The Don't List

The Don't List

Things to Avoid if You Don't Want to be the Next Victim

1. Don't go for lonely walks with those you've just disinherited.
   
   
2. Don't sip a glass of warm milk left at your bedside by an unseen hand.
   
   
3. Don't sample the chocolates which arrived by mail, anonymously, on your birthday.
   
   
4. Don't rendezvous with the mysterious stranger who offered you a Dukedom over the phone in a decidedly muffled voice.
   
   
5. Don't follow up on the email message that said that if you contact Proctor and Gilliard, Solicitors, you will inherit a large fortune.
   
   
6. Don't accept hunting invitations from business associates after you have refused to sell them your controlling shares in the company.
   
   
7. Don't attend masquerade balls given by wealthy eccentrics who send the car round to collect you, and insist that you tell no one where you're going.
   
   
8. Don't enter the secret passageway first.
   
   
9. Don't kiss Robert when you have just turned Alex down flat, and he has not yet left the house.
   
   
10. Don't tell the Inspector that you think it nothing more than an unfortunate accident, and police surveillance a breach of your privacy.
    
    
11. Don't stand with your back to billowing draperies, particularly if the windows are shut.
    
    
12. Don't offer to fetch the candles from the pantry if the lights suddenly flicker, dim and go out.
    
    
13. Don't comment that you never realized Renoit painted in watercolors within earshot of the art gallery owner.
    
    
14. Don't suggest that an audit of the books would be in order.
    
    
15. Don't ask Fido what he has in his mouth, and most certainly don't ask him to show you from where he got it.
    
    
16. Don't insist that Madame DeClasse conduct the seance at midnight, in the library, when the moon is full.
    
    
17. Don't adopt young Raymond until you have absolute proof that he is your long-lost sister Ava's only child.
    
    
18. Don't recognize the handwriting on the ransom note.
    
    
19. Don't reveal the ending of the mystery to someone just beginning to read it.
    
    
20. Don't investigate strange noises coming from the basement, late at night, when the electricity goes out.
    

originally printed in Murder Ink, authored by Catherine Prezzano

Government Gridlock and Good Ideas

Some people deride 'government gridlock', where both parties appear too set in their ways, too wedded to their ideas, and too deaf to the other party's leaders to accomplish anything.

Government is working exactly as it's supposed to... For example: Conservative representatives were 'hired' (elected) to advance those philosophies and ideals by their constituents, not to help advance philosophies and ideals which are anathema to them. Likewise liberals. So while some people may deride the "gridlock" I posit that it's working perfectly.

When Republicans act like Democrats -- spending too much, taxing too much -- they lose elections, because those are NOT the principles which they were elected to advance. Their constituents become disillusioned and vote them out the next election cycle.

While most may not feel the system is perfect, the system is designed to allow the citizens' interests to be represented. Deals are made between the parties when there is proximate congruency between their governing philosophies. Every politician tries to balance the needs and wishes of their constituents and the need to compromise their ideals with the opposition party... that's called "politics" and it's certainly not limited to Conservatives or Liberals exclusively.

There's no 'super majority' requirement; seems to me that we had TARP, a stimulus bill, a jobs bill, and other legislation passed in the last year-plus, in both houses of Congress and with some level of participation from both parties. It's utterly unfair to expect that a representative should vote in favor of a piece of legislation with which they do not agree. That's ridiculous, and though today we see that the Republicans are standing firm against something that, let's face it, two-thirds of the country doesn't want passed, in the not-so-distant past the shoe was on the other foot. In typical Liberal fashion, when they vote against something or protest something, it's fine and good and just; when they propose something with which their opposition disagrees, that opposition is belittled, tarred, feathered and emasculated.

Political opponents CAN have excellent ideas, and sometimes do; but if both parties always thought that the other side's ideas were good, we'd have only ONE party -- because they'd essentially be the same. And no matter your particular leaning, you must admit that would not be good for the country.

As a final thought: Republicans win elections only when they run as conservatives, regardless of what you see and hear in the media about "moderate Republicans". And Democrats can only win elections when they run as centrists or moderates, suppressing their liberal, statist, leftist leanings and inclinations.

