text:
Fifteen Ways to Write a Novel
Every year I get asked what I think about NaNoWriMo, and I don't know how to answer, because I don't want to say, "I think it makes you write a bad novel."
This is kind of the point. You're supposed to churn out 50,000 words in one month, and by the end you have a goddamn novel, one you wouldn't have otherwise. If it's not Shakespeare, it's still a goddamn novel. The NaNoWriMo FAQ says: "Aiming low is the best way to succeed," where "succeed" means "write a goddamn novel."
I find it hard to write a goddamn novel. I can do it, but it's not very fun. The end product is not much fun to read, either. I have different techniques. I thought I should wait until the end of November, when a few alternatives might be of interest to those people who, like me, found it really hard to write a goddamn novel, and those people who found it worked for them could happily ignore me.
Some of these methods I use a lot, some only when I'm stuck. Some I never use, but maybe they'll work for you. If there were a single method of writing great books, we'd all be doing it.
The Word Target
What: You don't let yourself leave the keyboard each day until you've hit 2,000 words.
Why: It gets you started. You stop fretting over whether your words are perfect, which you shouldn't be doing in a first draft. It captures your initial burst of creative energy. It gets you to the end of a first draft in only two or three months. If you can consistently hit your daily target, you feel awesome and motivated.
Why Not: It can leave you too exhausted to spend any non-writing time thinking about your story. It encourages you to pounce on adequate ideas rather than give them time to turn into great ones. It encourages you to use many words instead of few. If you take a wrong turn, you can go a long way before you realize it. It can make you feel like a failure as a writer when the problem is that you're trying to animate a corpse. It can make you dread writing.
The Word Ceiling
What: You write no more than 500 words per day.
Why: You force yourself to finish before you really want to, which makes you spend the rest of the day thinking about getting back to the story, which often produces good new ideas. You feel good about yourself even if you only produced a few hundred words that day. You don't beat yourself up about one or two bad writing days. You give yourself time to turn good ideas into great ones. Writing feels less like hard work. (More on this.)
Why Not: It takes longer (six months or more). It can be difficult to work on the same idea for a very long time. It may take so long that you give up.
The Coffee Shop
What: You take your laptop, order a coffee, and compose your masterpiece in public.
Why: It gets you out of the house, which may help to break a funk. You're less likely to goof off if people are watching. It feels kind of cool.
Why Not: It's extremely distracting. You look like a dick. You lose a deceptively large amount of time to non-writing activities (getting there, setting up, ordering coffees, considering bagels…).
What: You go to your own particular writing place and close the door on the world.
Why: It removes distractions. It can feel like a special, magical retreat, where you compose great fictions (particularly if it's somewhere you only use for writing, not checking email, doing your taxes, and leveling your Warlock).
Why Not: You may not have one. You may find it depressing if you've had a tough time writing lately. You can end up fussing over making your Writing Place perfect instead of writing.
The Burst
What: You write in patches of 30-60 minutes. When you feel your concentration flag, you go do something else for 30 minutes, then return.
Why: It freshens you up. You find solutions to difficult story problems pop into your head after a breather. You can find time to write more easily, knowing you're only sitting down for a short while. When you're "running out of time," you can feel energized and write very quickly.
Why Not: It's more difficult to sink into the zone if you know another activity is just around the corner. It can encourage you to look for excuses to stop writing. It discourages more thoughtful writing.
The Immersion
What: You pull out the network cord, turn off the phone, and write in blocks of four hours.
Why: It eliminates distractions. You can relax knowing that you have plenty of time to write. It encourages thoughtful writing.
Why Not: You can wind up grinding. You can feel reluctant to start writing, knowing that such a huge block of time awaits.
The Intoxicant
What: You consume alcohol, narcotic, or caffeine before writing.
Why: Dude, those words just gush.
Why Not: You may be part of the 99.9% of the population that writes self-indulgent gibberish.
Sidenote: There is no case of writer's block that can't be cured with enough caffeine.
The Headphones
What: You strap on headphones and crank up the volume.
Why: It's inspiring. It can quickly put you in the right frame of mind for a scene. It can block out other noise that would otherwise be distracting.
Why Not: You can't think as clearly. You can be misled into thinking you're writing a powerful/exciting/tragic scene when in fact it's just the music.
The Break of Dawn
What: You wake, walk directly to your computer, and write.
Why: Your mind is at its clearest and most creative. You haven't started thinking about the real world yet. Your body is not fuzzing your mind with digestion. If you write for a while, you develop a hunger dizziness that's mildly stimulating. (This can be combined with coffee.)
Why Not: You may not be a morning person. You may only be able to write for a short while before becoming too hungry to continue. Your lifestyle may not permit it.
The Dead of Night
What: You write at night, after everyone's gone to sleep.
Why: It feels kind of cool. It's often a reliable distraction-free time. You can often be in a fairly clear, creative frame of mind.
Why Not: You may only be able to write for a short while before becoming too tired to write coherently. You may be too tired to repeat the process regularly. You may not be a night person.
The Jigsaw
What: You start writing the scenes (or pieces of scenes) that interest you the most, and don't worry about connecting them until later.
Why: You capture the initial energy of ideas. You can avoid becoming derailed by detail. You make sure your novel revolves around your big ideas.
Why Not: It can be difficult to figure out how to connect the scenes after the fact. You need to rewrite heavily in order to incorporate ideas you had later for earlier sections. Your characters can be shakier because you wrote scenes for them before you knew the journey they'd make to get there.
The End-to-End
What: You start at the beginning and write the entire thing in sequence.
Why: You see the story as a reader will. You feel more confident about your characterizations, pacing, and logical progression of plot. It's simpler.
Why Not: You can become bogged down in boring sections you think are necessary to set-up good stuff (not realizing yet that you don't need those boring sections, or that they can be far shorter than you think). You can wind up far from where you intended to go, never finding a place for those initial ideas. (This may not be a bad thing.)
What: You sketch out plot, characters, and turning points before you start writing.
Why: You feel like you know what you're doing. You can feel excited because you know big stuff is coming. You tend to produce a better structure, with larger character arcs and clearer plot twists.
Why Not: What seems like a brilliant idea for an ending on day 1 can seem trite on day 150, when you understand the characters and story better. You feel pressure to make your characters do implausible things in order to fit your outline. You can close yourself off to better ideas. You can become bored because you already know what's going to happen.
What: You start writing with no real idea of where you'll wind up.
Why: It's exciting. Discovering a story as you write it is one of life's great joys. Your characters have freedom to act more naturally and drive the story, rather than be bumped around by plot.
Why Not: You can end up nowhere very interesting. You tend to write smaller, more realistic stories, which may not be what you want.
The Restart
What: You abandon the story you're working on, even though you know it's brilliant and the idea is perfect but GODDAMN it is driving you insane for some reason
Why: It's a bad idea. There might be a good idea inside it somewhere, but you've surrounded it with bad characters or plot or setting or something and the only way to salvage it is to let all that other stuff go.
