Skip to main content

Back to work....

I'm still typing in the edits I made to the hard-copy of the short story I'm working on. Somehow the typing part is really tedious and I keep finding other things to do.

So now I *will* go get a new lightbulb to brighten up this room (two of three in the fixture are burned out) and I will type it until I am done!

Oh, and get a bowl of chili I made and a glass of Kool-Aid to go with it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I haven't had kool-aid since I was a child.

Has it changed at all? With all the different drinks nowadays I completely forget about koolaid.

Cheap and usually great tasting on a hot day.
8:43 PM
Synova said…
There are some different flavors but it's pretty much the same. They were making colorless varieties for a while, which I really appreciated because I had small children who spilled everything I gave them. But I haven't seen those lately.

My son won't drink it at all, not even when the only other choice is water. :-)
8:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more