Obama ran as a moderate. Remember?

More Conversation Sins

I was pondering additional Conversation Sins, but I don't want to go back and edit the previous post. That's ugly. I'm a writer, not an editor. :-)

The Laugher

This one cracks me up... so to speak. The Laugher finds absolutely anything and everything just a little funny -- not rib-tickling, side-splitting funny, but funny enough to laugh. They laugh at good news, bad news, stock tickers, random Churchill quotes -- everything. You can tell it's a nervous tic, but you're powerless to either ignore it, or join in. At least they don't look expectantly at you the way someone does after they tell you a joke, waiting for you to laugh so that they can continue the conversation. The Laugher is perfectly content to laugh alone.

The Yes Man


During conversations we all go through periods where we nod to keep the speaker moving along, or mumble "Uh huh" when there's a brief silence (and it's obvious the speaker is expecting a response of some sort). The Yes Man makes prodding noises and mumbles prodding words during your sentences.

A: "Last night I was..."

B: "Uh huh."

A: "...looking at my old..."

B: "Yeah."

A: "...collection of used bandages..."

B: "Mmm hmmm."

The Fortune Cookie


This person has eaten WAY too many fortune cookies. No matter the subject matter they have a fortune cookie-type cliche response ready to go. It makes you wonder how they collect and store them!

A: "I don't know how I passed Calculus in college."


B: "The definition of a college professor is someone who talks in other people's sleep."


A: "Right.. my roommate aced his Calc final somehow. I think he cheated."


B: "A best friend is like a four leaf shamrock: hard to find and lucky to have."


A: "Whoa. You know, I just remembered this doctor's appointment I scheduled. I hate to get going."


B: "Embrace change, don't battle it."

Deadly Conversation Sins

I read an article today on the "Ten Deadly Conversation Sins" people commit. While I didn't agree with the author's selections, I did like the idea, and so I am creating my own list here:

1. Mine is Better

Imagine you have just finished relating a funny story from your teen years. This person simply must top you: "If you think that's funny, let me tell you this." They need to both top your story and belittle it, without allowing time for discussion or reaction. It’s a common tactic for people with little-to-no self esteem.

2. Too Much or Too Little Eye Contact

You’re sitting in a meeting with co-workers, and the speaker seems to be intently concentrating on you, and you alone; their attention and gaze never seems to waver, making you feel as though you are being either ‘mentally undressed’ or considered for the evening’s main course. The flipside to this maniacal stare is the one-on-one conversation with the person who looks through you, or everywhere BUT you; they’re speaking to you, but looking at the floor, the ceiling, their cellphone, and nitrogen molecules off to their left…

3. Neither Hearing nor Listening

It’s bad enough when you’re in a loud environment and trying to speak to the person next to you, when you have to shout just to be heard; you’re forced to repeat yourself over and over, but you can tell yourself that this is understandable. But when the environment is calm and the extraneous noise is at a minimum, shouldn’t you be heard the first time you say something? Assuming you’re using a normal conversational tone of voice, and not speaking sotto voce, it’s an irritant when the other person seems either utterly uninterested in what you’re saying, or else is partially interested (and hearing every fifth word or so)… both situations force you to repeat, repeat, repeat until they’ve heard you.

4. Bad Jokes

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone when, out of the blue, they decide to interject a completely idiotic or tasteless joke? They have the temerity to actually wait for you to laugh before continuing, when all you can think is, “Does this person actually believe that was funny???”

5. Self Promotion

I love meeting someone who introduces themselves via their resume, education, or celebrity ties. It's obnoxious, but at least it’s funny – and I know right away that this will be a very, very short conversation (if I have anything to say about it!). You know the type: “Hi, I’m Sally, and I graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. Do you want to try a pastry with your latte?”

6. It’s ALL About Me

This person is a slight variation on the “Mine is Better” person; this person isn’t necessarily competing with you to see whose story or anecdote is better, because this person really has no interest in your story or anecdote. They can barely fake any interest, preferring instead to simply ramble on and on ad nauseum about themselves.

