truth. Indeed, the father of modern science, Isaac Newton, claimed science as "Thinking God's thoughts after Him."

But in a contest between realities proposed by science or faith, faith is the clear winner.

This I know.

The Preaching Farmer

The Preaching Farmer

Some people go to college to learn to preach; some go to their fields.

A farmer knows that if you sow wheat, you'll get wheat; you reap what you sow.
And no matter what you sow, there's going to be some tares included. Let them ripen - they'll be easier to pull when they get more noticeable.

There's a time to sow, and a time to harvest. Bring in your sheaves when the time is right.

It's hard to be thankful and bitter at the same time. Remember that the rain that flooded your living room can also water the fields. Accept what's offered, and make sure you are prepared for rain - wherever it falls.

Cows need to be milked even if it is on Sunday. God gave us Dominion, but there's a responsibility there as well. If you accept the privileges, you accept the duties, too.

More life lessons can be learned by looking at a farmers hands that some people will learn in their Bibles. But there's one thing for certain; the more worn either is, the more lessons that have been learned!

LOT'S OF VOICES -- But who are we to believe?

One of the problems a Christian faces in any age is the issue of error. Not just erroneous or false teachings, but wrong practices.

Having grown up in the Southern Baptist church, we had a veritable list - I'm tempted to call it a litany - of prohibited practices. I'm sure you've heard the ditty: I don't smoke, I don't chew; and I don't go with girls who do! Well, that's Southern Baptist to the core.

Now, there are a lot of very good reasons  to avoid tobacco. And it's certainly a good practice to instill in our children. Parents are responsible for the teaching of their children, after all. But really: what's the theological signicance of tobacco? Or alcohol? Or movies?

Truthfully -- none.

The Bible does not speak specifically about any of these topics. An argument could be made (and has) that since tobacco use and theaters did not exist in Jesus' day, then it's a moot issue. Alternately, some have said that anything that is physically or morally questionable should be avoided.

Both are valid points. And both - in this context - are wrong.
Almighty God knew the issues that would face believers in every age, but instead of issuing specific rules in each case (which would likely double the size of the Bible itself), He chose to provide a touchstone.

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17

God does not place the responsibility on any group or congregation to proscribe activities. He places it on the individual. An individual who is to remain in close enough fellowship with God to follow His leading.

I don't smoke, chew, dance or watch movies rated R or worse. But that's the prohibition God the Holy Spirit has placed on me. Some do smoke; I encourage them to quit, for the sake of their health. But it would be utterly wrong - even Scriptually wrong - for me to insist they do in God's name. Which is using God's name in vain. And a prophet (or any other teacher) who tells people "God said", when God has not said, has more problems than health issues facing them!

We are inundated by lots of messages today, and social media has increased the volume almost beyond comprehension. But the same guideline exists as it was expressed to the first century Church:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Not your church; nor your relatives, cyber friends or other teachers. What does God tell YOU?
And once you know it, it's your responsibility to obey.

A Tale of Two (types of) Cookies

When is a Peanut Butter cookie, not Peanut Butter? And when is an Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookie not?
When you use a new recipe!
We had an oatmeal cookie recipe, but were not happy with it. Oftimes, when we used it, we had to add more oatmeal or more flour because the mix was too wet and sticky. It would taste like flour.
So today I used a recipe I downloaded from Cooks.com (I recommend the site). I've pasted the recipe below.
The issue here is that they don't taste like oatmeal cookies. They taste more like peanut butter cookies. So much so, I was afraid I would get indigestion from sampling them (I have issues with peanut butter).
For those trying the recipe be advised that while I doubled the recipe, I only used half the oatmeal called for, with a 12 oz. bag of chocolate chips. And don't try using beaters with this - you'll likely burn them out. It's a very stiff mix.


QUAKER'S BEST OATMEAL COOKIES
3/4 c. firmly packed brown sugar 1/2 c. granulated sugar
1 egg 1 stick butter 1 tsp. vanilla
1 1/2 c. all purpose flour 1 tsp. baking soda 1 tsp. salt (opt.)
3 c. Quaker Oats (quick or old fashioned, uncooked)

Preheat oven to 375 degrees.

Beat together butter and sugars until light and fluffy. Beat in egg and vanilla. Combine flour, baking soda, salt and spices; add to butter mixture, mixing well. Stir in oats. Drop by rounded tablespoonfuls onto ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 8 to 9 minutes for a chewy cookie, 10 to 11 minutes for a crisp cookie. Cool 1 minute on cookie sheet; remove to wire cooling rack. Store in tightly covered container. 4 1/2 dozen.

OATMEAL COOKIE SQUARES: Press dough onto bottom of ungreased 13"x9" pan. Bake about 25 minutes or until light golden brown. Cool completely; cut into 1 1/2" squares. Store in tightly covered container. 4 dozen.

VARIATIONS: Add any one or combination of two of the following ingredients, if desired: 1 cup raisins, chopped nuts, or semi sweet chocolate, butterscotch or peanut butter flavored pieces.