Category: Uncategorized

Although I will be talking about ice skating a bit here, it’s not an “Ice Follies” post.  Still, hang on.

Friends of mine recommended I read Jordan Peterson’s “Twelve Rules for Life:  An Antitdote to Chaos.” I didn’t read it but I did get it on audio book and listen to it so…close enough.

While I don’t agree with everything he has to say (I don’t agree with everything anyone has to say, including me–after all, I have been known to change my mind, occasionally while I’m in the middle of saying something) I do think that what he has to say is definitely worth thinking about.

His first rule was to “stand up straight with your shoulders back.” And in the course of the chapter covering that rule he described it in ways where he meant it both literally and metaphorically.

When I was growing up, I was a “late bloomer” physically.  My voice changed late.  I was always the “runt” in school, well behind the other boys in phys ed class (also well behind most of the girls, which for a pre-teen or teen boy can be truly mortifying).  Add in that I was into “geeky” stuff long before “geek” became socially acceptable and, well, I was bullied through grade school and most of high school.

As a result, I had serious self-confidence problems.  And, while I’ve mostly learned to deal with those issues, they can still raise their ugly head from time to time.

A lot of that showed up in my posture, the way I walked, the way I stood, the way I carried myself in general.  Oh, not all of my peculiarities of carriage stemmed from that self-confidence thing.  I walked nearly everywhere and I fell into walking with a slight forward lean.  Apparently that got me an extra inch or so in my stride length which adds up over three or four miles.  The forward lean was really pronounced and just habitual.  While marching in formation in basic I heard the person behind me note to the person next to him that my shoulders were right smack in line with the others in my rank, but my feet were back there getting in his way.  I tried to “straighten up” but I was so used to that lean that it felt straight.

Also, I went everywhere head down.  No great surprise there.  Whenever possible, I had my head buried in a book.  At least that I could consciously correct when doing things like marching in the military, but the natural tendency was, head down at a convenient angle to read, even if I didn’t have a book at the moment.

So even without the self confidence issues, I tended to a posture that exuded insecurity.  Add in that I really did have insecurity issues and, well, it rolled off me like fog off dry ice.

Fast forward many years.  I discover my goth side and start dressing accordingly.  Mostly more “goth lite” at first–black T-shirts and jeans, hair dyed and grown long, and some nice boots that I wore when I wanted to dress up (which I can’t wear now because my feet have changed shape, darn it). Interestingly enough, as I mentioned before in my “Dark Armor” post, this matching of my outward appearance to my internal “true self” started making me feel much more comfortable both with myself when with the world around me.  Oh, I still had all my various issues with social awkwardness, and what not, but they caused less stress.  If nothing else, I was much more comfortable in my single state than I ever had been being married (which, perhaps, says something which we need not get into here).

However, run things forward a few more years and I take up ice skating.  Now, one of the things about ice skating is my “natural” (or rather learned from long habit) posture is a good way to end up falling…a lot.  As the skaters point out in the video up top you need to have a straight line from your head down through shoulders and hips, to ankles, and finally the blades.  That forward lean with head down?  Disaster.  So, to break myself of the habit in question I started doing specific exercises.  Partial squats in front of a wall so that if any part of my torso starts to stick back (which simple balance will require if any part bends forward) I’ll know and can correct.  It worked.  It worked well.  It worked well enough that my instructors have complemented me on my form. (Usually right before I do something stupid and fall on my face–well, that involves Peterson’s 11th rule, which we won’t talk about today.)

A little farther forward and I start shifting from the rather generic “Goth lite” to a more “Romantic Goth” which I do believe is yet a better fit for me.  And while out and about, again dressed in my “Dark Armor” I find myself walking with a straightness that younger me would never have dreamed of.  And it draws positive attention.  I’ve had people, complete strangers, come up to me and comment on how sharp I look.  And I’m sure the appearance of confidence that comes from my new posture and general carriage plays a significant part in that.  And this actually helps feed into the feelings of confidence.

So, stand up straight with your shoulders back.  Perhaps you don’t feel confident right now, but if you act like you do, and present a posture and carriage that indicates confidence, you might be surprised and find your emotions changing to match.  At the very least, you’ll be more likely to get positive reactions from the people around you, particularly if the “confidence” is paired with courtesy and consideration.

