How much do I pay a writer?

Canadian rates can be found here: CLICK HERE

For both freelance writers and those that hire them, that frequently asked question lacks a simple answer. Fees charged by professional writers vary according to the work involved. Many factors affect payment including:

• the type of assignment (e.g., magazine article, speech, marketing report)
• the writer's skill, background and experience
• rights licensed to the client
• the number of words and/or time the project requires
• the number of interviews and research needed
• the types of rights being purchased

PWAC's information reveals large pay variations between markets and locations. For instance, writers tend to earn more in large cities than in other areas of the country. There are also large variations between writers: a very experienced, established writer can charge more for her work than someone just starting out. Therefore, the rates below are general guidelines only. You'll need to negotiate the exact fee depending on the particulars of the assignment.

Standard Novel Story Parameters

Here is the source: CLICK HERE

Publishers aren’t looking to reinvent the novel; they’re expecting a great story told from within accepted parameters.

The Secrets That Get You Published

What are those secret parameters? What is story architecture? It goes like this:

* A set-up with a killer hook
* Character intro with back-story and context
* A sense of place
* Foreshadowing and the establishment of stakes
* The hero’s impending need and inner demons
* The emerging seeds of a subplot
* A major plot point that introduces the story’s antagonistic element
* The definition of the hero’s quest or need
* Scenes that deepen the tension as the hero responds
* Refining the nature of the quest and the elements of its opposition
* A mid-story mind-numbing context shift that changes everything
* The evolution of the hero into a pro-active warrior
* Another significant plot twist that puts all the cards on the table

… followed by a series of scenes that show how the hero is applying what he’s learned to become a catalyst in the story’s oh-so-satisfying conclusion.

It’s all learnable. It really is. Learn it, master it, and you will publish.

Shut Up!

Must watch:

Executive Presence

Tips to improve your "Executive Presence":

• Use random, sustained eye contact with several members of the audience. Focus on a few people here and there while speaking. "If you're looking at everyone in the room - you're looking at no one in the room".

• Make sure that your body language is strong and confident in order to project that with your tone - because your voice always follows your body language.

• Before you start to speak, stand up and stand still for 5 seconds. Doing so will make you look very much in control.

• When addressing a large group from a stage - walk out: stand still for 5 seconds, then start speaking by making eye contact with one person in the far corner of the group to the left, and then one person in the far corner of the room to the right.

• Gesture from the shoulder rather than from the elbow or the wrist because these types of moves make you look more powerful.

• Use your space purposely. Stand still. Make a point. Move as you transition to the next point. Then stand still, make point, move, etc.

Relativism

From http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/relativism/refuting-relativism

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self-refuting.

1. All truth is relative.
   1. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false.
2. There are no absolute truths.
   1. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false.
   2. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism.
3. What is true for you is not true for me.
   1. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?
      1. If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false.
      2. If you say yes, then relativism is false.
   1. If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
      1. I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false. If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
      2. am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
         1. If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false. This is self-contradictory.
         2. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
         3. If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.
   2. If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism false.
      1. If you admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.
   3. If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true - even if it is only for me.
      1. If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false.
4. No one can know anything for sure.
   1. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which is self-defeating.
5. That is your reality, not mine.
   1. Is my reality really real?
   2. If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality? If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?
6. We all perceive what we want.
   1. How do you know that statement is true?
   2. If we all perceive what we want, then what are you wanting to perceive?
      1. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?
      2. Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it.
7. You may not use logic to refute relativism.
   1. Why not?
   2. Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used?
   3. If you use relativism to refute logic, then on what basis is relativism (that nothing is absolutely true) able to refute logic which is based upon truth.
   4. If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.
8. We are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality.
   1. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?
   2. Is truth self-contradictory?
      1. If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self-refuting. If something is self-refuting, then it isn't true.
   3. If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then am I believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true? How then could they be the same reality?
   4. If you are saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted.
      1. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.
   5. If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us (or both) is in error.
      1. If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.
9. Relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolute and self-refuting.
   1. On what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?
      1. Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position?
      2. If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?
   2. To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

How to Make Symbols on a Mac

1. Hold down the Option, or ALT and shift keys, and press another key. The key can be a letter, a number, or a symbol. When you do this, a new symbol will appear. There are two lists of symbols below. One list shows symbols that can be created by holding "Option" and a key, and the other lists symbols that are created with "Option", "Shift", and a key. It should be noted that on a keyboard the Option key is either denoted by saying Option / Alt on a keyboard visually designed for a Macintosh computer, whereas it will be simply ALT for a keyboard visually designed for Windows. (The Windows key and Command key have the same relationship)

Symbols With the "Option / ALT" Key Pressed

* Option and ` = `
* Option and 1 = ¡
* Option and 2 = €
* Option and 3 = #
* Option and 4 = ¢
* Option and 5 = ∞
* Option and 6 = §
* Option and 7 = ¶
* Option and 8 = •
* Option and 9 = ª
* Option and 0 = º
* Option and - = –
* Option and = = ≠
* Option and q = œ
* Option and w = ∑
* Option and e = ´
* Option and r = ®
* Option and t = †
* Option and y = ¥
* Option and u = ¨
* Option and i = ˆ
* Option and o = ø
* Option and p = π
* Option and [ = “
* Option and ] = ‘
* Option and \ = «
* Option and a = å
* Option and s = ß
* Option and d = ∂
* Option and f = ƒ
* Option and g = ©
* Option and h = ˙
* Option and j = ∆
* Option and k = ˚
* Option and l = ¬
* Option and ; = …
* Option and ' = æ
* Option and z = Ω
* Option and x = ≈
* Option and c = ç
* Option and v = √
* Option and b = ∫
* Option and n = ˜
* Option and m = µ
* Option and , = ≤
* Option and . = ≥
* Option and / = ÷

Symbols With the "Option / ALT" and "Shift" Keys Pressed

* Option, Shift, and ` = `
* Option, Shift, and 1 = ⁄
* Option, Shift, and 2 = ™
* Option, Shift, and 3 = ‹
* Option, Shift, and 4 = ›
* Option, Shift, and 5 = fi
* Option, Shift, and 6 = fl
* Option, Shift, and 7 = ‡
* Option, Shift, and 8 = °
* Option, Shift, and 9 = ·
* Option, Shift, and 0 = ‚
* Option, Shift, and - = —
* Option, Shift, and = = ±
* Option, Shift, and q = Œ
* Option, Shift, and w = „
* Option, Shift, and e = ´
* Option, Shift, and r = ‰
* Option, Shift, and t = ˇ
* Option, Shift, and y = Á
* Option, Shift, and u = ¨
* Option, Shift, and i = ˆ
* Option, Shift, and o = Ø
* Option, Shift, and p = ∏
* Option, Shift, and [ = ”
* Option, Shift, and ] = ’
* Option, Shift, and \ = »
* Option, Shift, and a = Å
* Option, Shift, and s = Í
* Option, Shift, and d = Î
* Option, Shift, and f = Ï
* Option, Shift, and g = ˝
* Option, Shift, and h = Ó
* Option, Shift, and j = Ô
* Option, Shift, and k = 
* Option, Shift, and l = Ò
* Option, Shift, and ; = Ú
* Option, Shift, and ' = Æ
* Option, Shift, and z = ¸
* Option, Shift, and x = ˛
* Option, Shift, and c = Ç
* Option, Shift, and v = ◊
* Option, Shift, and b = ı
* Option, Shift, and n = ˜
* Option, Shift, and m = Â
* Option, Shift, and , = ¯
* Option, Shift, and . = ˘
* Option, Shift, and / = ¿

The Simplest Way to Make Yourself Heard: What We Can Learn From the Magical Number Seven

Context is everything. Much of my influence on the next generation is blunted when I speak too abstractly.