7. Thy Name is Negativity

Some days you just feel blue, but for this person, it’s every day. You have met this person and been subjected to their overpowering negativity: “So I was late for work because my car wouldn’t start, which always happens to me on mornings when I have to be in at a specific time for a meeting; then my boss of course makes me stay late, like always, even though he doesn’t care about the number of hours I put in LAST week. Then I get home and find that I forgot my keys in the car, so I couldn’t unlock my front door – but then I couldn’t get my keys because the car automatically locked the door. This stuff always happens to me. Last night at dinner my steak was overcooked, and the mashed potatoes were too runny, and then I found I had a bunion on my left foot, which of course I couldn’t see the doctor about because…” Blah blah blah.

8. Short and Not Sweet

Answering in-depth questions with simple one-word answers that don’t match the question is a cardinal sin. Short answers are usually indicative of either disinterest or anger, neither of which is conducive to a good conversation, and this person doesn’t feel either way. They are just trying to leave the conversation – EVERY conversation.

9. Chatty McChatterbox

The opposite of the Short and Not Sweet answer is the answer that is so detailed and so granular (and generally veers so far off-topic as to be in a different zip code than the actual answer) that you fall asleep before it ends.

10. Chatting with the ADD Person

I think we’ve all had this sort of conversation:

A: “How was the ballgame last night?”

B: “It was great! When I got to the stadium I… wait, where did I put my cellphone?”

A: “What happened when you got to the stadium?”

B: “Oh, I got a great parking spot, right near the main gate. I love getting… did I tell you about my mother’s gout?”

A: “Hold on. I saw a play on SportsCenter from the game, where it looked like the referee made the wrong call. You were there, what did you think?”

B: “That ref was as blind as my great Aunt Matilda! Why, anyone with an ounce of sense… Is that something shiny over there?”

Why the Summit?

Seriously... what was the point of Thursday's health care summit, exactly? The outcome was pre-determined, as was the course of action to be taken by the liberals. From Politico on Thursday morning:

"After a brief period of consultation following the White House health reform summit, congressional Democrats plan to begin making the case next week for a massive, Democrats-only health care plan, party strategists told POLITICO.

"A Democratic official said the six-hour summit was expected to 'give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.'

"Democrats plan to begin rhetorical, and perhaps legislative, steps toward the Democrats-only, or reconciliation, process early next week, the strategists said."

Also:
"The point [of the summit] is to alter the political atmospherics, and it will take a day or two to sense if it succeeded,” the [same Democratic] official said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33510.html
--
That being the case, why meet with the minority Republicans at all? Why the charade of pretending that you give a damn about their thoughts, ideas, suggestions? Nothing's changed. Only 25% of the country, according to the latest polling, wants any of the bills already put forward.

Don't pretend that Obama or the Democrats have elicited Republican opinion in the past 13 months. "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." -- Obama. Then why the make-believe summit????

I love having the Republicans referred to as a "party of No". Only they should take it further, and refer to themselves as the party of "HELL NO". It's not about opposition for the sake of opposition.. that's called REFLECTING in psychological terms, and a condition with which liberals are quite cozy. They do it all the time.

It's about opposition to an asinine, intrusive, illegal bill, or set of bills, designed to do one thing and one thing only: Centralized MORE power in the hands of the liberal nanny state. End of story. This isn't about getting a single sick person healthier, and it damned well isn't about cutting ANYONE'S costs for anything. It's about power, and the liberals "in charge" and their sycophantic followers care nothing about either the country or its opinions about them. They care about themselves, first -foremost -and always.

They were never interested in hearing the opinions of the minority party; not 13 months ago ("I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess"), and for damned sure not today.

That should tell every American, no matter their particular political bent, that this administration cares ONLY about power... not about the citizens of the nation, not about the Constitution that he swore to uphold, not about the economy or anything else. Just POWER. And We the People have had enough.

Fifty Rules for Writing Good

This is NOT original, but it is quite funny.

