3K in Three Days

Ha, child's play-- writing three thousand words over the next three days. BECAUSE once NanoWrimo begins you need to write 5K every three days for a month to stay on track. Okay, let's back up. Why do I need to write 3K in three days now, when Nano doesn't start until November 1st?

I decided to flex my writing muscle in advance of Nano this year.  I'm kind of out of practice and like any skill, it's a "use it or lose it" thing with writing. So back on October 10 I set a goal of writing 500 words a day.  That got me back in a daily routine. By 10.20.2012 I had five thousand fresh words in a file. yay!  What kind of words, you wonder. No, not a bunch of curse words, nonsense, random tweets, or emails stuffed into a file. ;) This is semi-coherent writing practice.

Lama Dorjee of Dallas and me @KTC

Then I took off a few days (bad for writing routine, but good for karma) to retreat with my KTC Buddhist gang for some Bardo teachings.  Lama "DD" is one of my favorites. He calls himself the Jolly Lama because he laughs a lot. He even got off a few jokes and giggles during the Bardo (Book of the Dead) teachings!

I wrote a bit those days, mostly journaling, not part of my PreNano file.  As of today the file has 7061 words. This is where I get the 3K in three days concept. I also vowed to write at least ten thousand words in October as Nano prep. 

I'm not worried. I better be able to whip out a "K a Day" if there's any hope of writing 1667 a day every day in November. Yeah, I've heard of those people who claim to write the whole 50K in a few frenzied days, but those are rare birds. My experience is once you fall behind, it's a steep climb to write 3300 or 5,000 words in a day to catch up. It's rough writing 5K every three days for a month, but I intend to do it for my Ninth Nano cycle. GADZ! Wish me luck! BTW, this is 450 words, just for reference.

Living with WHO?

 

Can relationships survive different political views?  

Did I just hear this correctly? Did Whoopi Goldberg (on "The View") call it dumb to base who you love on what they think? Really? Geez, one of the most opinionated people I can think of  (next to myself ;) and someone who also chooses to live alone for that very reason! How could I love or live with someone who didn't respect my choices about my own body, my choice of religion, life philosophy, beliefs about what I consume (both mentally and physically), how to treat other life forms (all sentient beings have a right to live) and yes, political views.  Why would you want to live with someone who constantly creates dis-ease and dissension?

This flows both ways. I realize my views might seem strange or disturbing to others, and that is exactly why I don't want to live with anyone who doesn't share my basic beliefs. For their sake and mine, who needs constant bickering and disagreement? Congress isn't bi-partisan enough to pass a budget or a bill, so how could two people with radically different views about abortion, planned parenthood, money or religion live together comfortably?  And people wonder why there is so much DIS-ease, ulcers, indigestion, high blood pressure and even cancer? Living with people who constantly disrupt and upset you is not a recipe for happiness. Remind me again, Whoopi, how many failed relationships have you had? Maybe the really dumb thing is trying to ignore the elephant in the kitchen. Donkeys and elephants just don't see eye-to-eye. Character DOES matter, when it comes to who I vote for, and certainly who or whom I would live with. As for someone who is anti-choice and thinks it's okay for the government to regulate my sexual or reproductive choices, YES that is definitely a "deal-breaker."

the bottom line

This is not really how I wanted to spend my day, but I just watched the first Presidential Debate again so I could assess what really happened. For one thing, a candidate and incumbent inherently must act differently. The challenger has nothing to lose and can say anything. The office holder, in this case the President of the United States, is obligated to speak and  act in the MOST responsible way. The POTUS can't just "cut loose" and get scrappy. He must choose every word very carefully, because again, he already IS the President. This explains why Obama seemed feisty, energized and "scrappy" himself four years ago against Hillary. Having been the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton spoke in a measured, cautious way while then-candidate Obama gave a no-holes barred performance. Performance is the best word for these debates. Ronald Reagan, an actor, gave a great performance when he delivered his so-called zingers with zest and zeal. I have a different recollection of his actual presidency, tho, than Repubs who only remember Saint Reagan. I remember a doddering, often out of touch, ceremonial President who focused on photo-ops and gave us supply-side "Reaganomics" that did not trickle down to anyone. Sorry, I'm determined to keep this post as civil as the gentlemen we saw in the debate (they were civil, and that was welcome.)

Watching again today, I can see the proclaimed Romney win is over-rated. Fact checkers will show that contrary to Mitt's "zinger" (you're entitled to your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts) it was really Mitt making up facts. For instance, when he brings up the old saw about cutting waste and abuse, the truth is no President has cut more waste than Obama--over a trillion dollars. Romney could only cite a few programs, including funding to PBS, to get specific about how he would balance the budget with cuts alone. Those few minor programs won't make a dent in the massive debt generated by wars costing billions per day. During his closing remarks, Romney made sure to appeal to the hawks saying he wouldn't "devastate the military." But, c'mon Mitt, tackling the bloated defense budget, which really is a source of waste and abuse, is the only way to truly impact the federal budget and deficit.

Yes, President Obama could have been more concise, given pithy, punchy answers and smarter quips, perhaps, to enhance the theatrics, but he was honest and fact-checking will prove that. I just documented all of Mitt's promises, and none of them bear any resemblance to what he told his wealthy friends when he wrote off 47% of Americans who he basically accused of "mooching" off the system. So, for the next debate I hope we can figure out who is the real Romney; the Centrist who sounded smooth, compassionate and reasonable last night, or the radical right-winger who promised the tea party a slashed lean and mean federal government, or the corporate raider who hides money in the Cayman Islands and owes his soul to the super pac zillionaires. As for the President, let's hope he can call out the lie about the $716 billion cuts to medicaid, and make Mitt answer for past attacks on planned parenthood, women's reproductive rights and support for corporate welfare that he so slyly slipped past on stage. Let's see the next debate before we make any hasty decisions.