The problem is that too much information, without a context, actually decreases memory.

This is the point made by George Miller in his classic essay "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two."

Miller demonstrates that the average English speaker can remember seven random digits in a sequence. Legend is that this insight persuaded the U.S. to adopt seven digit telephone numbers.

Many people believe Miller's insight means that people can generally remember seven pieces of abstract information. Every additional piece of information decreases their memory.

The best way to make sure you're getting your point across in a memorable way is to make each point as concrete as possible. This is done by:

• Defining it
• Explaining it
• Giving an example
• Offering a personal experience
• Developing an analogy
• Quoting an expert's opinion
• Citing a statistic

For example, let's say you want to communicate the abstract principle of "redemption":

• Definition: redemption means to "buy back" something that is rightfully yours.
• Example: imagine that you owned a valuable heirloom and lost it, only to find it again in an antique store. Since you have no proof that it was yours, the only way to get it back it to buy it. That's an example of redemption.
• Personal experience: Because God redeemed me through Jesus' dying on the cross, I am now a bearer of redemption to the world. Everything I do--including my work--is an illustration of God's on-going work of redemption.

Here's a helpful rule of thumb called the 70/30 principle: Don't make more than 30% of any message new information. The other 70% should illustrate and explain the 30%. This makes the information you're presenting less random and more memorable.

The 70/30 principle works in speaking and writing. It also works when giving instructions and offering directions--whether to children or adults. Try it out this week!

T-38 Talon Formating

Here is a video of a t-39 formation flight:

T-38 Talon

There is a great T-38 Talon pilot report here: http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/t38pr.htm

It is too long to post here.

Five Techniques of Surviving a Police Interrogation (Without Confessing)

Taken from freeBEAGLES' recommendations for animal rights' activists (and others) on how to make it through a police interrogation without incriminating themselves or their peers:

1. Remain silent.
2. Remain silent.
3. Imagine the words "I invoke my right to remain silent" painted on the wall, and stare at them throughout the interrogation.
4. Momentarily break your silence to ask for counsel.
5. Cultivate hatred for your interrogator so you don't fall into his traps and start talking.

Common Interrogation Techniques

[See also: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions for details]

Modern interrogation is a study in human nature. Most of us are more likely to talk to people who appear to be like us. Once we start talking, it's hard for us to stop. Once we start telling the truth, it's harder to start lying. When a police officer tells us our fingerprints were found on the inside doorknob of a home that was robbed two days ago, we get nervous, even if we wore gloves the whole time we were inside.

With a few exceptions, the police are allowed to lie to a suspect to get him to confess. The belief is that an innocent person would never confess to a crime she didn't commit, even if she were confronted with false physical evidence of her involvement. Unfortunately, that's not always the case (more on false confessions in the next section), but it's a big part of the reason why the police are allowed to employ deceptive tactics in interrogation.

The psychological manipulation begins before the interrogator even opens his mouth. The physical layout of an interrogation room is designed to maximize a suspect's discomfort and sense of powerlessness from the moment he steps inside. The classic interrogation manual "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" recommends a small, soundproof room with only three chairs (two for detectives, one for the suspect) and a desk, with nothing on the walls. This creates a sense of exposure, unfamiliarity and isolation, heightening the suspect's "get me out of here" sensation throughout the interrogation.

The manual also suggests that the suspect should be seated in an uncomfortable chair, out of reach of any controls like light switches or thermostats, furthering his discomfort and setting up a feeling of dependence. A one-way mirror is an ideal addition to the room, because it increases the suspect's anxiety and allows other detectives to watch the process and help the interrogator figure out which techniques are working and which aren't.

Before the nine steps of the Reid interrogation begin, there's an initial interview to determine guilt or innocence. During this time, the interrogator attempts to develop a rapport with the suspect, using casual conversation to create a non-threatening atmosphere. People tend to like and trust people who are like them, so the detective may claim to share some of the suspect's interests or beliefs. If the suspect starts talking to the interrogator about harmless things, it becomes harder to stop talking (or start lying) later when the discussion turns to the crime.

During this initial conversation, the detective observes the suspect's reactions -- both verbal and non-verbal -- to establish a baseline reaction before the real stress begins. The detective will use this baseline later as a comparison point.

One method of creating a baseline involves asking questions that cause the suspect to access different parts of his brain. The detective asks non-threatening questions that require memory (simple recall) and questions that require thinking (creativity). When the suspect is remembering something, his eyes will often move to the right. This is just an outward manifestation of his brain activating the memory center. When he's thinking about something, his eyes might move upward or to the left, reflecting activation of the cognitive center. The detective makes a mental note of the suspect's eye activity.

Bad Move In the United States, as many as 80 percent of suspects waive their rights to silence and counsel, allowing police to conduct a full-scale interrogation.

The next step is to turn the questioning to the task at hand. The detective will ask basic questions about the crime and compare the suspect's reactions to the baseline to determine if the suspect is being truthful or deceptive. If the interrogator asks the suspect where he was the night of the crime and he answers truthfully, he'll be remembering, so his eyes may move to the right; if he's making up an alibi, he's thinking, so his eyes might move to the left. If the interrogator determines that the suspect's reactions indicate deception, and all other evidence points to guilt, the interrogation of a guilty suspect begins.

The Reid technique is the basis of the widely used "Criminal Interrogation and Confessions" manual we already mentioned. It lays out nine steps or issues guiding interrogation. Many of these steps overlap, and there is no such thing as a "typical" interrogation; but the Reid technique provides a blueprint of how a successful interrogation might unfold.

1. Confrontation
   The detective presents the facts of the case and informs the suspect of the evidence against him. This evidence might be real, or it might be made up. The detective typically states in a confident manner that the suspect is involved in the crime. The suspect's stress level starts increasing, and the interrogator may move around the room and invade the suspect's personal space to increase the discomfort.

If the suspect starts fidgeting, licking his lips and or grooming himself (running his hand through his hair, for instance), the detective takes these as indicators of deception and knows he's on the right track.
2. Theme development
   The interrogator creates a story about why the suspect committed the crime. Theme development is about looking through the eyes of the suspect to figure out why he did it, why he'd like to think he did it and what type of excuse might make him admit he did it. Does the suspect use any particular mode of reasoning more often than others? For example, does he seem willing to blame the victim? The detective lays out a theme, a story, that the suspect can latch on to in order to either excuse or justify his part in the crime, and the detective then observes the suspect to see if he likes the theme. Is he paying closer attention than before? Nodding his head? If so, the detective will continue to develop that theme; if not, he'll pick a new theme and start over. Theme development is in the background throughout the interrogation. When developing themes, the interrogator speaks in a soft, soothing voice to appear non-threatening and to lull the suspect into a false sense of security.

3. Stopping denials
   Letting the suspect deny his guilt will increase his confidence, so the detective tries to interrupt all denials, sometimes telling the suspect it'll be his turn to talk in a moment, but right now, he needs to listen. From the start of the interrogation, the detective watches for denials and stops the suspect before he can voice them. In addition to keeping the suspect's confidence low, stopping denials also helps quiet the suspect so he doesn't have a chance to ask for a lawyer. If there are no denials during theme development, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt. If initial attempts at denial slow down or stop during theme development, the interrogator knows he has found a good theme and that the suspect is getting closer to confessing.

