I just happen to like apples, and I'm not afraid of snakes.

I posed the following question to my Sunday school class recently:
Would you have eaten the fruit?

(Then we tempted them with Cider Mill apples for effect—even if apples aren’t indigenous to Mesopotamia.)

After some discussion I said, without even realizing I felt this way, “I would have eaten the fruit long before the devil got there.” Had you asked me when I was teenager, I would have answered, “I wouldn’t even look at the tree.”

So how about you?

Gooder writing tip #3.

Today's lesson: each other vs. one another.

Each other is used when referring to only two people.
One another is used when referring to more than two people.

Two's a party. Three's a bigger party. Amen.

Gooder writing tip #2.

Today's lesson: Phrasal adjectives and hyphens

Fancy words: Phrasal adjectives are also known as compound modifiers.

What I'm talking about:
Sometimes two words appear before a noun that describe the noun, a two-word adjective. To avoid confusion often a hyphen needs to be added to these two words to signify that together they make up the adjective. Most of the time little confusion exists, but sometimes it does.

For example:
Crazy cat lady vs. Crazy-cat lady. The first tells the reader that the cat lady is crazy; the second says that she is a lady who likes crazy cats.

Nasty looking glass vs. nasty-looking glass. The first tells the reader that the mirror is nasty; the second says that the glass looks nasty.

Fast moving van vs. fast-moving van. The first tells the reader that the moving van is fast; the second says that a van is moving fast.

Fancy pants store vs. fancy-pants store. The first tells the reader that the pants store is fancy; the second says that the store sells fancy pants.

Exceptions to this rule are proper nouns and verbs ending in "ly."

Proper nouns
I like Cyber Cafe coffee.
I like Hugh Jackman movies.
These do not need hyphens. Ambiguity is basically nonexistent.

Verbs ending in "ly"
Fiscally-conservative Republican = wrong. (The hyphen, not the person).
The "ly" already modified the "fiscal," so no need for a hyphen. It's redundant, such as saying it was 2:00 a.m. in the morning. (Bleeding-heart liberal needs the hyphen.) And ambiguity is once again unlikely.

Correct: Exceptionally beautiful wife

If you think of a good phrasal adjective whose lack of a hyphen would be detrimental, please leave a comment and share! I mean, really, can you think of anything more exciting to do with your time?

Hyphens are important. Amen.

Gooder writing tip #1.

While responding to an author's query this afternoon regarding the correct use of "which" and "that," I thought the following thoughts:

Hey! Maybe others are wondering the same thing!
Hey! Maybe I should share this kind of information with these others!

Thus begins my series of writing tips. Solicited or not.

Today's lesson: Which vs. That.

Easiest indication: which usually follows a comma; that doesn't.

Which most often refers to the subject brought up in the first part of the sentence.
For example: I like coffee, which I get at Starbucks.
This sentence says that I like coffee in general, and I get it at Starbucks.

Now, if I liked ONLY Starbucks coffee, I would use that.
For example: I like coffee that I get at Starbucks.
This sentence allows me to like no other coffee besides Starbucks.

Fancy talk: that is a restrictive clause; which is an unrestrictive clause.

More examples:
I like Johnny Depp movies that are good.
True, but this allows me to like only his good movies.

I like Johnny Depp movies, which are good.
More true. I like Johnny Depp movies of all grades. Johnny Depp is in the movie, then it is good.

Word choice is important. Amen.

I'm not stunned.

It is normal practice for UCLA campus police officers to ask students in computer labs after 11:00 p.m. to show their student IDs. If the questioned person can’t produce a student ID, they are asked to leave the lab. Understandable. Thank you for protecting America’s college students, campus security.

But you know what would be even better? If you used Tasers on these crazy, late-night computer users. Especially if their skin is any darker than a Krispy Kreme Original Glazed doughnut. I mean, it’s scientific fact that the melanin content of a person’s skin is directly proportional to his or her tendency to commit acts of terror. Look at Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski. And most likely these non-student-ID carriers are plotting something secretive and horrible in a very public place. For example, an Iranian American male would never withhold showing you his ID because he feels unfairly targeted based on his appearance. No way. Racial profiling is just a myth like global warming anyway.