Why Not: While loss of motivation is always, always, always because the story isn't good enough, and some part of you knows it, you rarely need to throw away the whole thing. Often deleting the last sentence, paragraph, or scene is enough to spark ideas about new directions. Sometimes you only need to give up a plan for the future. Changing your mind about where you're going can allow you to write the story you really want. (More on this.)
18 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Fifteen Ways to Write a Novel
Famous Friend
Some people think it must be cool to have a famous friend. You're imagining hanging with someone like, say, Keanu, and Keanu telling you things he doesn't tell anyone else, and you ragging on him for sucking at PlayStation. That would be cool. But what it's actually like is one of your friends—your real friends, say your best friend—and he's exactly the same only everyone thinks he's wonderful. Do you see how annoying that is? Because, sure, he's a good guy, but he's not perfect. He's not God. But now everyone fawns over him and tells you how lucky you are to know him. That's why they pay attention to you: because you might help them get closer to him. And whenever you spend time with him, just the two of you, you both know he could be somewhere else, listening to people flatter him or take him cool places for free or sleep with him, because he's famous. Being friends with a famous person is the worst. And that's why when the magazines come sniffing around, asking just off the record, just for background, is he really happy, and does he drink or ever do drugs, and did he really hit that girl, you tell them everything.
20 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Famous Friend
Ayn Rand and a Hint
The New Yorker published one of my short stories in full without even asking. That's a gross copyright violation. I'm thinking of suing. Admittedly, the story is only 25 words long. But still. They broke the ten percent rule. Two and a half words would have been okay. "She walks i." I'd have no problem with that.
So now The New Yorker has stolen my livelihood, there's no reason for you to buy the book it's published in, Hint Fiction. Unless you would like to read 150 or so stories by the other contributors. I guess that's a good reason. The deal is they are all hints: 25 words or fewer, not self-contained stories but rather suggestions of larger tales. There are some more examples, by which I mean copyright violations, in The New Yorker article, and you can pick up the book, published today in the US & Canada, here or here.
If you are in Australia, I'm on TV tonight, talking about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Actually, I'm doing that no matter where you are. You can't affect it. I'm also discussing Freedom by Jonathan Franzen. I mention the Rand book first because it's the one people will send me emails about.
Here's the thing with Atlas Shrugged. It's eleven hundred pages of brilliant, beautiful, go-getter industrialists talking to stupid, grasping, corrupt collectivists, set in a world where only half the laws of economics apply. The character names change but nothing else. Otherwise, it's not bad. No, I lie. Even setting that aside, it's terrible. I felt like Ayn Rand cornered me at a party, and three minutes in I found my first objection to what she was saying, but she kept talking without interruption for ten more days.
It's not a novel so much as a manifesto, and, I think, impossible to enjoy unless you're at least a little on board for the philosophy, and it's hard to be on board for the philosophy if you understand economics or see a moral problem with starving poor people. I realize many believe fervently in the philosophy. They email me. And I don't think it's one hundred percent bogus. But it demands that you choose between no government or total government, and I think all such extremes have similarly extreme problems.
Freedom is good, though.
22 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Ayn Rand and a Hint
Darren Aronofsky to Direct Machine Man
You know how I feel about film deals. At first, sure, everyone's excited. It's going to be the greatest movie ever made. You'll be walking down the red carpet in no time, Max. You'll be doing blow off the naked backs of strung-out starlets. But a few years later, and you know what? No starlets. Not one.
Not that it's all about the starlets. I'm happily married. I'm just saying, it would be nice to be offered starlets. The point is, I have discovered that there's a lot that can derail a project between sign-on and starlets. In fact, starlets seem to be the exception. Most of the time, the movie never happens.
So when the Machine Man deal happened, I tried to steel myself. "Meh," I told people. "Not as glamorous as it sounds. Probably never go anywhere." A few months ago, I heard Darren Aronofsky was interested in directing. "Yeah, there's always a big name who's interested," I said. "Everyone's always interested." Then he signed on. And today it's public, being reported in Hollywood Reporter and Variety.
Now, Aronofsky is possibly the greatest director in the world. By which I mean, if you wrote a book or a screenplay, and you wanted someone to make it into a film, you would choose him. Because many people can do smart and unsettling and entertaining, but not usually all at once.
His newest film is "Black Swan," which premieres in the US on December 3. It's written by Mark Heyman, who is also on board for Machine Man. So I'm basically hoping Black Swan is the best movie of all time.
It is getting harder to stay cool about this.
By the way, Aronofsky was involved with the Robocop remake before the studio imploded. So do you think he walked away with a head full of unrealized ideas about bioaugmentation or what?
24 comments | MaxBarry.com › Machine Man	› Darren Aronofsky to Direct Machine Man
Chandelier, Illuminated
My baby SUCKS. Really well. That's important. It took her a few days to get the hang of it. But now: awesome at sucking. I'm so proud of her.
It started like this: at 2am Tuesday Jen woke me to say her waters had broken. I was confused, because we were scheduled for a Caesarean delivery at 9am, had Jen forgotten? She wasn't supposed to labor. This must be some kind of miscommunication. But no. The baby was coming. She'd heard she was to be born today and decided to take charge.
Off to the hospital we went. Fifty-two minutes before the time we had booked four months ago, she arrived: Matilda Margrett Barry, weighing 8lb 11oz, dazzling onlookers with her rich thatch of red hair.
The smell. The smell! I had forgotten how good this was. She smells like distilled contentment.
Matilda is strong and likes to have her hands near her face. Because of this, sometimes she facepalms. I have to get a photo of that and release it on the internet. She had a restless first few days, but now the sucking is under control, has been happy and very snuggly. She snuffles and snorts. Her big sister Finlay, who turned five yesterday by the way, can you believe that? Her big sister is super-super excited. Look at that smile. There's ownership.
Today we arrived home. It's been a great day. I wish you all this kind of happiness.
P.S. I once wrote a blog about how before I named my next child, I would make sure the domain name was available. Well, I completely forgot about this until Day 3 in the hospital, long after tweeting her arrival. The five panicked minutes between realizing this and securing matildabarry.com were the most nerve-wracking part of the entire experience.
28 comments | MaxBarry.com › Max	› Chandelier, Illuminated
Max! Does! Stuff!
Here is a short story! Not by me. Oh. Sorry. You thought… you're right, that was confusing. No, this is by Sean Silleck. He's nobody. I say that with the deepest respect. I mean he's only had one thing published and this is it. But check it out: it's like something I would write, if I was having a really good day. I mean, eerily so. It's like the guy is hanging around my house after dark, going through my trash. I'm not saying he is. I'm not saying anything until the police have finished their investigation. But really. Eerie.
I swapped a few emails with Sean and it turns out he's never heard of me in his life. That was kind of disappointing. I was all excited that I had inspired a bright young talent. But no. Apparently I'm just working with ideas so obvious that anyone can have them.