4. Overcoming objections
   Once the interrogator has fully developed a theme that the suspect can relate to, the suspect may offer logic-based objections as opposed to simple denials, like "I could never rape somebody -- my sister was raped and I saw how much pain it caused. I would never do that to someone." The detective handles these differently than he does denials, because these objections can give him information to turn around and use against the suspect. The interrogator might say something like, "See, that's good, you're telling me you would never plan this, that it was out of your control. You care about women like your sister -- it was just a one-time mistake, not a recurring thing." If the detective does his job right, an objection ends up looking more like an admission of guilt.

5. Getting the suspect's attention
   At this point, the suspect should be frustrated and unsure of himself. He may be looking for someone to help him escape the situation. The interrogator tries to capitalize on that insecurity by pretending to be the suspect's ally. He'll try to appear even more sincere in his continued theme development, and he may get physically closer to the suspect to make it harder for the suspect to detach from the situation. The interrogator may offer physical gestures of camaraderie and concern, such as touching the suspect's shoulder or patting his back.

6. The suspect loses resolve
   If the suspect's body language indicates surrender -- his head in his hands, his elbows on his knees, his shoulders hunched -- the interrogator seizes the opportunity to start leading the suspect into confession. He'll start transitioning from theme development to motive alternatives (see the next step) that force the suspect to choose a reason why he committed the crime. At this stage, the interrogator makes every effort to establish eye contact with the suspect to increase the suspect's stress level and desire to escape. If, at this point, the suspect cries, the detective takes this as a positive indicator of guilt.

7. Alternatives
   The interrogator offers two contrasting motives for some aspect of the crime, sometimes beginning with a minor aspect so it's less threatening to the suspect. One alternative is socially acceptable ("It was a crime of passion"), and the other is morally repugnant ("You killed her for the money"). The detective builds up the contrast between the two alternatives until the suspect gives an indicator of choosing one, like a nod of the head or increased signs of surrender. Then, the detective speeds things up.

8. Bringing the suspect into the conversation
   Once the suspect chooses an alternative, the confession has begun. The interrogator encourages the suspect to talk about the crime and arranges for at least two people to witness the confession. One may be the second detective in room, and another may be brought in for the purpose of forcing the suspect to confess to a new detective -- having to confess to a new person increases the suspect's stress level and his desire to just sign a statement and get out of there. Bringing a new person into the room also forces the suspect to reassert his socially acceptable reason for the crime, reinforcing the idea that the confession is a done deal.

9. The confession
   The final stage of an interrogation is all about getting the confession admitted at trial. The interrogator will have the suspect write out his confession or state it on videotape. The suspect is usually willing to do anything at this point to escape the interrogation. The suspect confirms that his confession is voluntary, not coerced, and signs the statement in front of witnesses.

It should be noted here that if, at any point during the interrogation, the suspect does somehow manage to ask for a lawyer or invoke his right to silence, the interrogation has to stop immediately. That's why it's so important to interrupt the suspect's attempts to speak in the initial stages -- if he invokes his rights, the interrogation is over.

The steps we've laid out here represent some of the psychological techniques that detectives use to get confessions from suspects. But a real interrogation doesn't always follow the textbook. Next, let's take a look at an actual police interrogation that ended with an admissible confession.

Thoughts from Perspectives

The Perspectives course has been extremely valuable and has truly changed my perspectives. I will always remember the discussions of methods of evangelizing Muslims. The oval diagram was enlightening. It shows that the fundamental goal of Muslims, Christians, and Jews is “How do I enter the Kingdom of God?”

This led to musings about the foundational "milk" versus "meat" of Christianity. I understand that our eternal salvation, "going to heaven," is a function of God's gracious election and that it is certain. That is a done deal. But Jesus spent most of his time talking about the Kingdom of God. Although the physical Kingdom of God will manifest at his return, we can begin to experience the spiritual Kingdom right now, as we know Jesus and worship him in spirit and truth. Many scriptures state that the key to entering the Kingdom [as opposed to having eternal life] is loving God and God measures that love by how much we love others.

This leads to a broader view of the great commission. “make disciples” includes inviting them into the Kingdom. “baptize them in the name...” means to immerse them in God's name / reputation / glory: His compassion, grace, patience, abundant lovingkindness, truth, forgiveness, and justice.

This leads a new perspective on “church.” What is it, really, at the core? How much of what we do leads directly to the Kingdom and how much is a diversion? Do we expect that unbelievers will come to our church to be converted? Are we properly equipping the believers to actually do the work of the Kingdom or are we depending on paid staff? How much is western culture and tradition and how much is God? God views every person as a precious made-in-His-image being. Do we treat everyone that way? Are we going out of our way to find the oppressed and downtrodden? Our local organic ministries suddenly become more important: His Hands, Aid to Women, Serve The City, J-Street Outreach, etc.

The broken line in the diagram indicates that it is possible to know and love Jesus and to worship in spirit and truth without changing one's worship to a western style. What a new perspective!

Alex Pearson Election Video

Sept 17 2008

Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully - in Ten Minutes

by Stephen King (reprinted in Sylvia K. Burack, ed. The Writer's Handbook. Boston, MA: Writer, Inc., 1988: 3-9)

I. The First Introduction

THAT'S RIGHT. I know it sounds like an ad for some sleazy writers' school, but I really am going to tell you everything you need to pursue a successful and financially rewarding career writing fiction, and I really am going to do it in ten minutes, which is exactly how long it took me to learn. It will actually take you twenty minutes or so to read this essay, however, because I have to tell you a story, and then I have to write a second introduction. But these, I argue, should not count in the ten minutes.

II. The Story, or, How Stephen King Learned to Write

When I was a sophomore in high school, I did a sophomoric thing which got me in a pot of fairly hot water, as sophomoric didoes often do. I wrote and published a small satiric newspaper called The Village Vomit. In this little paper I lampooned a number of teachers at Lisbon (Maine) High School, where I was under instruction. These were not very gentle lampoons; they ranged from the scatological to the downright cruel.

Eventually, a copy of this little newspaper found its way into the hands of a faculty member, and since I had been unwise enough to put my name on it (a fault, some critics argue, of which I have still not been entirely cured), I was brought into the office. The sophisticated satirist had by that time reverted to what he really was: a fourteen-year-old kid who was shaking in his boots and wondering if he was going to get a suspension ... what we called "a three-day vacation" in those dim days of 1964.

I wasn't suspended. I was forced to make a number of apologies - they were warranted, but they still tasted like dog-dirt in my mouth - and spent a week in detention hall. And the guidance counselor arranged what he no doubt thought of as a more constructive channel for my talents. This was a job - contingent upon the editor's approval - writing sports for the Lisbon Enterprise, a twelve-page weekly of the sort with which any small-town resident will be familiar. This editor was the man who taught me everything I know about writing in ten minutes. His name was John Gould - not the famed New England humorist or the novelist who wrote The Greenleaf Fires, but a relative of both, I believe.

He told me he needed a sports writer and we could "try each other out" if I wanted.

I told him I knew more about advanced algebra than I did sports.

Gould nodded and said, "You'll learn."

I said I would at least try to learn. Gould gave me a huge roll of yellow paper and promised me a wage of 1/2¢ per word. The first two pieces I wrote had to do with a high school basketball game in which a member of my school team broke the Lisbon High scoring record. One of these pieces was straight reportage. The second was a feature article.