It can be a devastating combination.

When I explained “Santa” to my daughter (as she was getting too old to buy into the guy in the red suit who lived at the North Pole) I explained that Santa was real, but not a guy in a red suit.  “Santa” is that part of the human heart that gives for no other reason than to bring someone else joy.  By giving her presents as “Santa” her enjoyment of them was the sole reward we would get.  Not even “thanks” as a reward.  She didn’t know they were from us so she couldn’t thank us for them.  Her enjoyment of the presents was the sole reward.  I went to considerable effort to make sure she couldn’t trace them back to me–using different wrapping paper kept stashed at work so it would be different from our own and having a co-worker sign the tags on the presents so she wouldn’t recognize my handwriting.

Worked too, she came in to get presents once and pointed at some of them saying “those must be from Santa!” because of the different paper.

So, yes, Santa is real.  He’s the enjoyment I got from seeing my daughter’s pleasure and excitement on seeing and opening presents that she did not know were from me.

There’s a meme on the Book of Faces on that theme that’s been going around but, really, I used this explanation years before I ever encountered it.

And for those who still do not believe in Santa Clause, may I present the United States Marine Corps Reserve:

In his book “The Vision of the Anointed” Thomas Sowell wrote about what he called “Ah-hah! Statistics.” This is where one starts from a proposition, then search through mounds of data until one finds something, anything, that seems to support that proposition.  One then holds up that set of figures and goes “Ah hah!”

It has been said that one can prove anything if one is allowed to make up ones data.  This should be obviously true with very little thought indeed.  However, it has also been said that one can prove almost anything if one is allowed to simply exclude data that does not fit.  Indeed, if the situation is at all complicated, one is almost certain to find something that fits a given proposition, any given proposition.  You can always, if you wish, pare away the data that doesn’t fit until you have something that does.  Then, it becomes a matter of saying “Ah-hah!” and you’ve “proven” your case.  Except you haven’t.

Take, for instance, proponents of gun control.  They point to other countries with strict gun control that have strict gun control and that also have low violent crime (or even more restricted, low “gun crime”) and go “Ah-hah!  Gun control saves lives!” They ignore the many countries with strict gun regulation that, nevertheless, have very high violent crime rates.  Ninety-three countries, for instance, have higher intentional homicide rates than the US.  The one with the highest rate.  Wikipedia (I know, I know, but it’s just a publicly available source for a first cut) provides listings of countries both by homicide rate and by civilian gun ownership. Take the ranking from both those listings, exclude only the ones where a country or region isn’t included in both lists, making as complete a list as is readily available, and plotting the ranking of gun ownership against the ranking of homicide rates, and one would expect–at least so the anti-gun folk would tell us–that the fewer guns in civilian hands the lower the homicide rate.  However:

You can “prove” nearly anything if you exclude data that don’t fit.  Oh, they’ll claim reasons why this data that doesn’t fit isn’t “relevant.” They’ll say they’re limiting to the “developed world” (except some of those nations over on the right hand side are quite well developed), but that’s only another way of saying that other factors are more important than gun ownership in driving homicide rate.  If that were not the case, there would be no need to exclude nations because they’re not “developed.” And if there are differences between those on the right hand side from those on the left causing them to have much higher homicide rates, then how can they say that there are no other differences between the US and those on the left likewise causing the US to have higher homicide rates than those other nations.

This is a simple illustration.  I could have gone further and used actual homicide rates and actual estimated gun ownership rates but the basic principle would not have changed.  The point remains that “statistics” can be used to paint a false picture depending on what is included, and equally if not more important, what is left out.

The whole point of statistics is to take large amounts of data and render it into an understandable form.  The “exceptions” the data that don’t fit, they are an important part of the overall picture.  They represent how much data can vary or possible places to look for experimental or data collection error.  Simply dismissing them because they don’t fit the theory is bad science and bad math.

But it does seem to be “good politics” in many people’s view.  At least, it’s a weapon they can use to hoodwink the unwary and push their own agenda ahead.

An annual tradition:

If you’re an Atheist or Agnostic who doesn’t like “Merry Christmas.”
If you’re a Christian who doesn’t like “Happy Holidays.”
If you’re a Jew who doesn’t like “Blessed be.”
If you’re a Wiccan who doesn’t like “God Be with you.”
If you’re a Muslim who doesn’t like “Gud Yule” or “May Thor hold his hammer between you and harm.”