Speaking of shorts, I'm judging a short story contest! You can win $1,500 just by writing the kind of thing you already know I like. It's practically rigged in your favor. Although you do have to be Australian. I suppose that's the catch.
If you're not Australian, I still have something for you. Wait. No, this is local, too. Wow. This blog is just getting more and more pointless for you. But anyway, I'm rocking out the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne next week with the Writer's Mix Tape. The idea is I bring along a CD of significant/pumping tunes and play them and talk about why what they mean and finish with an awesome breakdance. It's something like that. I'm there with Rob Jan of RRR radio. You should be, too. Unless you live thousands of miles away. In which case I'm very sorry for wasting your time. As you were.
7 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Max! Does! Stuff!
I shaved my head totally bald and the skin is so baby-smooth I can't stop touching it. That's not relevant to anything. I don't know why I brought it up. But seriously. Baby-smooth.
So I didn't blog or go on Facebook or Twitter for six weeks and you know what? It was kind of good. It was like walking into the desert and rediscovering Nature. It was like being born again. It was like looking at a photo of who I used to be.
No, not really. It was pretty much like this, only I had more free time and hadn't heard of Zach Anner.
I have been doing lots of writing. The last big Machine Man novel rewrite is almost finished, and I started something new. I was planning another serial, but this kind of grabbed me and it's not at all serial-like. So now I'm not sure about serials. I'll see where I am in three months.
Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I'm here and writing and I know who Zach Anner is. Also: baby-smooth.
15 comments | MaxBarry.com › Max	› Walkabout
Mind of the Agent
I remember when I was desperate to find a girl but had no idea what they wanted. I knew what I wanted. I wanted them to take delivery of my package. But how to convince them? What did they want from me? Where could I find one with a good reputation, who didn't charge fees?
Wait, did I say girl? I meant literary agent. I couldn't find a literary agent.
Now there are tons of sites about literary agents. Some are by agents. My favorite is Nathan Bransford of Curtis Brown, but there are plenty to choose from. There's no longer any excuse for not knowing at least a little about how an agent's mind works: what they're looking for, how to approach them.
Still, the other day I received an email from a writer facing a quandary:
A Literary Agent has given me a favourable reply (ie: wants to see my entire manuscript from a lousy query letter), so I immediately panicked and sent it to a "professional editing" service (one listed on Australian Literary Agents Website) for a final Mr Sheening. Do Literary Agents have a time limit before they get miffed if you don't send manuscript by return email? The Editing Service assures me that I have two months (?) to submit, as they have not started it yet, but "it is on the top of their pile".
Yours in awe
Usually I can't respond to emails, but I make an exception for those that sign off, "Yours in awe." So I replied, and then I thought I might as well post my response here, because it was just that good. Or possibly not, but what the hell, it's not like I'm forcing you to keep reading.
Hi Elle!
This is why you don't query agents until your book is ready, of course. But I know it happens. I queried a few agents with my first novel then freaked out because what if they wanted to see it? I think I did lightning rewrites every time someone responded.
I see two issues. The first is: Are you damaging your chances if you don't respond to an agent immediately? If we were talking about American agents, I'd say, "Maybe." Most reputable American agents receive more queries than they can remember, and might not notice whether it's been two weeks or two months since they asked to see yours. But they might.
For an Australian agent I'd say, "Probably." They deal with far fewer writers and are more likely to wonder what's going on.
But either way, I'd send them that manuscript. Agents want reliable clients, and if the first thing you do is delay, they'll worry you are one of those writers who are forever six months away from finishing their next book. For this reason you should not reply with some pathetic story about how you thought your book was ready but now you think about it can you please have a few more months. Don't do that.
You are worried that your book could be better; well, it probably could. They all could. Do you think yours has little flaws or big ones? If they're minor, they're unlikely to dissuade an editor who otherwise loves your work, and if they're major, you're dead no matter what: dead if you send in that piece of crap, dead if you wait for two months only to discover from this editing service that you need to spend six more on rewrites.
Speaking of which. There are very fine freelance editors out there but I don't like the concept. In particular I think it's bad for amateur writers with no idea what's good and bad about their book to consult a freelance editor in the hope that this expert can explain it. It's bad because (a) to rewrite well you need to completely believe in what you're doing. Receiving advice you don't really understand or agree with but feel compelled to follow anyway because it's coming from an expert will crush everything unique and valuable about your book.
And (b) some freelance editors are delusional psychopaths.
By my reckoning, about one in four pieces of literary feedback are so wide of the mark they're not just unhelpful but destructive. They want your book to be more like a completely different type of book, or prostrate itself before the altar of Strunk & White, or not imply things about hot-button issues you never even thought of, or go into depth about things nobody cares about, or not do this mildly felonious thing that someone tore strips off them for at their last story workshop, or stop reminding them of their ex-wife.
I'm talking about feedback from other writers and readers, rather than editors; you would hope freelance editors are less delusional than writers. But I don't know. Why take the risk? This is why I advocate quantity: get your ms. read by at least eight or ten people before you show it to anyone in the industry. Enough to identify the outliers.
More on this here.
Obviously I haven't read your manuscript (that wasn't an invitation). I don't know which editing service you've selected, or how experienced you are, or whether you've workshopped it already. But based on what I know: send it. You're more likely to hurt yourself by not sending it than you are to help yourself by delaying for months in order to maybe improve it but maybe not.
10 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Mind of the Agent
If you blink really fast it kind of moves
Who do I have to hug to get a Jennifer Government movie made, that's what I want to know. It's been like seven years. Yeah, yeah, it's hard to make a story work in 100 minutes when you've got six major characters and nine interconnected plots. Boo hoo. You know what that sounds like? "I'm a crappy screenwriter."
In the meantime, here's something almost as good: a wallpaper! I stumbled across this a year ago but it took that long to track down the original artist: it started as a sketch by Patrick Shettlesworth that had nothing to do with Jennifer Government until lordkelvos of deviantART reworked it and added a barcode tattoo, which I stuck in front of a background designed by Michael J. Windsor. That's three different people who can now sue me for copyright infringement. But at least two of them said it was okay so here you go:
It may help you enjoy this image if you imagine you're a teenage boy. I don't need to do that. But you might. Here it is in different sizes: 1920x1200 (widescreen), 1280x800 (widescreen), 1440x900 (widescreen), 1600x1200, 1024x768.
27 comments | MaxBarry.com › Jennifer Government	› If you blink really fast it kind of moves
My Stupid Industry
Lately the publishing industry has been trying to commit suicide over electronic rights. It's funny because every time in history a revolutionary new way to do business comes along, the first instinct of all established players is to strangle themselves with it. Movie studios fought the VCR. Microsoft fought the Internet. The music industry fought MP3s. TV networks are fighting PVRs. Eventually, these turn into important markets, fully embraced by the companies that tried to kill them. But until then everyone spends a lot of time throwing lawyers at anything that doesn't look like a traditional business model.