I brought them to Gould the day after the game, so he'd have them for the paper, which came out Fridays. He read the straight piece, made two minor corrections, and spiked it. Then he started in on the feature piece with a large black pen and taught me all I ever needed to know about my craft. I wish I still had the piece - it deserves to be framed, editorial corrections and all - but I can remember pretty well how it looked when he had finished with it. Here's an example:

(note: this is before the edit marks indicated on King's original copy)

Last night, in the well-loved gymnasium of Lisbon High School, partisans and Jay Hills fans alike were stunned by an athletic performance unequaled in school history: Bob Ransom, known as "Bullet" Bob for both his size and accuracy, scored thirty-seven points. He did it with grace and speed ... and he did it with an odd courtesy as well, committing only two personal fouls in his knight-like quest for a record which has eluded Lisbon thinclads since 1953....

(after edit marks)

Last night, in the Lisbon High School gymnasium, partisans and Jay Hills fans alike were stunned by an athletic performance unequaled in school history: Bob Ransom scored thirty-seven points. He did it with grace and speed ... and he did it with an odd courtesy as well, committing only two personal fouls in his quest for a record which has eluded Lisbon's basketball team since 1953....

When Gould finished marking up my copy in the manner I have indicated above, he looked up and must have seen something on my face. I think he must have thought it was horror, but it was not: it was revelation.

"I only took out the bad parts, you know," he said. "Most of it's pretty good."

"I know," I said, meaning both things: yes, most of it was good, and yes, he had only taken out the bad parts. "I won't do it again."

"If that's true," he said, "you'll never have to work again. You can do this for a living." Then he threw back his head and laughed.

And he was right; I am doing this for a living, and as long as I can keep on, I don't expect ever to have to work again.

III. The Second Introduction

All of what follows has been said before. If you are interested enough in writing to be a purchaser of this magazine, you will have either heard or read all (or almost all) of it before. Thousands of writing courses are taught across the United States each year; seminars are convened; guest lecturers talk, then answer questions, then drink as many gin and tonics as their expense-fees will allow, and it all boils down to what follows.

I am going to tell you these things again because often people will only listen - really listen - to someone who makes a lot of money doing the thing he's talking about. This is sad but true. And I told you the story above not to make myself sound like a character out of a Horatio Alger novel but to make a point: I saw, I listened, and I learned. Until that day in John Gould's little office, I had been writing first drafts of stories which might run 2,500 words. The second drafts were apt to run 3,300 words. Following that day, my 2,500-word first drafts became 2,200-word second drafts. And two years after that, I sold the first one.

So here it is, with all the bark stripped off. It'll take ten minutes to read, and you can apply it right away ... if you listen.

IV. Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully

1. Be talented

This, of course, is the killer. What is talent? I can hear someone shouting, and here we are, ready to get into a discussion right up there with "what is the meaning of life?" for weighty pronouncements and total uselessness. For the purposes of the beginning writer, talent may as well be defined as eventual success - publication and money. If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented.

Now some of you are really hollering. Some of you are calling me one crass money-fixated creep. And some of you are calling me bad names. Are you calling Harold Robbins talented? someone in one of the Great English Departments of America is screeching. V.C. Andrews? Theodore Dreiser? Or what about you, you dyslexic moron?

Nonsense. Worse than nonsense, off the subject. We're not talking about good or bad here. I'm interested in telling you how to get your stuff published, not in critical judgments of who's good or bad. As a rule the critical judgments come after the check's been spent, anyway. I have my own opinions, but most times I keep them to myself. People who are published steadily and are paid for what they are writing may be either saints or trollops, but they are clearly reaching a great many someones who want what they have. Ergo, they are communicating. Ergo, they are talented. The biggest part of writing successfully is being talented, and in the context of marketing, the only bad writer is one who doesn't get paid. If you're not talented, you won't succeed. And if you're not succeeding, you should know when to quit.

When is that? I don't know. It's different for each writer. Not after six rejection slips, certainly, nor after sixty. But after six hundred? Maybe. After six thousand? My friend, after six thousand pinks, it's time you tried painting or computer programming.

Further, almost every aspiring writer knows when he is getting warmer - you start getting little jotted notes on your rejection slips, or personal letters . . . maybe a commiserating phone call. It's lonely out there in the cold, but there are encouraging voices ... unless there is nothing in your words which warrants encouragement. I think you owe it to yourself to skip as much of the self-illusion as possible. If your eyes are open, you'll know which way to go ... or when to turn back.

2. Be neat

Type. Double-space. Use a nice heavy white paper, never that erasable onion-skin stuff. If you've marked up your manuscript a lot, do another draft.

3. Be self-critical

If you haven't marked up your manuscript a lot, you did a lazy job. Only God gets things right the first time. Don't be a slob.

4. Remove every extraneous word

You want to get up on a soapbox and preach? Fine. Get one and try your local park. You want to write for money? Get to the point. And if you remove all the excess garbage and discover you can't find the point, tear up what you wrote and start all over again . . . or try something new.

5. Never look at a reference book while doing a first draft

You want to write a story? Fine. Put away your dictionary, your encyclopedias, your World Almanac, and your thesaurus. Better yet, throw your thesaurus into the wastebasket. The only things creepier than a thesaurus are those little paperbacks college students too lazy to read the assigned novels buy around exam time. Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule. You think you might have misspelled a word? O.K., so here is your choice: either look it up in the dictionary, thereby making sure you have it right - and breaking your train of thought and the writer's trance in the bargain - or just spell it phonetically and correct it later. Why not? Did you think it was going to go somewhere? And if you need to know the largest city in Brazil and you find you don't have it in your head, why not write in Miami, or Cleveland? You can check it ... but later. When you sit down to write, write. Don't do anything else except go to the bathroom, and only do that if it absolutely cannot be put off.

6. Know the markets

Only a dimwit would send a story about giant vampire bats surrounding a high school to McCall's. Only a dimwit would send a tender story about a mother and daughter making up their differences on Christmas Eve to Playboy ... but people do it all the time. I'm not exaggerating; I have seen such stories in the slush piles of the actual magazines. If you write a good story, why send it out in an ignorant fashion? Would you send your kid out in a snowstorm dressed in Bermuda shorts and a tank top? If you like science fiction, read the magazines. If you want to write confession stories, read the magazines. And so on. It isn't just a matter of knowing what's right for the present story; you can begin to catch on, after awhile, to overall rhythms, editorial likes and dislikes, a magazine's entire slant. Sometimes your reading can influence the next story, and create a sale.

7. Write to entertain

Does this mean you can't write "serious fiction"? It does not. Somewhere along the line pernicious critics have invested the American reading and writing public with the idea that entertaining fiction and serious ideas do not overlap. This would have surprised Charles Dickens, not to mention Jane Austen, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Bernard Malamud, and hundreds of others. But your serious ideas must always serve your story, not the other way around. I repeat: if you want to preach, get a soapbox.

8. Ask yourself frequently, "Am I having fun?"

The answer needn't always be yes. But if it's always no, it's time for a new project or a new career.

9. How to evaluate criticism

Show your piece to a number of people - ten, let us say. Listen carefully to what they tell you. Smile and nod a lot. Then review what was said very carefully. If your critics are all telling you the same thing about some facet of your story - a plot twist that doesn't work, a character who rings false, stilted narrative, or half a dozen other possibles - change that facet. It doesn't matter if you really liked that twist of that character; if a lot of people are telling you something is wrong with you piece, it is. If seven or eight of them are hitting on that same thing, I'd still suggest changing it. But if everyone - or even most everyone - is criticizing something different, you can safely disregard what all of them say.