I have one thing to say to you: Grow. Up. Take these things in the spirit they are offered, one of well wishing, and leave it at that. And on that note, may I wish you a very merry Christmas and may Thor hold his hammer between you and harm.

Gud Yule, everyone.

My daughter has been struggling with anxiety, depression, and PTSD issues for several years.  Recently, her caregiver has said that a service animal trained to alert to incipient anxiety attacks and distract would be helpful.  Not an “emotional support animal” but an actual certified service animal.

Unfortunately, properly trained service animals are expensive.  For uses like this, they have to be individually trained for the specific tasks required.  It’s not like you can go to the medical supply store and pick out one that fits.  The process is long and labor intensive.  First you need a dog that has been temperament tested to see that it’s a good candidate as a service animal.  It has to remain calm and focused despite the many distractions of life.  Then there’s the training.  The trainer has to work with it on a one on one basis for six months to a year.  That’s time and it costs money.  And insurance doesn’t cover it.

While I did some shopping around to find the best prices available for a dog and training that would suit my daughter’s needs–a breeder who treats providing puppies for service animals as a service and actually discounts them rather than charging a premium for temperament tested pups like most breeders, a trainer that likewise is treating it as a service with reduced prices compared to most others (but with good reviews).  Still, it looks like we’re about $8000 short.  Which means I need to raise the funds.

To that end I’ve started a campaign on GoFundMe.  I hate to have to do that, but when it comes to my daughter I cannot afford pride.  Whatever it takes.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-athena-get-a-service-dog

 

 

Not really follies since she is so very much better than I am despite having been at it little longer than I have (just counting from when I re-started, not counting my youthful experience). She’s been taking the Learn to Play Hockey class while I’ve been taking the Learn to Skate classes.  The Hockey classes are after the Learn to Skate classes.  Here are some pictures from the last time.  A group of them were playing “Sharks and minnows”, a kind of tag game where a few in the center are “it” and try to catch the others as they skate across the rink.  Those caught join those who are “it” and they repeat until it’s time to reset with just one person “it”.

My daughter’s wearing the red helmet.

And here are a couple of brief clips of her skating:

A short one, today, but I think important.

Alexis deToqueville in “Democracy in America” makes a point that Americans, in particular the New Englanders of his day (writing in the 1830’s), descended from folk who were self-selected over more than two hundred years for self-government both small and local (the township being the central element of government), and to not being particularly responsive to far off kings.  Whether that represented people born with the proclivity toward independence or a convergence of cultures which became self-propagating is a bit of an open question but I suspect that it’s a bit of both.

Unfortunately, a lot of that self-selection has fallen by the wayside in the ensuing centuries.  And a lot of the cultural habits have been diluted–much by a deliberate effort to undermine them, an effort which gained considerable headway in the 20th century.   And much of that is the result of deliberate agitprop by the former Soviet Union.  McCarthy may have had poor target selection in who, specifically, was accused but America was rife with Soviet agents including in government and in the entertainment industries.

It is not my point here to justify McCarthy’s target selection, methods, and tactics in some attempt to rehabilitate his memory.  I, frankly, don’t know those issues well enough to competently discuss them, let alone justify one side or the other.  Yet one can consider McCarthy’s actions deplorable (or not) and still recognize that there was a concerted effort to undermine America, backed and supported by the Kremlin.  And that effort has long outlived even the Soviet Union itself.

That effort to undermine the American culture of liberty has been only partially successful–one of those “cultural habits” of Americans is a great deal of cussed stubbornness–but successful enough that I’m far less sanguine than some about the outcome of the “New American Revolution,” a “bombs and bullets” war, that some seem to want.  Part of the problem is that the sides are so very intermixed.  The picture with which I open this post shows states vs. states, much like the American Civil War although even here, the states on each side don’t form solid blocks.  They’re more mixed up than were the North and South in the Civil War.  But the true field is far more mixed than even the States.  The folk on one side of the Culture War may be more concentrated in some areas and the folk on the other side in different areas but they are nevertheless thoroughly intermixed even in the most concentrated zones.  Add in that we have multiple sides.  It’s not just “red/blue” or “Republican/Democrat” but a wide range of differing views on how “society” should be run.