The first e-madness was DRM, of course. That's the code they wrapped around electronic books to ensure they couldn't be pirated. Well. "Ensure" is a big word. I'm not sure that any piece of DRM in history has survived an interested hacker. What it did ensure was a steady trickle of emails to my inbox from people who couldn't find an electronic copy of Jennifer Government in the right format for their device, or could but after they paid their money it didn't work.
Next came e-delays, where publishers held back electronic versions for four months following print publication. "The right place for the e-book is after the hardcover but before the paperback," said Simon & Schuster CEO Carolyn Reidy. This is a brave counterpoint to the more common wisdom that the right place for selling something is wherever customers want to buy it. So we were not just restricting e-books to particular formats within particular territories, but also to particular windows of time.
But that wasn't enough. Publishers didn't like the fact that Amazon.com started selling e-books for $9.99 each. (They thought that was too cheap, if you're wondering.) It didn't affect publishers' margins, nor authors' royalties, since Amazon.com was selling below cost to promote its Kindle platform. But still, publishers were uncomfortable with the idea of books being that cheap. So they went to war and forced Amazon.com to bump up prices to $13-$15, in exchange for taking a lower royalty on each sale.
Let's review. Amazon.com was eating it in order to allow you to buy books for ten bucks, instead of twenty or thirty, while paying authors the same royalty. Publisher intervenes, and now books are more expensive for you, while the author gets less. Also, the publisher gets less. Oh, and I didn't mention this, but during the war, Amazon.com took down all the "Buy" buttons for Macmillan books, so you definitely couldn't buy them no matter how much you wanted to and nobody made any money at all.
I won't say it's impossible for an industry to push retail prices up while pushing their own margins down and be successful. I'll just say that's not the way it usually works. Also, as a general rule, when customers want to buy a product, it usually works out best if the company lets them. I don't think there have been too many examples of companies making money while refusing to sell their products in the formats their customers want while also forcing retailers to charge more and pocketing less themselves. I'm not sure. But that's my feeling.
Meanwhile, rocked by the Global Calamitous Money Disappearing Event, publishers began cutting back what they do. Ten years ago, a publisher gave hopeful authors editorial advice, a printing service, a promotional budget, and access to bricks and mortar bookstores. There was really no viable alternative, short of becoming a small publisher yourself. To become a successful author, you needed a publisher.
Today, the promotional budget is more likely to involve encouragement to do something on the internet rather than a book tour. Publishers are still fantastic at getting you into bookstores, and physical books still comprise the vast majority of the market: you need them for this. But in e-books, you can click "Export to EPUB" as easily as they can, and without giving up 75% of revenue.
Also, publishers are getting less willing to make risky bets. Instead of taking an unknown author and striving to find her an audience, they want authors to establish their own audience in advance, via a website or similar.
Now, publishing is full of terrific, smart people who love books and want to promote authors. I haven't met a single person in publishing I didn't like. I even love my old Viking editor, who dumped me via relayed e-mail message. I forgive you, Carolyn. I really do. But the people in charge there are trying to sue the VCR. If publishing gets tomorrow everything it wants today, it will be smaller and less relevant. Imagine the world in in ten years, when e-books are 50% of the market: What will publishers offer authors? Not the ability to find an audience, if they're pushing that onto authors. Not the distribution network: anyone can get their book into an electronic store. Not promotion; or at least, not much of it. That leaves editorial and distribution of hard copy. Not to be sneezed at, for sure. Editorial in particular is often the difference between a great book and a mediocre one; I can attest to that. But if I've got a web site and a hundred thousand visitors, I'd think seriously about whether editorial and print is worth giving up 90% of my income. I would, at the least, drive a harder bargain with a publisher than if they were providing more services I really needed.
The publishing industry is trying to think long-term, like every industry that faced a revolutionary change before it. But please, this time, can we not batter ourselves to death? It's not that complicated, Publishing. I write stories. I want people to read them. I want as many people to read them in whatever format they want, wherever they want, as cheaply as possible, while I earn a living. I don't want lower royalties in exchange for higher retail prices. That's the opposite of what I want. I don't want to get emails from people saying they wanted to buy my e-book but they couldn't because it wasn't available or didn't work. This is text. It's not hard to put text on an electronic device. It's only hard because you make it.
37 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› My Stupid Industry
Fiction For Short Attention Oh Look At That Laughing Dog
Since I got a iPhone, my bedside table has turned into a tower of books. It was always pretty bad. But now it's worse. Look at that. It's a fire hazard. One day I'll toss a cigarette in there and it'll be a conflagration. Not that I smoke. That's the only thing saving my life.
The problem is when I go to bed, instead of picking up a book, I think, "I'll just check Reddit." Or Twitter. Or the news. Or Facebook. Or my email. Not or. And. I check all those things. I have 65 apps. I just counted. Halfway, I thought, "I wonder if there's an app for counting your apps." I was tempted to take 20 minutes and hunt one down, so I wouldn't have to waste ten seconds the next time I need this information. You see what's going on here. It's a sickness.
It's got me thinking I should do more short attention span fiction. Maybe another serial, like Machine Man. Firstly, because that was fun as hell, in a terrifying kind of way. Secondly, because I'm rewriting it as a novel, and it's pretty great. I already have the story. Now I get to play around in all the spaces I skipped over because the serial had to go go go. It's a good system.
But thirdly because maybe no-one has the time to sit down with entire novels any more. Or rather, maybe there is a class of people, to which I belong, that is becoming addicted to bite-sized information delivered by scattershot. I hope there's a class. I hope it's not just me.
Not that it has to be one or the other. I'm not saying that once you sign up to Facebook, you abandon Margaret Atwood. Although I have done exactly that. The Year of the Flood is just sitting there. What I mean is that the novel seems to be getting more competition. The novel is very strong, of course; there is no replacing the novel. But the competition is pretty great. The internet is everything in bite-sized pieces. It's candy-flavored stream of consciousness of whatever you want.
And increasingly the same device will access both. I'm having trouble getting to novels just because an iPhone is in the same vicinity. What happens when my books are actually on my phone? Or in my iPad? When I'm one swipe away from the web, will I still be able to completely sink into a novel? Plenty of times I've slogged my way through a book that wasn't really holding my attention just because it was there, in my hands. I don't think I'd do that on an iPad. I think I'd tap that bastard into oblivion and answer an email.
So I am interested in fiction that works with the internet, rather than fights it. Something that doesn't sit there, 400 pages heavy, asking for a seven-hour commitment before I start. That's the kind of fiction I'd like to read right now. Something that sneaks under my guard and pries me away from memes and status updates. I would like to find that.
51 comments | MaxBarry.com › Writing	› Fiction For Short Attention Oh Look At That Laughing Dog
My Kid Says the Darndest Things
I have a little parenting problem. I need some advice. The other day I was out walking with Finlay (four years old; I know, I can't believe it either) and an elderly woman stopped to coo over her. This woman was clearly someone's grandmother. She was matronly. I'm thinking of the word "battleship." You know what I'm getting at.