10. Observe all rules for proper submission

Return postage, self-addressed envelope, all of that.

11. An agent? Forget it. For now

Agents get 10% of monies earned by their clients. 10% of nothing is nothing. Agents also have to pay the rent. Beginning writers do not contribute to that or any other necessity of life. Flog your stories around yourself. If you've done a novel, send around query letters to publishers, one by one, and follow up with sample chapters and/or the manuscript complete. And remember Stephen King's First Rule of Writers and Agents, learned by bitter personal experience: You don't need one until you're making enough for someone to steal ... and if you're making that much, you'll be able to take your pick of good agents.

12. If it's bad, kill it

When it comes to people, mercy killing is against the law. When it comes to fiction, it is the law.

That's everything you need to know. And if you listened, you can write everything and anything you want. Now I believe I will wish you a pleasant day and sign off.

My ten minutes are up.

(The above article is copyright Stephen King, 1988)

This work is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license. Please send comments or questions to mike@mikeshea.net.

What would Sully do?

Excerpt from a posting in Politico by By: Eamon Javers
February 9, 2009 04:56 PM EST

Here are the top five lessons from the crash of flight 1549:

1. Don’t panic: Sullenberger told CBS’ Katie Couric that he immediately knew he was in a life-or-death situation: “It was the worst sickening pit-of-your-stomach, falling-through-the-floor feeling I’ve ever felt in my life,” he said. But he didn’t let that fear keep him from acting calmly and effectively. On the cockpit recording, Sullenberger’s tone of voice is even and controlled as disaster loomed.

Lesson: You can’t lead from the fetal position. There are both Democrats and Republicans who would prefer not to have to revisit the notion of a financial rescue package, especially after the debacle of the Troubled Assets Relief Program last year. Sully didn’t want to crash into the Hudson, either – but he didn’t have a choice.

2. There’s only one pilot at a time: The instant his engines cut out over New York City, Sullenberger turned to his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles, and said “my aircraft,” taking control of the airplane. Stiles responded quickly and simply: “your aircraft.” Notice what the two men did not do: They did not argue over who was in charge, or whose theory of crash landing was better. They had only one chance to get it right, and Sully was in the captain’s seat, so he made the call.

Lesson: Leaders have to be allowed to lead. The back and forth tussling we have seen between congressional Democrats and the White House over who’s responsible for certain planks in the stimulus bill is just the opposite of what we saw with Sully and Stiles.

3. Improvise, Improvise, Improvise: Sully cranked through a list of options with his co-pilot and with air traffic control. Return to La Guardia Airport? Couldn’t make it. Bear right toward Teterboro? Still too far. Sully weighed the advice he was getting, and made a unilateral decision, telling air traffic control simply: “We’ll be in the Hudson.”

Lesson: Weigh the options, and then move on. Sometimes, the worst choice on the table is the only one available. Both President Bush and President Obama have been making it up as they go along – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once called it: “bold, persistent experimentation.” For Congress, most economists agree, that means do something – this problem won’t solve itself without a lot of collateral damage.

4. Experts matter: Sullenberger was perhaps the ideal pilot to handle the Hudson landing: He’d flown for more than 19,000 hours, ran his own transportation safety consultancy, and had participated in several National Transportation Safety Board accident investigations. Contrast that with Washington, where all 535 lawmakers on Capitol Hill have an opinion – whether they know what they’re talking about or not. President Obama himself bemoaned this tendency in the stimulus process: “These days, everybody thinks they’re economists,” he joked.

Lesson: Some people are better qualified than others – sometimes you’re the pilot, and sometimes you’re the flight attendant.

5. Don’t worry about public opinion – success makes for great numbers: Couric asked Sullenberger whether he thought about the passengers while he was struggling to land the plane. Sully said, in essence, no. Instead, Sully was focused on the task immediately in front of him. “I knew I had to solve this problem,” he said.

Lesson: The passengers – and the American people – are along for the ride. As difficult as this is to swallow in a democracy, a fast-moving crisis simply doesn’t allow a lot of time for deliberation. Hesitation can mean disaster. Imagine Sully conducting an opinion poll – if asked, surely some of the passengers would have wanted him to try for Teterboro, some for La Guardia, and some for the water landing. By the time he’d decided what to do, it would be too late to do it. What’s more, it’s sometimes better to make a bad decision than none at all. After all, maybe Sully could have landed at Teterboro and saved a $60 million aircraft as well as the lives of the passengers and crew. We’ll never know. But debating the option any longer would surely have cost the lives and the plane.

Winning Every Time

How to Use the Skills of a Lawyer in the Trials of Your Life
by Lis Wiehl

Step 1. Know what you want; The theory of the Case

• Determine Position
• Avoid Red Herrings
• Define Your Goal

Step 2. Choose and Cultivate your audience; Voir Dire

• Who Are Your Potential Jurors? [Right Person? Authority to Decide? Any Bias?]
  
• What Are You Going to Ask? [Identify with you. Hot Buttons? Open Ended. Written List]
  
• When Are You Going to Make Your Case?
• Where Are You Going to Make Your Case?
• Why?
• How?
  

Step 3. Marshal your evidence: Discovery

• Ask People, Order Documents, Follow Leads
• List Direct Evidence
• List Circumstantial Evidence [Connect the Dots, Add Intuition, Conclude]
• Identify Prejudicial Evidence, usually Emotional
• Identify Evidentiary Killers
• Develop Written Trial Plan [Start with the second of two most important pieces of evidence, stack the others to build upon each other, End with the most important evidence]
  

Step 4. Advocate with confidence: Argue the Case

• Establish Your Theme and Set Your tone
• Plan: Open with your Theory; Preview the Evidence; Ask for the Outcome You Want
• Write Out Leading and Open-ended Questions
• Present Your Case: Theory, Evidence, Ask Questions of the Juror
• Summarize with the Strongest Piece of Evidence and Make the Ask
  

Step 5. Counter the claims: Cross Examination

• Few Questions; all Yes-or-No
• Impeach, Expose Non-Truth, and Discredit Hearsay
• Don't Repeat the Direct; Make Strongest Points First and Last
• End With an Ask for Agreement

Step 6. Stay true to your case: Avoid the seven deadly spins

• Digression
• Over-promising
• Adding Last Minute Charges
• Using Hearsay
• Making Subjective Characterizations
• Drawing False Inferences
• Expressing Uncontrolled Emotion
  

Step 7. Advocate with heart: Let me tell you a story

Step 8. Sum it up: The closing Argument

• Start with Your Hook
• Sum up Your Most Important Evidence
• Resolve Any Weaknesses
• Refer to Sympathetic Elements; "Do what is right."
• Justify and Ask for the Verdict You Want.

.

Keys to Keeping Long Term Donors

87 percent of long-term donors use two criteria in their donee selection:

1) Have my donations been acknowledgment?

2) Are my donations making an impact?

Do All Religions Lead to God?

By Kenneth Richard Samples

During the days following the catastrophic terrorist events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush called for a national day of prayer. He urged people of all faiths to pray for America. Interfaith religious services were televised from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. and from Yankee Stadium in New York. These services included clerics from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They offered prayers to the God collectively addressed as "the God of Abraham, the God of Muhammad, and the Father of Jesus Christ." Popular television personality Oprah Winfrey led the service held in New York City and boldly declared that all people pray to the same God.

Is Oprah right? Do Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus worship the same God? If so, people of all faiths can live peaceably in this world, can't they?