When using Tasers the following must be strictly adhered to:

1. Use absolutely no discretion with persons not meeting the aforementioned Krispy Kreme guideline.

2. Make sure the Taser is used after the person is handcuffed. This is when the Taser is most effective.

3. If the detainee goes limp once handcuffed (passive resistance), Tase said detainee to make him or her stop resisting “arrest.”

4. Repeatedly demand that the Tased person stand (get up off of the floor) after you’ve Tased them, knowing that the Tasing will have left the person uncontrollably immobile for five to fifteen minutes. When they do not get up, which you know they will not/cannot, Tase them again.

5. Under no circumstances listen to any logical argument from the person being Tased (e.g., “I was leaving until you stopped me,” “I’m already handcuffed and wasn’t fighting back,” etc.), or from fellow late-night computer users and computer lab staff (e.g., “You’re abusing your power,” “There are two of you and one of him and he is handcuffed,” “Stop!” etc.).

Always remember that your uniform gives you the right to basically do anything you want, especially the right to assert your authority in ridiculous and inhumane ways that mask your insecurity. Uniform = God/Supreme Ruler/King/Penis. And no civilian can argue against the Uniform, no matter what doughnut they look like.

A word of caution: If you are going to proceed with this procedure, it is best to confiscate the cell phones of eye witnesses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs&eurl=

Le deluge.

If I hear one more person call a natural disaster an “act of God” I’m going to bite him or her, or for hygiene’s sake, just scream.

Stop blaming God for situations we have control over. Natural disasters are well, natural, but their intensity is becoming more and more influenced by climate change. Who is to blame for the ridiculous degree of climate change? Seriously. You answer it. I just hope we can come up with the technology for Hummers to go underwater for when after the glaciers melt. I would hate for people to stop gaining their status by what they drive and own. And who is to blame for the ridiculous amount of human death due to natural disasters? On the eighth day He created screwed-up socioeconomic situations in which poverty-stricken families often of minority races are forced to live in overpopulated, urban areas because they have no other option because money that could be spent on education instead goes to either the military to protect our right to fill our Hummers up with climate-changing juice or to ineffective, reactionary measures to incarcerate said population after they must turn to a life of crime in order to survive because they had no means to further themselves in the screwed-up socioeconomic situation that benefits a select few, right? I’m pretty sure this is in Genesis.

Blame. Blame. Blame.
Bite. Scream. Blog.

Good 'til the--wait. What's wrong with the last drop?

My pastor told me today that he's going to talk about the church using fair trade coffee for fellowship and fund-raisers. Some people DO listen.

Or do you think it's because he heard the head of UMCOR talk about it?
Nah. http://gbgm-umc.org/UMcor/hunger/coffee.cfm

Fair and balanced.

Because I do like Starbucks and know each argument has two sides, I offer some news articles on the Starbucks/Ethiopia/copyright issue that provide the explanation that the National Coffee Association asked Starbucks not to grant Ethiopia's request to maintain the copyright to their coffee names for fear that granting them copyright would actually decrease the Ethiopians' income by lowering the demand (however, Starbucks's vice president is also chair of the National Coffee Association).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6086330.stm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/290968_sbuxoxfam03.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14209

From Starbucks:
http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=713

I'm still going to side with the farmers on this one. Give them a chance to try it their way. I'm not sure if the NCA argument floats....

But despite all of the business books I've edited, I really don't know how it works (and I'm really okay with this), so here's your chance to decide for yourself.
Or you can just do as I say.

Triple grande nonfat caramel macchiato.

Environmental scientist and sister-in-law extraordinaire will be very proud of her brother and me, for yesterday we purchased very fancy Starbucks travel mugs in which to put our oft-bought Starbucks coffee (or caramel apple cider). Although both the paper cup and the sleeve are made of a percentage of post-consumer waste, a reusable mug has a far less negative effect on the environment, requiring only the small amount of heat and water to wash it. And your coffee (or caramel apple cider) stays much, much warmer.