"So cute," said the grandmother. I said thanks and Fin said nothing and the woman began to move away. Then Fin said, "She's got big boobs."
Into my stunned silence, Fin added, "Really big boobs."
A few days later, out with her mother, Fin remarked about a passer-by: "She has large upper arms."
Before that, on a train: "Look at that little person."
We've tried to raise her to believe there's nothing wrong with people who look different. That differences are interesting but not shameful. That seems to be working. It's working a little too well. What do I do now?
I don't want to tell her that some people are embarrassed about how they look. That starts with "are" and ends with "should be." I can see a case for not commenting on people's weight, because being very over- or under-weight is unhealthy, and we've talked about health and eating balanced meals. But I know she's going to spend her life drowning in messages about body size, and she doesn't need that yet. Also, it only deals with the "large upper arms" comments, not the "Look at that little person" ones.
My feeling is that while there is nothing wrong with being a three-foot-tall grownup, and it is interesting, they probably don't want to be singled out for it all the time. But maybe this is my hangup. I wouldn't be offended if a four-year-old pointed at me and said, "That man has no hair," but if his mother acted embarrassed and tried to shush him, I would. Because she would be making it into a bad thing. Maybe it's the same with everything.
But that leaves me, what? Smiling at amputees after my kid points out they have no legs? Saying, "Yes, you're right," when she remarks on the size of an obese man's buttocks? This is a minefield. What do I do?
32 comments | MaxBarry.com › Max	› My Kid Says the Darndest Things
The Lawnmower People
I was all set to do a blog about how using Windows is like growing evil tomatoes, then American corporations became real people. They've been people for a while, of course: they have the right to own things and sue you and claim they've been defamed. Your chair can't do that. A corporation can, because it's a person.
But they weren't enough of a person, apparently, so now they have First Amendment rights. In particular, they have the right to spend as much money as they like on political advertising: airing ads in favor of anti-regulation candidates over pro-regulation ones, for example.
I find it helpful to think of corporations as lawnmowers. Lawnmowers are good at cutting grass. It's all they want to do. They're not very concerned about what gets in the way of cutting grass. If, for example, we discover that one of the lawnmowers sometimes kills people, the lawnmower would rather pretend there isn't a problem than stop mowing lawns. It seems callous to us. But you have to remember, it's not a person. It's a lawnmower.
Corporations pursue profit; the fewer people watching, the more ruthlessly they do it. It's not coincidence that Apple is a relatively nice corporation and Halliburton is not. It's not that Apple was raised right while Halliburton had a distant father. It's that Apple's profits depend more heavily on consumer opinion. It can't make money unless it's likable, so it is.
I think lawnmowers are useful. I don't want to get rid of them. But I very much want to keep them on the lawns.
The Supreme Court has let them into homes: now the lawnmowers will speak to us through TV, radio, internet, print, and tell us who to vote for. That might not seem like a problem. After all, you are a smart person. You're probably not persuaded by advertising. The thing is, everyone thinks that, and advertising is an $600 billion industry. Someone, somewhere is getting $600 billion worth of persuasion.
It's pretty obvious that lawnmowers will back pro-lawnmower candidates. They are functionally and legally prevented from doing anything else. In fact, now that the opportunity exists, lawnmowers are compelled to exploit it.
Honestly, I had started to think that the world of Jennifer Government was getting far-fetched. It seemed like corporations were not overpowering the government at all; instead, the two were slowly merging into a govern-corp megabeast. But this changes things. Until now, corporate lobbyists have essentially stood in opposition to voters: politicians wanted lobbyist money, but resisted giving in too much for fear of being punished at the ballot box. Now corporations can work it both ways. They can buy off the politicians and sell the voters on why that's A-OK. They won't have to come up with the media messages themselves. That's a job for the ad agency. All they'll do is write up the ad brief, spelling out what they want people to think, and sign the checks.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in handing down a dissenting decision, raised the prospect of corporations being given the vote. Since, after all, they are people now. We might as well. A single vote is nothing compared to what they'll do by bringing their wealth to mass persuasive political advertising.
It's interesting to note how corporations get to pick and choose the good parts of being a person. They can own property but can't go to prison. They can sue you into bankruptcy, which you have to live with for the rest of your life, but if you win a big case against them, you get nothing while they reconstitute their assets and arise, Phoenix-like, under a new name. If you misbehave, you are personally responsible; a corporation jettisons a minor component it says was to blame. There is no ending them. This is the kind of personhood you would choose, if you could. It's what happens when people making laws about corporations are themselves beholden to corporations.
It's not evil, exactly. It's just everyone doing their jobs. It's just the way the system works: the system that is increasingly designed by lawnmowers.
52 comments | MaxBarry.com › What Max Reckons	› The Lawnmower People


text:
Legacy of Excellence
Home > About Us > News
St. John's College of Nursing Hosted the First Nursing Pipeline Preparatory Class
St. John's College of Nursing hosted the first Nursing Pipeline Preparatory (NP3) program class on Monday, Nov. 4. The class is apprised of 16 freshman high school students from Springfield area high schools.
A special prayer and blessing were given by Father Fredrick and a few faculty from the college were in attendance to greet the NP3 students.
The NP3 is a new program developed by Dr. Charlene Aaron, chancellor of St. John's College of Nursing. The program brings a diverse group of high school freshman in to the world of nursing and medicine. Students will follow this program throughout their high school career in order to help prepare those students for sciences and nursing coursework at the collegiate level.
"I didn't have the resources available to me when I was in high school to develop my knowledge base before college," said Dr. Aaron. "I am a first-generation college graduate and I hope this program will help others who are like me to succeed in their career aspirations."
Currently the following high schools are participating in the program: Springfield High School, Lanphier High School, Southeast High School, Sacred Heart-Griffin High school, Calvary High School and Springfield Lutheran High school.
If you are interested in finding out more about this program, please call 217-525-5628 or email NP3outreach@sjcs.edu.
About St. John's College
St. John's College, a department of St. John's Hospital, in Springfield, Illinois the oldest Catholic hospital-based school of nursing in the United States. In 1886, the Hospital Sisters of St. Francis founded St. John's Hospital School of Nursing. Their mission was to care for the sick and needy of the community in a spirit of joy, respect and commitment to competence. Initially the school was created as a two-year diploma program to educate members of the founding religious order. In 1912 the school accepted the first lay women. St. John's School of Nursing transitioned into St. John's College in 1991. Today, St. John's College students can earn a Bachelor or Master of Science in nursing degree. During our long and rich history, we have undergone many transitions. However, the constant has been dedication to the education of professional nurses whose practice exemplifies excellence in health care.