Religious pluralism is the view that all religions, certainly all major or ethical religions, are equally valid paths to God or to ultimate reality. For the pluralist, many religious roads lead to God and salvation. And yet, given the present cultural milieu of globalism, multiculturalism, relativism (in both truth and morality), and especially the postmodern spirit, the growing climate of religious pluralism poses a serious challenge to the integrity of the Christian faith.

Popular Religious Pluralism

Entering the twenty-first century, America embodies significant ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious diversity. Urban and suburban dwellers come from all parts of the globe. One's next-door neighbor to the right might come from Southeast Asia or Australia. The one to the left might originate from India, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. America, as a democratic nation, places great value on the principle of tolerance, especially the tolerance of religious expression. The Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, some people take the notion of equal toleration of religious expression to mean that all religions are equally true, thus equally valid paths to God. In effect, democracy has been applied to ultimate truth.¹ This seemingly "politically correct" approach to religion, though popular in this culture, represents deeply convoluted thinking. The acceptance of social pluralism (tolerance of diverse religious expression) does not logically imply the truth of metaphysical pluralism (that all religious truth claims are equally valid and simultaneously true).

Important Considerations

The popular notion that all religions are true ignores three imperative considerations. In order to think through and respond to the issue of religious pluralism, one must recognize and understand each of these points.

1. While the religions of the world do share some common beliefs and especially moral values, fundamental and irreconcilable differences clearly divide them on many crucially important issues, including the nature of God, the source and focus of revelation, the human predicament, the nature of salvation, and the destiny of mankind.² A plethora of views exists just concerning the nature of God (or ultimate reality). Some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others, polytheism (many gods); still others affirm pantheism (all is God); and some even affirm atheism (no God).³ In Judaism⁴ and Islam, God is personal (and singular); in Christianity God is clearly more than personal and singular (superpersonaland triune⁵); while in strands of Hinduism and Buddhism God is less than personal and singular (apersonal and diffuse).⁶

Some of the world's religious traditions view God as wholly transcendent (beyond the world), others as wholly immanent (within the world), and still others as both transcendent and immanent. Some religions view God as infinite in nature and nonidentifiable with the world, whereas in other religions God is finite and identified with the world. Clearly no universal agreement exists among the world's religions as to who or what God really is. As scholar Harold A. Netland states, "Careful examination of the basic tenets of the various religious traditions demonstrates that, far from teaching the same thing, the major religions have radically different perspectives on the religious ultimate."⁷

Identifying mankind's ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma must be resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment) creates other stark contrasts between religions. Fundamental differences exist between the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, and the dominant religion of the East, Hinduism. Christianity affirms that redemption in Christ for the believer involves an eternal personal relationship with God in the afterlife. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms a cycle of rebirths leading ultimately to the absorption of one's individual consciousness into God or ultimate reality. Those two visions of future reality are simply irreconcilable.⁸

2. The religions of the world are so diverse in belief and in worldview orientation that they defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. Indeed, this vast and complex array of religious perspectives makes religious reductionism a dubious venture altogether. Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath notes, "There is a growing consensus that it is seriously misleading to regard the various religious traditions of the world as variations on a single theme."⁹

Netland draws a similar conclusion about attempts to consolidate the religions according to a single salvific (relating to salvation) objective: "It is highly misleading to speak as if all religions share a common soteriological goal and simply differ on the means to reach it."¹⁰

Attempts to reduce a variety of religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting the religions. Homogenizing the religions is a costly price to pay to solve the problems of religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place. Moreover, the various religions do not easily conform to any particular reductionistic category.

While some rightly identify similar ethical values as a common motif, upon closer inspection it becomes evident that even the similar moral principles are motivated by, and grounded in, fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Religion cannot be reduced simply to ethics, for religion makes claims about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), to which ethics appeal for justification. The renowned authority on world religions, Cal Berkeley professor Huston Smith, clearly rejects the notion all religions are basically the same:

For as soon as [the notion of sameness] moves beyond vague generalities––'every religion has some version of the Golden Rule'––it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and nonnegotiable.¹¹

The similar ethical values shared by religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism cannot be separated from the distinctive doctrines promoted by those particular religions. This distinctiveness is especially true in terms of historic Christianity; for Christianity is not primarily a system of ethics. Instead, Christian ethics flow from a redemptive relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore the ethical teachings of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be separated from the unique Christian doctrines that emerge directly from the great redemptive events of Jesus' life (such as the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection). In other words, the truth of Christian ethics is tied to the truth of Christian theology.

3. Formal laws of logic demonstrate the impossibility that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction: A cannot equal A and non-A). For example, Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam). Contradictory religious claims have opposite truth value, meaning that they negate or deny each other. Therefore exactly one is true and the other false. And, accordingly, Jesus Christ must either be God incarnate or not be God incarnate; no middle position is possible (the law of excluded middle: either A or non-A).

Since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently, logically speaking, their conceptions simply can't all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false, they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the claims of popular religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. This fact led Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash to conclude that "any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible."¹²

Some people argue that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through some type of nonrational intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because in arguing against logic they must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. To do so is, of course, self-contradictory. As Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks point out, "Even those who claim, 'Logic does not apply to God,' use logic in that very statement."¹³

To divorce oneself from the self-evident laws of thought when it comes to ultimate reality is to resign oneself to irrationality. Netland explains a price too great for most people to pay because it requires the "forfeiture of the possibility of meaningful affirmation or statement about anything at all––including statements about the religious ultimate. One who rejects the principle of noncontradiction is reduced to utter silence, for he or she has abandoned a necessary condition for any coherent or meaningful position whatsoever."¹⁴

A Philosophical Approach to Pluralism

Some philosophers and religious scholars believe there is a way of making religious pluralism intellectually tenable. Could it be, perhaps, that the contradictions among the world's religions are only apparent rather than real? That is, maybe all the religions are experiencing the same divine reality but in different ways? After all, isn't an encounter with a mysterious and unfathomable God at the core of most religions? Surely God transcends the finite human mind.

The prominent pluralist thinker, John Hick,¹⁵ employs a common Eastern way of illustrating this point, called the elephant analogy. In this analogy, several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time. Each feels a different part of the animal, then attempts to determine truth about the essence of its being. One man pats a leg and sees the elephant as a "living pillar." Another man grasps the trunk and beholds a snake. The man who rubs the tusk believes the elephant to be a "sharp plough-share." Though each individual expresses one important aspect of the whole reality, none comprehends the complete entity.¹⁶

According to this analogy, one may attribute the differences among the world's religions to mankind's inability to grasp the infinite reality of God. Hick applies the famous Kantian objective/subjective distinction of the world as it is (the objective noumenal world), from the world as it appears to human consciousness (the subjective phenomenal world) to the problem of religious diversity. He argues that one must distinguish between ultimate reality as it is (the divine "noumena"), from ultimate reality as experienced by finite human beings (the divine phenomena).

Hick's pluralistic theory places the ultimate divine reality beyond the particular deities of the various religions. This divine ultimate is not experienced directly, but instead is filtered through the different historical and cultural lenses of mankind. Thus people encounter the same divine reality (Mohammed, Krishna, Jesus) differently because of their differing historical, cultural, or philosophical perceptions and biases. He further explains:

These different personae are thus partly projections of the divine Reality into human consciousness, and partly projections of the human consciousness itself as it has been formed by particular historical cultures.¹⁷

For Hick, each religion is valid because each faith provides a genuine (though obviously limited) encounter with ultimate reality. The world's religions represent "different 'faces' or 'masks' or personae of God, the Ultimate Reality."¹⁸ And, since Hick thinks that religion is ultimately about existential transformation (ethics) and not about specific doctrinal beliefs, then all religious paths are acceptable because all the major religions are capable of transforming a person from being "self-centered" to being "divine-centered." Hick views religious pluralism as a much more attractive hypothesis than either total "skepticism" of religion on one hand or traditional religious "dogmatism" on the other.