This “culture war”, a war of ideas and values fought for the American psyche, that we’re already involved in has been on a cultural plain and, I believe, that’s where it needs to be fought. Win the culture war–and, to be honest those of us on the side of liberty and limited government have barely begun to fight–and we don’t need a full-on bullets and bombs war.  This is not to say that there won’t be violence along the way–there’s already been some and I expect there to be more–but if we can avoid a full on insurrection, that would be good.

Fail to win the culture war and even if we win a bullets and bombs war, we lose.

…means you’ll be shooting police and soldiers.

Gary, Indiana mayor and Democrat Presidential candidate Pete Buttieg made this tweet:

From a certain point of view, it does.  And it also means shooting at politicians.  As such, the bar to be cleared before starting that party should be high indeed.  But, however, there’s also another point of view.  Consider.  When I enlisted in the Air Force, I swore an oath:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Officers, swear a similar but somewhat different oath:

I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.

Police officers likewise swear an oath.  They can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but a typical example is the one from Indiana, to wit:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will at all times protect life and property, abide by the policies and regulations established by Indiana University, the department, the laws and Constitution of the State of Indiana and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Note one thing that all of them, every single one of them, has in common?  They are swearing an oath to follow the Constitution of the United States.  Every one.

And if they are violating the Constitution, then they are oathbreakers–just about the worst “sin” in the tradition I follow.

They are also traitors, perhaps not in the Constitutional legal definition (although perhaps even arguably by that case if they are using violence and force to do so: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”)

If they are violating the Constitution, they are no longer, at a fundamental level, American soldiers or American police officers regardless of what their legal citizenship might be.  They are domestic enemies making war on the very essence of what America is.  This remains true even if we as a people have not risen up against that…yet.  For as Thomas Jefferson wrote, more than 240 years ago:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

To which he followed:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So, should unconstitutional usurpations of power continue, the human rights and freedoms of American citizens continue to be restricted, the Constitution continue to be ignored to the point that a significant number of Americans say “enough”, then those soldiers and police officers who enforce that tyranny will no longer be American, whatever uniforms they actually wear.

They will be enemies, and treated as such.

So, Gabrielle Blair, going by the handle of “designmom” suggested life insurance as a better way to protect one’s family instead of having a gun and she went on from there.  Twitter link archived here (against possibility of deletion–what happens on the Internet, stays on the Internet).

So, let’s look at this.  As usual, person being fisked is in Bold and my comments are in italics.

There are far better ways to protect your family than a gun. Get a life insurance policy. twitter.com/xposeguncontro…

Well, that’s interesting Gabrielle.  Apparently you think that my daughter would prefer to have an insurance payout rather than her father in the event someone with violent intent breaks into our home (or elsewhere–which I’ll get to later).  Perhaps your child or children feel that way about you “designmom” but I’m quite certain my own daughter would rather have me than the couple of hundred large of an insurance payout. (Yes, I do have life insurance, in fact.  But having one does not preclude having the other.)

And that leaves aside the idea that a life insurance policy only “protects” my family from some of the financial challenges they would face in the event of my death.  There are other questions, like who takes care of my daughter in the event of my death–a question that looms large for a single father, let me tell you.  Will they take care of their properly?  Will they be equipped, mentally and emotionally, to deal with her particular challenges?  How much can I really trust them?  Far better, I think, for me to stay right here alive and thus able and willing to care for my daughter.  Perhaps you feel differently about your own children.  And if you do, well, perhaps the fact that you do makes you right to feel that way. (Yes, that’s kind of recursive.)

And then there’s the whole question of if someone takes me down, what prevents them from assaulting, raping, or killing my daughter?  That’s what “protect my family” means, not just provide them money to “replace” my loss, but actually shield them from someone who means them actual physical harm.

I know you truly believe that you’ll need to defend your family at gunpoint. You need to let that go. Statistically it’s just not going to happen. I know it’s boring, but if you want to protect your family, things like seatbelts, fire alarms, and life insurance are your best bet.