About Hospital Sisters Health System
Hospital Sisters Health System's (HSHS) mission is to reveal and embody Christ's healing love for all people through our high quality Franciscan health care ministry. HSHS provides state-of-the-art health care to our patients and is dedicated to serving all people, especially the most vulnerable, at each of our 15 local systems and physician practices in Illinois (Breese, Decatur, Effingham, Greenville, Highland, Litchfield, O'Fallon, Shelbyville and Springfield) and Wisconsin (Chippewa Falls, Eau Claire, Oconto Falls, Sheboygan and two in Green Bay). HSHS is sponsored by Hospital Sisters Ministries, and Hospital Sisters of St. Francis is the founding institute. For more information about HSHS, visit www.hshs.org. For more information about Hospital Sisters of St. Francis, visit www.hospitalsisters.org.
© St. John's College
HSHS Illinois Division
HSHS St. John's Hospital
HSHS Good Shepherd Hospital
HSHS St. Francis Hospital
HSHS St. Mary's Hospital
HSHS St. Anthony's Memorial Hospital
HSHS Holy Family
HSHS St. Elizabeth's Hospital
HSHS St. Joseph's Hospital - Breese
HSHS St. Joseph's Hospital - Highland
HSHS Medical Group
Mission, Vision, and History
Welcome to St. John's College
HEA Consumer Information
Virtual Meet and Greet
NP3 Program
Textbook List
Distinguished Alumni Winners
Distinguished Alumni Nomination Form
Young Alumni Award Nomination Form

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Create Hub
After having been repressed for so many years, such a vivacious and lively space deserved a touch more special attention. It was not to be an office, a gallery, or a home, but a creative hub to nurture individual thinking and within the new generation of talented minds.
A space that would encourage learning, enliven ideas, and allow them to breathe freely in creative liberation.
Several years after the regeneration of the main office, 4M also acquired the space a few floors above. If the 4M office basement was the earth: problem solving, practical, present - this space was its heaven.
Like its lower counterpart – it too had been caged and suffocated for many decades - having been partitioned into penned office spaces for the likes of cramped professional businessmen.
In 2011, 4M Group was able to bust it free from its prison, relinquishing it from its barriers, and restoring its former glory the way it was born to be.
Harnessing the 4M mentoring spirit, and to put into practice what its future would hold 4M - collaborated with Nous Gallery, to instigate a competition, for which they would collaborate with the winner to design the idea equitable of this space.
The requirements were: reinvent the restricting office rational with a creative multifunctional alternative, to maximise – not shun, the potential for interaction and strength. While there were many worthy competitors, the winner was abundantly clear, and collaboration of the newly formed trio pushed the boundaries further than even their expectations.
Within just three months, the space was reborn into a portal of creativity – capable of awakening even the most reluctant of muses.
The colour palate was designed to mimic that of the business suit, kept abruptly black and white - a playful rebellion and defiant stance against the corporate uniformity, that had overpowered for so long.
At the heart of the design, and interlocking mesh of bungee cords were clasped and suspended between its walls, to act as the axis to perpendicular partitions, morphing the old into the new.
What resulted was an inspiring vision and message for the future: together through interaction, it is possible to forge support and strength with even the most elastic of materials. "We are strength in unison, and supporting each other we can achieve success."
A palate a possibilities that shouts a powerful and resounding metaphor to the success of our future – we can change the way we live, through the places in which we live.
Office conversionCategory
2,000 sq. ft.Size
Southwark, LondonLocation
Ku De Ta - Perth, Australia
4M Office


text:
Mandryk: 2018-19 cabinet grades show improvement, but not enough
We should be expecting more from a couple of them — including Premier Scott Moe, who may be sliding by on his popularity.
Saskatchewan Party cabinet ministers sit during a question and answer session with members of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association meeting at the Queensbury Convention Centre.	Michael Bell / Regina Leader-Post
CORRECTION: In his June 30 report card of cabinet ministers, political columnist Murray Mandryk's report on Provincial Capital Commission Minister Ken Cheveldayoff implied that Kevin Doherty was responsible for approval of the Brandt development at Wascana Centre. This was an error. While Doherty was the minister responsible for finance when PCC was created in the 2017 budget and was formerly the minister for the Wascana Centre Authority, it was cabinet as a whole that made the decision to replace Wascana Centre Authority with the PCC. That decision was not made by Doherty, individually.
This is a government where many in the Saskatchewan Party cabinet class have been around for 12 years. We should be expecting more from a couple of them — including Premier Scott Moe, who may be sliding by on his popularity. (Alas, politics is one school where the attendees tend to get away with that; it's even encouraged.)
But rather than dwell on the negative, here's the positive: There were seven "B" grades this year (up from four last year) and only three "D" grades (down from five last year).
Here's how Saskatchewan's cabinet graded out this year.
Premier Scott Moe
(Last year as premier: B-)
Premier Scott Moe, seen here at Saskatoon party fundraiser/golf tournament last year, maintained his every-man appeal. (Morgan Modjeski/The Saskatoon StarPhoenix) / Saskatoon
One could rightly argue Scott Moe merits a downgrade in his second year, but when your thing is to fly below the radar, you tend to avoid downgrades. This also might help explain why voters seem to overlook the ongoing Global Transportation Hub mess, the Brandt-CNIB development in Wascana Park or the simple fact that Moe caters to those who support him and doesn't much help or even meet with those who disagree with him.
Playing second fiddle to Ontario Premier Doug Ford or Alberta's Jason Kenney isn't necessarily everyone's thing, but credit Moe who has effectively put together this conservative coalition that is having an effect on today's politics. It is hard to argue that the most popular premier in Canada deserves a downgrade when his main job is to get his party ready for re-election. He did lose the carbon tax appeal, and we now have a carbon tax he said we would never have.
Moreover, it's easy to lead a convoy of angry truckers who share your view. But as one colleague put it: "He is who he is. All AC/DC songs sound the same too." And a lot of people are still buying their albums.
Deputy Premier and Education and SaskBuilds Minister Gord Wyant
(Last year as education minister: B-)
Not coming through on more more education funding and his leadership promises hurt Deputy Premier Gord Wyant's grade. Michael Bell / Regina Leader-Post
Teachers who seemed neutralized during the Sask. Party leadership race are mobilizing — largely because they have grown increasingly frustrated with silly justifications for increasing class sizes, an issue of inadequate funding of a ministry that's at the same funding level of two years ago. Credit Wyant for reacting correctly to restore funding to the Cornwall School, but does a minister on top of his portfolio allow funding to be removed in the first place?
However, Wyant's greatest failing may be his failed leadership campaign promise to hold an inquiry into the GTH. He does provide a needed urban, liberal voice in a decidedly rural, conservative Sask. Party caucus, and maybe credit him for steady guidance behind the scenes we don't much see. But with the government sliding right, it would seem his influence isn't profound. He deserves a slight downgrade.
Finance Minister Donna Harpauer
(Last year: B-)
Finance Minister Donna Harpauer may have been cabinet's most effective minister. TROY FLEECE / Regina Leader-Post
One of the quieter Saskatchewan political stories is how Harpauer has emerged as a cornerstone of this Sask. Party that's come to rely on her steady, reasoned decisions that are usually well-communicated. Harpauer has emerged as that minister, as was evident in both her 2018-19 budget which improved by mid-term and her 2019-20 budget which ends the cycle of deficits without any more tax increases or service cuts.