In response to Hick's philosophical pluralism, while his pluralistic vision appeals to many for both its apparent tolerance and its attempted unification of religion, it is nevertheless fraught with serious problems. An examination of Hick's views should begin with careful scrutiny of the elephant analogy.

In thinking about the elephant analogy, no one questions the reality of biases and limited knowledge on the part of mankind when encountering God, but these concessions do nothing to shore up this analogy's central weaknesses as it relates to pluralism. The elephant analogy seems to imply a radical skepticism concerning one's knowledge of God; namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily.¹⁹ But if God is by-and-large unknowable, then how is one able to know that God is unknowable?²⁰ In fact, for that matter, would one even know that God exists? How does Hick know so much about the inner workings of the incomprehensible ultimate reality? Especially since this ultimate reality—in Hick's view—does not reveal itself in nature nor in propositions.

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, it really succeeds in showing that all religions fail to adequately reveal God. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy demonstrates that all religions, at least in large measure, are false or misleading.²¹ The religions may indeed provide some core ethical values, but as was noted previously, these similar moral values are motivated by, and grounded in, essentially different views of the nature of reality. In religion, ethics cannot be divorced from metaphysical truth claims. What is good must be understood in light of what is real and true. Actions do not exist in a vacuum apart from truth.

The analogy is especially flawed, however, when viewed from the standpoint of historic orthodox Christianity. According to Christianity, God has personally entered the world of time and space in the historical person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14, 18). This same Jesus makes exclusive claims to divine authority and possesses the prerogatives of deity which are incompatible with the homogenizing and accommodating views of religious pluralists (e.g., John 8:58, 10:30).²²

To accommodate pluralism's unknowable God, Christianity would be forced to give up all of its distinctive doctrines, including the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Atonement. As Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath noted, "The identity of Christianity is inextricably linked with the uniqueness of Christ, which is in turn grounded in the Resurrection and Incarnation."²³ If the analogy were to reflect historic Christianity, one would find the elephant healing the men's blindness and personally introducing himself. For the Christian claim is that God is personally, intimately, uniquely, and decisively disclosed in the Jesus Christ.

For the elephant analogy to work and for religious pluralism to be true, the claims of historic Christianity must be false. For according to Jesus' words in the New Testament, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). "If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well" (John 14:7). Again, central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in the flesh and has been personally known among men.

The Apostle Paul's words directly summarize this central Christian truth: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). Moreover, a fair reading of the New Testament reveals that faith in Jesus Christ is considered the unique and only way of encountering God. "Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter declared concerning Jesus, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Hick's reasons for embracing religious pluralism over historic, orthodox Christianity (the faith of his youth) is found in his rejection of the Bible as a propositional revelation from God and in his conviction that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is both unhistorical and logically incoherent.²⁴ He argues vociferously that the Incarnation is a myth.²⁵ Hick also views historic Christianity's position of religious exclusivism as intellectually narrow and morally unacceptable. But Hick's bold rejection of the truth-claims of historic Christianity creates a logical problem for his broad pluralistic claim.

Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans points out that "it is an essential part of Christian faith that Jesus is God in a unique and exclusive way. It follows from this that all religions cannot be equally true. If all religions are equally true, then Christianity is false, and therefore not all religions are true."²⁶ In the end, the correct position must be one of these two: (1) Christianity and all other exclusive religions are wrong, and the rest of the religions, which are inclusive, are right; or (2) all religions are metaphysically wrong. In other words, what pluralism succeeds in doing is redefining religion along the line of ethical transformation and simply dismissing any concrete truth claims that might end up creating contradictions among the religions. In a very real sense a pluralist cannot take the truth claims of any religion seriously.

While some individuals believe that the exclusive claims of Christianity are provincial and arrogant, in reality their own pluralistic claims are dismissive of virtually all of a religions' distinctive features. Further, their view provides something other than a neutral or objective analysis of religion. For the idea of an unknowable ultimate reality is closely connected to an Eastern monistic understanding of the divine. Such proponents appear to be taking the greatly presumptuous position that they, unlike the religions of the world, really know the elephant.

Mythical Truth or Historical Truth

Pluralist thinkers such as Joseph Campbell have argued that all religions can be simultaneously true because all religions merely make mythical and/or poetical claims, not historical, factual truth-claims. This assertion of course means that the religions of the world are metaphorically true but literally false.²⁷

However, again, this view flies in the face of historic orthodox Christianity. Whether one is inclined to accept them or not, the truth-claims of Christianity are historical and factual in nature. Jesus of Nazareth was born under the reign of Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, and He suffered and died at the hands of an equally real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. The historic Christian faith consistently resists and defies all attempts to homogenize and mythologize its central truth-claims. The apostles saw Jesus' resurrection from the dead and reported it as an historical-factual event.

The apostle Peter proclaimed: "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet. 1:16).²⁸ According to the laws of logic and the historical veracity of Scripture, pluralism, no matter how popular, cannot be true.

References:

1. Peter Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 74-75; R.C. Sproul, Reason To Believe (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 35.
2. William L. Rowe, Philosophy of Religion, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), 174-75.
3. The most primitive form of Buddhism, "Theravada," is godless in belief.
4. Reference here is to the traditional adherents of Judaism. Some Jewish groups (Messianic Jews) retain their Jewish heritage and tradition but embrace Jesus Christ (Yeshua) as their Messiah and Savior.
5. This is reflected in the unique Christian doctrine of the Trinity according to which, the one true God exists eternally and simultaneously as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. With regard to the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, "Thinking About The Trinity: 'One What and Three Whos,'" Facts For Faith 3 (Q3 2000), 8-13.
6. Richard L. Purtill, Thinking About Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 105-6.
7. Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 37.
8. Rowe, 175.
9. Alister E. McGrath, An Introduction to Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 155.
10. Netland, 160.
11. Huston Smith, The World's Religions (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 245.
12. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 55. For a clear and insightful discussion of the formal laws of logic, see Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 103-12.
13. Norman L. Geisler, and Ronald M. Brooks. Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 15.
14. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 55.
15. Hick's works on pluralism include God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Macmillan, 1977) and Problems of Religious Pluralism, ed. (New York: St. Martin's, 1985).
16. Cited in Michael Peterson, et al., Reason & Religious Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 224.
17. John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 119.
18. John Hick. In More Than One Way?: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 39.
19. See C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking about Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).
20. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 36.
21. Michael Peterson, et al., Reason & Religious Belief, 226.
22. For an introduction and defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Kenneth Richard Samples, "Thinking About The Incarnation: The Divine Word Become Flesh," Facts For Faith 4 (Q4 2000): 34-41.
23. Alister E. McGrath, Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 119.
24. Hick, More Than One Way?, 29-59.
25. John Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM, 1977). For a philosophical defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).
26. C. Stephen Evans, Why Believe?: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 141.
27. See Douglas Groothuis's critique of Joseph Campbell's book The Power of Myth in the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1989, 28.
28. This article is an expansion of two other articles; see Kenneth R. Samples, "Responding To Religious Pluralism," Facts and Faith 12, no. 1, (1998), 12-14; and Kenneth R. Samples, "The Challenge of Religious Pluralism," Christian Research Journal (Summer 1990), 39.