Fifty Rules for Writing Good

1. Each pronoun should agree with their antecedent.
2. Between you and I, pronoun case is important.
3. A writer must be sure to avoid using sexist pronouns in his writing.
4. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
5. Don’t be a person whom people realize confuses who and whom.
6. Never use no double negatives.
7. Never use a preposition to end a sentence with. That is something up with which your readers will not put.
8. When writing, participles must not be dangled.
9. Be careful to never, under any circumstances, split infinitives.
10. Hopefully, you won’t float your adverbs.
11. A writer must not shift your point of view.
12. Lay down and die before using a transitive verb without an object.
13. Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
14. The passive voice should be avoided.
15. About sentence fragments.
16. Don’t verb nouns.
17. In letters themes reports and ad copy use commas to separate items in a series.
18. Don’t use commas, that aren’t necessary
19. “Don’t overuse ‘quotation marks.”’
20. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (if the truth be told) superfluous.
21. Contractions won’t, don’t, and can’t help your writing voice.
22. Don’t write run-on sentences they are hard to read.
23. Don’t forget to use end punctuation
24. Its important to use apostrophe’s in the right places.
25. Don’t abbrev.
26. Don’t overuse exclamation marks! ! !
27. Resist Unnecessary Capitalization.
28. Avoid mispellings.
29. Check to see if you any words out.
30. One-word sentences? Never.
31. Avoid annoying, affected, and awkward alliteration, always.
32. Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
33. The bottom line is to bag trendy locutions that sound flaky.
34. By observing the distinctions between adjectives and adverbs, you will treat your readers real good.
35. Parallel structure will help you in writing more effective sentences and to express yourself more gracefully.
36. In my own personal opinion at this point of time, I think that authors, when they are writing, should not get into the habit of making use of too many unnecessary words that they don’t really need.
37. Foreign words and phrases are the reader’s bete noire and are not apropos.
38. Who needs rhetorical questions?
39. Always go in search for the correct idiom.
40. Do not cast statements in the negative form.
41. And don’t start sentences with conjunctions.
42. Avoid mixed metaphors. They will kindle a flood of confusion in your readers.
43. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.”
44. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
45. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
46. Be more or less specific.
47. If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times, exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement, which is always best.
48. Never use a big word when you can utilize a diminutive word.
49. Profanity sucks.
50. Last but not least, even if you have to bend over backward, avoid cliches like the plague.

English Tips of the Day

This is NOT original, but it is wonderful.

English Tips of The Day

• Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
• Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
• And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
• It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
• Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat)
• Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
• Be more or less specific.
• Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
• No sentence fragments.
• Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
• Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
• Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
• One-word sentences? Eliminate.
• Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
• Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
• Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
• Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
• Puns are for children, not groan readers.
• Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
• Who needs rhetorical questions?
• Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

And finally...

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

What Will 2012 Bring?

Will Obama lose in 2012? Who might replace him?

Assuming that Republicans can form a cohesive message, one that adheres to conservative principles of limited government and low taxation, I can foresee only one of two candidates: Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin (and the latter is most definitely my choice). I would like to say that a Palin/Romney ticket would be perfect, but I would rather a more seasoned Washingtonian as a running mate (for either one). John Kyl would be a nice selection at a VP candidate.

That said, it's too early to tell -- we don't even know who will be running against HRH Obama. He will lose in 2012, of that I am certain.

A former state governor with a track record of both independent thought and fiscal conservatism, coupled with a moral compass and an ability to connect with 'everyday' Americans is the person most likely to win. Today we're seeing just such a race unfolding in Massachusetts, as Scott Brown (R) has a lead over Martha Coakley (D) just prior to today's crucial vote for the Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown is not a 'party line' Republican, or a hard-core conservative, but close; he's considered an independent thinker and is wholly against a bloated federal government, which seems to appeal to a great number of the citizens of Massachusetts.

We're seeing what a nobody does once in the office of President, a former 'community organizer' (read: agitator) without ANY governing experience.. capable only of teleprompter-aided soundbites and possessed of an unwavering belief in his own greatness, he thinks he was elected to 'rule' rather than to 'govern'. He's incapable of an original thought which did not come from Saul Alinsky's playbook, intolerant of those with whom he disagrees (both politicians and the citizenry), and utterly out of touch with the needs of the average American.

How's that working out for the country?