In fact, the mark of the spring budget was its maturity, in spending more on mental health and slowing down the capital spending that's adding to the admittedly-still-too-high public debt. These are now hallmarks of Harpauer.
Justice and Labour Minister Don Morgan
(Last year: C)
Morgan is a funny, sometimes silly, guy — great traits to have in the pressure cooker of cabinet and especially when you have tough assignments like labour, justice or selling the GTH.
But while it's OK for a minister to be silly, it's not OK for him to sound silly while justifying subsidized bus service for Galen Weston's Loblaw employees working at the GTH or when arguing it would be easier to sell GTH land if people would just stop criticizing how badly the government has handled the GTH.
It was hard to find many wins for Morgan in the past year. There was Clare's Law providing paid leave for victims of domestic violence, but how much credit one should get for lifting a good idea from NDP justice critic Nicole Sarauer is debatable. Morgan oversaw the carbon tax appeal (a loss) and the new Trespassing Act (which seems more about placating rural political concerns while potentially adding to a growing problem of racial tension).
Trade, Export and Immigration Minister Jeremy Harrison
(Last year: C-)
Trade, Export and Immigration Minister Jeremy Harrison needs to be less political. Don Healy / Regina Leader-Post
Harrison remains somewhere in Section C … which also happens to be his preferred seat on his all-too-many taxpayer-funded trips. Flying to Israel to talk about drones? Really?
Based on everything from overseeing a recovering economy to his knowledge of his portfolio, one might have expected to see Harrison doing better and enjoying an upgrade. But his eagerness to play politics — as he has on the carbon tax and as he did when he boycotted the trade ministers' meeting — hurt his own grade, his government and the province.
Health Minister Jim Reiter
The roof went up on the Saskatchewan Hospital in North Battleford and the Jim Pattison Children's Hospital in Saskatoon, although the former has sprung a few leaks.
Perhaps this is an appropriate metaphor for Reiter's up-and-down year in health in which, ultimately, there were a few more positives then negatives.
The positives include the aforementioned builds, the relatively smooth transition to the Saskatchewan Health Authority, and increased mental health spending. These are somewhat offset by concerns that there's still not been enough done for either mental health or the opioid crisis, or ongoing long lines for emergency rooms and surgeries.
What further tips the balance for Reiter is his formidable political skills, that anger and frustrate the Opposition. Consider the NDP is led by a doctor and didn't make much political headway in health care. This is telling.
The approval of the abortion drug Mifegymiso was an example of a health issue that was poorly handled.
Rural and Remote Health Minister Greg Ottenbreit
Rural and Remote Health Minister Greg Ottenbreit didn't help his or his government's cause with his anti-abortion position. BRYAN SCHLOSSER / Regina Leader-Post
His first and foremost responsibility, as his title suggests, is the health care of those in remote locations.
Notwithstanding the eventual approval of Mifegymiso, it's hard to see how Ottenbreit was prioritizing those people or his ministerial responsibilities over his personal support for the pro-life movement. His commitment at a pro-life conference to do "all he can in his professional capacity" defied his professional responsibilities and created unwanted political turmoil that some say has created a rift in government. So did his attendance at yellow vest rallies. Moreover, there are growing issues related to HIV, syphilis and rural doctors, and northern health care remains a difficult struggle.
Advanced Education/ Innovation Minister Tina Beaudry-Mellor
(Last year: C+)
Advance Education Minister Tina Beaudry-Melllor's straight-forward approach was an asset. TROY FLEECE / Regina Leader-Post
While perennial discontent at the universities over funding and tuition costs remains a reality, the innovation agenda has shown progress. More pertinent, Beaudry-Mellor has shown herself to be a true political leader.
The government has benefitted from her gut instincts to do the right thing. This has become her hallmark, as was evident in her reasoned view as to why it's especially important to see high-ranking conservatives attending Pride parades. Others — perhaps even those in the Sask. Party caucus — seem to be suggesting this isn't a priority for Moe. It might be helpful if those others listened to Beaudry-Mellor a bit more.
Social Services Minister Paul Merriman
(Last year: D+)
It's not as if Merriman — who eagerly attended Sixties Scoop sharing circles or rearranged his schedule to attend a Pride parade — hasn't been working hard or doing his utmost in his portfolio.
Unfortunately, the results aren't there. It's not easy having one of the toughest portfolios in government, which is not conducive to earning an A, but one can't ignore that some of Merriman's problems are of his own making. Calling First Nations leadership "lobbyists" in relation to federal Bill C-92 was destructively patronizing and — if anything — detracted from his good work with the Saskatoon Tribal Council. Let's give hime a bit of an upgrade for his hard work, but hope for better next year.
Highways Minister Lori Carr
(Last year: Not in cabinet)
While praised by colleagues for her "non-politician" approach to matters, her biggest problem may be her partisanship and her struggle to fully understand her role. Her attendance at yellow vest rallies was not smart.
In fairness, she has improved from her initial days, in which she read stock answers to legitimate questions on rising costs of the $1.9-billion Regina bypass and seems to now be demonstrating better knowledge of her files. She needs to curb her all-too-apparent disdain for the NDP and others.
Agriculture Minister David Marit
(Last year as highways and SaskBuilds minister: D)
It is no small task to follow in the footsteps of Bob Bjornerud and Lyle Stewart, but Marit seemed up to the task. Credit Marit for getting exactly what the Saskatchewan government asked for on the canola compensation package and generally keeping on top of an increasingly tough agriculture portfolio. He handled the tough aspect of his file and, otherwise, quietly goes about his job.
Government Relations and Metis and First Nations Affairs Minister Warren Kaeding
Somewhere between Pinehouse the RM of McKillop (the mess that Kaeding handled rather well) and Pinehouse (the mess the government hasn't handled well at all) Kaeding finds himself in about the same place he was last year.
His biggest portfolio problems — the ongoing need to restructure RMs and the view of Metis and First Nations relations as a ministerial afterthought as opposed to a standalone ministry — are not Kaeding's doing. But a wise minister needs to recognize such problems dividing a province … even if the rest of cabinet can't. More can be done here. More leadership is needed.
Crown Investment Corp. Minister Joe Hargrave
With fewer foot-in-mouth moments and progress on some positive developments on some of his files, Hargrave is deserving of an upgrade. He helped usher in ride-sharing and his handling of post-Humboldt bus crash issues has been solid.
It would not have been easy to implement a stronger licensing/driver training policy for farm semi-drivers, but Hargrave did so with significant finesse. Also, he deserves credit for those effective testimonial SGI ads from victims. That he hasn't chosen to take the credit is unusual in politics.
Environment Minister Dustin Duncan
Saskatchewan Environment Minister Dustin Duncan acted more like energy minister.