Question 1: Wouldn’t your environmental scientist sister-in-law prefer it if you didn’t support a huge national chain? Perhaps. But I love Starbucks. And you can’t choose love. In defense of my love, as far as big bad machines go, Starbucks isn’t so, so bad. A successful company with a good product is not obligated in a capitalist society to support any cause but itself. Starbucks actually takes the initiative to set positive examples in social and environmental practices (http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/csr.asp).

Question 2: Why are you telling me this? I’m glad you asked. I’m telling you for three reasons: (1) because I think you should buy a sweet travel mug to use at your favorite coffee place, (2) because I want you to know that Starbucks tries, and (3) because I want you to help some Ethiopians.

Question 3: How is buying a travel mug going to help Ethiopians? Well, I can’t give you a direct correlation, but indirectly, reducing waste helps the entire planet. So buy a travel mug to help the Uzbekistanis too.

Question 4: How is knowing that Starbucks tries going to help Ethiopians? Well, for this I can give you a direct correlation. Oxfam is campaigning for Starbucks to allow Ethiopian farmers to maintain the copyright on their popular coffee names. If the Ethiopian farmers control the use of the names, then they get paid for the use of the names. It is more eloquently explained on the Oxfam site: http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr061103_starbucks

Here is an excerpt from the news release:
Last year the Ethiopian government filed applications to trademark its most famous coffee names, Sidamo, Harar, and Yirgacheffe. Securing the rights to these names would enable Ethiopia to capture more value from the trade, by controlling their use in the market and thereby enabling farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price. Ethiopia’s coffee industry and farmers could earn an estimated $88 million (USD) extra per year.

Oxfam wants you to send a fax to the Starbucks CEO telling him to let the Ethiopians have the names cuz you have enough money, dude. Or something similar. All you have to do is put in your name and e-mail, then press send, and a fax is sent. Because Starbucks is a more socially responsible company than most, they may actually listen.

Even baby steps eventually get you to where you want to be.

http://visittioga.com/coffeehouses/
http://cybercafewest.com/
http://www.javajoes.biz/
http://lostdogcafe.net/

Lost soles.

Two pairs of my sneakers were stolen from my hallway. I didn't lock them up in a closet; I left them out in the open, in the hallway, on the way in and out of my apartment. One shoe has paint on it from Day of Caring, a sentimental scar. One pair was finally broken in to perfectly fit my ugly feet. They were both cheap, and used, and mine. I'm sad to not have the sneakers anymore, sad that I can't leave my shoes in the hallway anymore, and sad because I would have given the shoes to the person who wanted them had he or she asked. Then I could feel good. Now I don't. I miss my shoes. I hope they are just lost.

Milk will come out your nose.

A little NPR humor: Time magazine has announced the invention of the year. That’s “invention of the year,” not invention of “the year.” That’s already been invented.

I’m still slapping my knee. This is why I listen to NPR all day.

P.S. The invention of 2006 was YouTube. To which I say: No duh. This morning I got to watch Faith Hill's hissy at CMAs.

Who lies for you will lie against you.

NPR just told me that military recruiters are lying to high school students, this time telling them that the war is over, and that instead of sending soldiers to Iraq they are bringing them home. ABC News did the investigation. And we wonder why so many soldiers are angry.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2626032&page=1

It's only natural.

Working where I do it’s unfathomable to me that people still think homosexuality is a choice. Psychology and science has ruled out its being a choice, or a mental disease, or something you can change. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation

But you know as well as I do that research, logic, observation, understanding, and love have nothing on a few sentences written in the Bible, written during the time when a person could be killed for wearing two different fabrics and slavery was encouraged. And we all know God picked up a pen and wrote the Bible, right? In English of course. Absolutely.

Check out the following Web site regarding Leviticus 18:22, the “abomination” verse: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm
It’s an unbiased analysis offering the viewpoints from the left, right, and middle. Points of note for me:

The word “homosexuality” did not exist in Hebrew, so if your Bible uses this word you should be “wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.”