Embrace the power of “and”, Gabrielle.  Statistically, one in about two hundred people will be the victim of a violent crime in a year.  According to the Department of Justice There’s an 83% probability of being the victim of an attempted violent crime (Robbery, Murder, Rape, and Aggravated Assault for this purpose) at least once sometime after the age of 12.  In about half that number, the crimes will not just be attempted but completed.  And about a 52% chance (about 2/3 of those who were victimized at least once) of not just being a victim once, but multiple times.

Statistically, I am unlikely to live my life without someone trying to commit a violent crime against me.  And so, while I do wear seatbelts, I do have fire alarms, I do have life insurance, I do eat right and exercise regularly, I do take the medicines my doctor prescribes for me and follow other advice he gives (including vaccinations–do you vaccinate?), I also carry a gun.  Because today might be the day that my 83% comes up.

The same gun I can use to defend myself and my family at home is also (or is in any sane jurisdiction) available to defend myself when away from home–where a lot of those crimes leading to that 83% chance occur.  Probably won’t be today.  Probably won’t be tomorrow.  But pretty good chance it will be sometime.  And I don’t know when that sometime, where that somewhere, will be.  But since I have the gun it’s easy enough to have it with me whenever and wherever it’s legally allowed for me to have it.  Then I only have to worry about those places where it’s not legal to have it, places where people like you would have me left defenseless against folk with ill intent.

So embrace the power of “and” Gabrielle.

The reality is, you’re probably going to die of heart disease or diabetes, or just old age and natural causes. I know it’s not as cool-sounding as an armed-standoff, but it’s still true.

And, indeed, I’d like that to be the case.  I’d prefer to go through my life and never be touched by violent crime.  But…83%, Gabrielle.  Those aren’t “gun nut” statistics.  That’s the Department of Justice.  Those are numbers right out of the Federal Government.  And even if I were unarmed, I might survive the encounter with violent crime.  After all, most of those violent crimes are not murder.  But I’d really rather not put my trust in the criminals for the outcome, the decision as to whether I live or die, hmm?  Perhaps you’d rather trust to the criminals for your own safety.  If so, well, that’s your choice.  You do you.  Just don’t make that choice for me.

If the topic of protecting your family comes up, a gun extremist will immediately imagine an armed intruder who has come to murder. That’s not going to happen. It’s rare enough that it’s not something people need to worry about or make decisions based on.

Once again, the Department of Justice disagrees with you there, Gabrielle.  There are over a million home invasions–that’s an intruder breaking into a home while the residents are present.  That’s one for every 330 or so people.  The odds aren’t too bad in a given year but… simple statistics (I know math is hard for you, so you’ll just have to trust me on this–we covered this kind of thing the first week of Stat Mech back in college)–over a typical lifetime that comes to about a one in five chance of it happening to a given individual at least once.  Actually, it’s much higher than that because when I crunched the numbers I based on number of people–as though each individual lived in their own separate household.  But most people live in households with more than one person and the chances of it happening are per household, not per person.  I know this is complicated, Gabrielle, but do try to keep up.  I’ve given every benefit of the doubt, used a hard lower limit on the chances.  And it’s still a one in five chance sometime in one’s life.  Maybe not this year.  Maybe not next year.  But a pretty good chance (one in five–cannot repeat that enough) of sometime.

Maybe you’re willing to bet your family’s safety on a one in five chance.  I’m not.  And I don’t appreciate you making that decision for me.

If the topic of protecting your family comes up among people who actually interact and care for children each day, they think of things like using car seats, preventing hormones and dangerous chemicals in food, child-proofing the cleaning supplies, and schoolyard bullying.

I know this is a shock to you, Gabrielle, but we do all that. (I suspect, however, as someone who actually has more than a rudimentary knowledge of science, that I disagree with you on the issue of hormones and dangerous chemicals in food–what actually constitutes “dangerous.”  And thanks to this I now suspect the answer to my question above about if you vaccinate is in the negative.)  And we also take steps about that one in five chance that sometime, someone with ill intent will break into our home while we’re here.

Hundreds and hundreds of you have explained to me that a life insurance policy won’t protect against an armed intruder. I never said it would. The thing you don’t understand: There isn’t going to be an armed intruder. That’s just your paranoia. npr.org/2018/04/13/602…

One million times a year it does happen.  You may be willing to write those people off.  I am not.