Points to Remember

1. World religions defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme for example:
   — The nature of God––one God, many Gods, no God; singular, triune; personal, superpersonal, apersonal; immanent, transcendent, or both; finite or infinite.
   — Mankind's ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma is resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment).
2. Formal laws of logic make it impossible that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way.
3. Whenever the claims of one religion directly contradict (negate or deny) the claims of another religion, then both of these claims cannot be true. Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam).
4. A person arguing against logic must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. This is self-contradictory.
5. Unique and central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in theflesh and can be personally known among men.

The Right Way to Start a New Job -- And Leave Your Old One

From Tammy Erickson - Across the Ages
4:45 PM Friday December 12, 2008

I once hired someone to help me dig out of the morass of work that had been piling up all around. As then-manager of the company's largest division, I found myself overloaded with a host of primarily people issues - with little time to focus on my own research or clients.

The new guy stopped by my office right after signing all the requisite forms. "What are your top three issues?" he asked.

Hmmm. A bit of an odd start, but okay, I'll play along. I shared my top three headaches - all complicated issues with multiple constituencies and intricate ramifications to be sorted out. As I spoke he made a few scratchy notes on a little pad. When I finished, he didn't comment or ask a single question - just nodded and backed out the door.

Good grief. Obviously hiring this dude had been a major mistake and a total waste of time. I described three tasks and scared him off the property. I sigh, recognizing that I've just added a fourth major headache to my list.

To my amazement, he reappeared in my doorway at the end of the day. "Done," he said. "What are the next three?"

Now, I'm not exactly recommending that as the perfect way to start a new job - at a minimum, it created a bit of angst in the new boss - but I would say that in terms of making an impression - and not just a "good" impression, but one that will last over the decades - this guy was the master. Bar none, the best I've ever seen.

I've known others who come close. One day a senior professional came into my office and stuffed a document under my nose. It looked like a proposal draft and had a neat note on top: "Saw you were working on this; hope this will help. Russ" "Who exactly is Russ?" she demanded.

A new guy I hired a couple days ago. He had taken the initiative to identify projects key people were pursuing and, without asking, had spent nights preparing useful drafts - filled with ideas and possible approaches. Then he left them, gifts in the night, on the senior person's desk. He made an impression, too.

And I've seen equally many examples of people who leave companies badly. I still flinch at the memory of one person who quit after making extravagant promises and numerous commitments - leaving half finished projects with multiple loose ends, upcoming deadlines, and scheduled contributions - and spoke only of her urgent self-interest in moving on. If she had started her exodus with an offer to make sure the loose ends were tied off, her colleagues would have been impressed by her thoughtfulness and, I'm sure, worked with her to create a more-than-fair transition plan. Leaving without addressing open commitments almost insures that your colleagues' last impression of you will be negative. The biggest mistake people make when they depart is focusing only on their own agenda, leaving the human beings left behind high and dry.

In contrast, people who leave well are the ones who go out of their way to touch base with colleagues to make sure that everyone has everything they need going forward. They make sure you feel that even though they are leaving, they continue to wish you and the company success.

In today's economy, the reality is that many of us are likely to be coming and going over the upcoming months - leaving firms, joining firm - of our own volition, or that of others. Whenever you do, those first few and last few weeks are critically important. You have great opportunity for upside when you arrive and tremendous potential for downside when you leave. You do more to shape your reputation, for the good or the bad, in the way you come and the way you go, than just about anything else you do.

Here is my fundamental philosophy: both of these periods are times when your primary focus must be (or at least must appear to be) firmly fixed on the company and your colleagues. Both of these are times when the phrases "what do you need?" and "how can I help?" should be the questions that everyone hears most clearly. Neither are times to talk about yourself and what you want. They are both times to give back. You'll be repaid many times over in terms of the reputation you build.

10 Overused Words in Writing

David Bowman, Owner and Chief Editor of Precise Edit, wrote this article.
(c) Copyright 2008, by Precise Edit

All words are good words. Some, however, are overused without adding value to what you write. As a result, they reduce the readers’ interest, make text seem redundant, and cause the writer to appear amateurish.

We have created a list of 10 overused words, based on the documents we have edited over the last 5 years. We don’t recommend that you remove these words from your writing. Instead, we recommend that you become aware of how often you use them and that you revise your documents to limit their use.

1. There
When writers are not sure about the subjects of their sentences, they will often use this word as the subject. This results in weak writing. (For advice on correcting this problem, see our article “Where Is There?”)

Example: “There was no one at home.” This can be revised as “No one was at home.”

2. You
Writers often use this word when referring to general or reoccurring situations. “You” rarely refers to the reader and should be avoided.

Example: “Our grandmother was nice. She always gave you candy.” This can be revised as “Our grandmother was nice. She always gave us candy.”

3. If
Although “if” is a fine word, it is overused by writers trying to describe options and thought processes.

Example: “If she took the bus, she wouldn’t have time to stop by the grocery store.” This can be revised as “Taking the bus would leave her too little time to stop by the grocery store.”

4. When
Readers realize that actions can occur at the same time, which is what the word “when” indicates. Thus, “when” is usually unnecessary.

Example: “When she opened the door, she saw blood on the floor.” This can be revised as “She opened the door and saw the blood on the floor.” Some writers use “when” to describe actions that cannot occur at the same time, as in “When she woke up, she made coffee.” Actually, she first wakes up and then makes the coffee. This can be revised as “She woke up and made the coffee.”

5. As
We once worked on a book in which the author used this word repeatedly to describe the timing of actions, often 3 or 4 times in one paragraph.

Example: “He was shouting ‘Follow me!’ as he ran down the road.” This can be revised as “He ran down the road shouting ‘Follow me!’ ”

6. Very
Mark Twain made this comment about using “very”: “Substitute ‘damn’ every time you're inclined to write ‘very’; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.” “Very” is a crutch for finding the right word to describe what you mean to say. Find the right word.

Example: “He was very old.” This can be revised as “He was ancient.”

Also, in this example, you can simply write, “He was old,” and then provide text to further explain what you mean by “old.” For example, you could write, “He was old. He walked hesitantly, knowing that his brittle bones would surely break were he to stumble over an unseen obstacle.”

7. Really
Generally, this word can be removed without changing the meaning of a sentence. Anything that is true is also really true.

Example: “He was really nervous about speaking in public.” This can be revised as “He was nervous about speaking in public.” To show a greater degree, use a different word, as in “He was panicky about speaking in public” or “Public speaking scared him.”

8. Am/Is/Are/Was/Were (“to be” verbs)
Action verbs are always preferable to state-of-being verbs. Use words that describe the action occurring. Rather than saying what something/someone is, show the reader what something/someone does.

Example: “I am envious of her success.” This can be revised as “I envy her success.”

Example: “She was dressed in leather chaps and a flannel shirt.” This can be revised as “She wore leather chaps and a flannel shirt.”

9. So
See #7. “So” is also overused as a conjunction.

Example: “Her face was inches from his own, so he leaned forward and kissed her.” This can be revised as “Her face was inches from his own. He leaned forward and kissed her.”

10. Because
This word is overused to provide explanations. To fix this, use the word “and” with action verbs.

Example: “He wanted to go to the fair because his friends would be there.” This can be revised as “He wanted to go to the fair and meet with his friends.”

Example: “I want to leave because I am tired.” This can be revised as “I’m tired and want to leave.”