It says nothing about lesbians; it mentions only men lying together. So, technically, the ladies are off the hook.

It is just as valid to interpret the verse as saying that men aren’t allowed to lie together in a woman’s bed, because it is a sacred place, but it is perfectly fine to sleep together elsewhere.

(For a not-so-unbiased opinion of following all of the Old Testament rules, go to http://www.stallman.org/dr-laura.html.)

To save myself time and frustration, and an eighty-two-page dissertation (and you having to read it because you think everything I have to say is so important), I’m simply going to say, that regarding the New Testament, Jesus didn’t say anything (read: didn’t give a crap) about homosexuality, and Paul was more concerned with increasing the number of Christians in the world (read: breeding) because he believed the world was going to end at any time. Homosexuality doesn’t cause reproduction, and so it didn’t help the Christian cause (survival) at the time. It’s understandable then why Paul would suggest heterosexuality as the way to go. The situation is slightly different now. There was this one guy one time who recognized that the situation was slightly different, then he changed stuff. What was his name? Jerry? Mesus? It’s coming to me....Oh yeah, JESUS.

Anyway, back to my not-a-choice rant. Now for the argument we’ve all heard: It’s just not natural. I asked my friends Noah Webster and George and Charles Merriam for some help with this. The boys told me that a definition of natural is “being in accordance with or determined by nature.” It is true that most human beings are heterosexual identified, the recent estimation being around 90 percent of us. That leaves 10 percent of humankind identifying as homosexual. But we’re humans capable of making choices, so the 10 percent are just deviants choosing to go against God’s will. Right? I mean, look at animals, the epitome of natural. They act on their God-given instincts alone, and they are all heterosexual.

Or not. The Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, begs to differ. They are currently showing an exhibit titled “Against Nature?” offering information on homosexuality in more than 1,500 species of animals, some of whom mate for life. It’s running through August 2007, so you have plenty of time to make it to Oslo. But if you can’t, you can visit the museum’s Web site here:
http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html

Enjoy.

Dear John,

I'm not funny. So I can't help you with your comedy, Mr. Kerry. But our Commander in Chief is funny...or should I say, our Comedian in Chief. (See? I'm not funny. I wasn't sure if you believed me.)

Go back with me to 2004, to the Radio and Television Correspondents dinner. Our president is regaling us with self-deprecating jokes, per the tradition. You laugh because it's kind of funny. Then he cues a video. Ooh! Audiovisual entertainment! This is going to be great!

And you are right. It’s better than you could have imagined. Our president is on the video, going throughout the White House, looking for weapons of mass destruction. Are they under his desk? No! Are they in the cupboard? No! You sit, transfixed. Will he find the WMD? Then you think: You know what would be really funny? If the president told everyone Iraq had the WMD! You can barely contain yourself. What a good joke. The armed forces would go rushing over and start blowing stuff up, the National Guard would become ironic, and journalists and reporters and humanitarian workers would all go over and set up camp; they’d actually believe him! You know the entire administration would get in on it, they are such jokers. You fall off of your chair you are laughing so hard. Then it occurs to you, all of the people who go to and are already in Iraq have a good chance of being killed! A ridiculously large number of people will be killed! Pee trickles down your leg into your shoe.

The video continues to play. The president still can’t find the WMD. Will he ever admit to the joke? You sure hope not. People dying for a joke is the funniest thing in the world. Husbands whose wives have died in Iraq are at home watching the dinner on C-SPAN and cracking up. Sons whose fathers have been murdered in Iraq can’t wait to grow up and join the army and have their deaths mocked by the man who sent them to be killed. Mothers who can’t sleep at night because their children are being bombed half a world away can now sleep soundly because it’s all in good fun.

So, John, if you are reading this, take a note from the president and make a joke of our troops dying for your mistake. I know how tired you are of apologizing. I mean, c’mon, who would be outraged by this kind of joke? Seriously. I’ve listed the following Web sites so you can refresh your memory. Good luck!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4608166/
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38708
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3570845.stm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1336
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/26/1551240