Once respected for his considerable skills, his defence of the carbon tax and eagerness to slap the government's political message on your SaskPower bills seems nasty and petty. His talking points are sounding too partisan — the same points one hears from the oil sector.
The environment minister? Do we have one? If so, he's not doing the job we're paying him for. Prairie Resilience isn't being taken seriously by anyone, and hiding the Navius study on the carbon tax impact while promoting the flawed University of Regina study was unethical. How is it that the consensus best minister (based on comments by caucus colleagues, bureaucrats and even the Opposition) is the one who gave the worst performance?
Parks, Culture, Sports, Recreation and Liquor and Gaming Minister Gene Makowsky
From its slow rollout to its now admitted too-high pricing, the cannabis file has been a mess and Makowsky has struggled to communicate why. That said, hard to blame anything other than the communication on him. Park fees are increasing, but, again, hard to blame that on the minister. He offers a steady presence and down-to-earth credibility that's so important.
Energy Minister Bronwyn Eyre
She is far too partisan-sounding and isn't adding much to the broader scope of cabinet as one would hope from a younger, urban woman. But Eyre, unquestionably, grew into a strong spokeswoman and advocate for her ministry — the opposite of what we saw from Duncan. Some might not like her style, but her stakeholders clearly love her … as do, seemingly, her colleagues.
Corrections and Policing Minister Christine Tell
Still overly reliant on departmental staff to communicate even the most basic messages, and one wonders whether experiments with rural policing and more authority for conservation officers will pay off. That said, credit her and the government for trying/implementing something new. And while there remain problems with both Tell and her ministry, there was improvement here.
'Brass-knuckle campaign' expected in lead-up to federal election: expert Provincial budget printing, advertising totalled $125K this year
Latest News Videos
Photos: Outdoor swimming in the past
We take a look through the StarPhoenix archives at summer swimming and swimwear from the 1950s to the 1970s in and around Saskatoon.
Photos: Sask. fans among those cheering as Raptors defeat Warriors
Saskatchewan fans cheered on the Toronto Raptors as they won game 6 of the NBA finals against the Golden State Warriors.
Watch: The scene in Toronto after the Raptors clinch title
The Toronto Raptors are the first Canadian team to win the Larry O'Brien trophy as NBA Champions.
Dam on Rouge River in danger of collapse as floodwaters rise in Montreal
In Montreal, Mayor Valérie Plante urges residents to "remain vigilant" and continue their efforts to secure their homes.
Latest Local Business
Saskatchewan NDP Leader Ryan Meili is backing a recommendation that would give the province's privacy czar order-making powers.
That decision removes much of the uncertainty that has been hanging over the beleaguered sector since last summer.
What to expect at Country Thunder Saskatchewan 2019
Saskatchewan's biggest summer festival starts Wednesday in Craven. Country Thunder's Gerry Krochak fills us in on what to expect.


text:
President Trump nominates Mark Esper as next Secretary of Defense
President Trump's tweets do not violate Twitter's rules, social network determined
US can now choose Trump or Biden
By Matt Tullar | The BL 06/19/2019
President Trump and Candidate Joe Biden (Screenshot/AP Screenshot)
Last night at a rally in Orlando, Florida, thousands watched President Donald Trump officially kick off his re-election campaign, share how Justice Brett Kavanaugh was treated by a Democrat controlled Congress, and then ask the crowd to imagine Democrats controlling America in 2020.
President Trump said, "Look at what they did to a great gentleman, Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh, highly respected. They didn't just try to win. They tried to destroy him with false and malicious accusations. They tried to ruin the family of now Justice Kavanaugh. They tried to ruin his career. They tried to ruin his life. They even wanted to impeach him on fraudulent charges. Those charges were a fraud. He did nothing wrong. All in pursuit of political domination and control. Just imagine what this angry left-wing mob would do if they were in charge of this country. Imagine if we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress in 2020."
Meanwhile, speaking to a bar room full at NYC's Stonewall Inn also on Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden extolled the bravery of the tavern's patrons 50 years ago and how the American public suddenly realized that these folks are just like me.
videoPlayerId=26e080489
Candidate Biden said, "But imagine the courage it took 50 years ago to stand up and say 'I'm gay. I'm trans. I'm whatever, I'm lesbian.' You know when people started it when people had the courage to come out and stand up and speak, say who they were, all of a sudden people realized, whoa these folks are just like me. They're just like me. They are ordinary, decent honorable people. The public is way ahead of the politicians on this. They're way ahead on marriage and they're way ahead on the basic rights that every American should have. And I'm really proud of the folks in here and the courage it took for what they did, it they started it 50 years ago."
Back at the rally in Orlando, the president explained to the crowd that in order to get votes, Democrats will compromise free speech, weaponize the law, and flood the country with illegal aliens.
The president said, "They would shut down your free speech. Use the power of the law to punish their opponents, which they're trying to do now anyway. They'll always be trying to shield themselves. They would strip Americans of their constitutional rights, while flooding the country with illegal immigrants in the hopes it will expand their political base. And they'll get votes some place down the future. That's what it's about."
Includes reporting from the Associated Press
Tags:Donald Trump Joe Biden Categories: U.S. Politics
The joy and meaning of singing The Star-Spangled Banner
President Trump says detention camps full of criminals, urges Dems to fix loopholes
President Trump: Sad to see Democrats sticking up for Israel haters
Mueller's testimony delayed one week, avoiding President Trump's rally day
U.S. 22 minutes ago
Congressional Appropriate or Foolishly Embarrassing?


This fine contemporary yellow gold princess cut diamond ring has been crafted in 18 ct yellow gold with a platinum setting.
The feature 0.32 ct princess cut diamond is collet set in a simple contemporary rectangular frame.
The diamond is flanked on either side with two elevated plain platinum Art Deco style semi-circular shaped designs.
The hallmarked 18 ct yellow gold shank has a twin-stranded design which sheathes neatly into the semi-circular arrangements.
The interior of the shank is clearly hallmarked with full English hallmarks including the 18 ct gold standard mark (750), gold guarantee mark (crown), Sheffield Assay Office mark (Sheffield rose), date letter for 1997 (X) and the maker's mark 'H&W'.
This fine yellow gold princess cut diamond ring is supplied with an independent diamond grading certificate.
This diamond ring is fine quality, set with a very high colour graded, princess cut diamond.
The yellow gold princess cut diamond ring is in excellent condition and the full English hallmarks struck to the interior of the ring shank are clear.
Height of setting 4mm / 0.15 "
Width across platinum design 1cm / 0.4"


Reggie Rivers, former football star and now sports commentator and author, summarized his two most recent books, The Colony and My Wife's Boyfriend, during an interview at the Liberty On the Rocks holiday party. Briefly, The Colony uses a story of warring colonies of ants to criticize war generally and (so I understand) U.S. foreign policy in particular. (I wonder whether Rivers takes into account the history of who actually developed oil as a useful commodity in the Middle East.) My Wife's Boyfriend involves some of the tensions and absurdities of disputes within Home Owners' Associations.