NPR is not gifted with particular insight into criminology and justice statistics.  I’ll go with the Department of Justice on this, thank you very much.  Repeating your claim over and over again doesn’t make it so, Gabrielle.

A gun in the home is FAR more likely to kill or maim a household member than it is to protect them. Enjoy your daydreams about armed stand-offs. But that’s all they are. Daydreams.

This is, put simply, a lie.  It was a lie when Kellerman “reported” it (i.e. made it up) in his debunked “study.” It’s a lie today.  There are over one hundred million gun owners in the US, Gabrielle.  That’s households, not individuals.  Even the lowest of lowball estimates of uses of guns in self defense puts them at over 100,000 (National Crime Victimization Survey–extremely lowball because it only counts crime victims.  Things which were stopped before the person became a victim and that were not reported to police were systematically excluded by the very nature of the “study”.  Serious studies report numbers in the half million to three million range.) That’s five times as many as all the murders in the US in a year.  Five.  Times.  The “gun in the home is more likely…” is simply nonsense from beginning to end.  It’s a lie.  I’ll credit you with just being stupid and naively repeating a lie told to you by others, but the claim is a lie.

Update: A shocking number of you are CONVINCED that armed intruders will enter your home at 2 AM. And specially at 2 AM. Is there like an NRA ad about a 2 AM break in? Some meme I missed? Don’t answer. I don’t actually want to know.

It’s called a scenario.  People take a general concept and describe it as though it were an actual event, including details to flesh it out and help others envision the idea more clearly.  2 AM, the “wee hours of the morning” is when most people are deep asleep, when they are at their most vulnerable.  Like when Hillary made her campaign ad about the “2 AM call.”  Same concept.

When you do “design” do you never use concrete examples to use to illustrate some concept you are wanting to include in a design to help others understand and maybe go “I like it.  Let’s do that”?

Muting this thread now.

“And when away his regiment ran, his place was at the for-o
that celebrated, cultivated, underrated nobleman, the Duke of Plaza Toro.”

The question was asked elsewhere where to start with my stories.  The person tried Oruk Means Hard Work but couldn’t get into it.  Fair enough.  If we all liked the same things, think of what a tremendous natto shortage there would be.  So, here’a a brief precis of what I have out to help people decide where to start.

High Fantasy, you might like The Hordes of Chanakra (novel) or the shorter piece set in the same world (a couple of years after The Hordes of Chanakra) “The Kinmar”, or Treva’s Children which covers what happened to one of the minor characters in The Hordes of Chanakra near the end of that novel.

$2.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read in Kindle Unlimited, $14.99 in Paperback

$0.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read in Kindle Ulimited

SF: Most of my FutureTech series. Shorts like EMT or Rainy Days and Moon Days, novel like Survival Test.

$2.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read on Kindle Unlimited, $9.99 in Paperback

Always $0.99 in Kindle Store, free to read in Kindle Unlimited

$0.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read in Kindle Store

If you like MilSF, there’s Shiva’s Whisper (also part of the FutureTech Industries series, although there’s no direct connection in that book…but planned to be in future books). It ties into the earlier “Live to Tell” (which also does not make explicit the connection within the book).

$2.99 on Kindle, $15.99 in Trade Paperback.  As always free to read on Kindle Unlimited

$0.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read in Kindle Unlimited

If you like your MilSF with a dose of giant monsters and Lovecraftian horror, there’s Big Blue. My daughter once said, when I was picking her up from daycare some years back, “someone should write Godzilla vs. Cthulhu” (How she knew about Cthulhu I do not know). The result was this book.

$2.99 in Kindle Store, Free to read in Kindle Store, $19.99 in Paperback

Alchemy of Shadows and The Unmasking are both urban/contemporary fantasy novels. The Unmasking is really dark in places. I don’t consider it quite horror because it lacks the nihilism in most of what I’ve seen of horror, but the monsters are nasty.

Paperback: $10.99
Kindle: $2.99
Kindle ebook free with purchase of paperback from Amazon

2.99 on Kindle.  $19.99 on paperback. As always, free to read on Kindle Unlimited.

The Thunderer is a collection of three shorts: one contemporary fantasy, one a retelling of myth, and one actually science fiction. Connecting theme is that all involve the Norse god Thor (or at least what someone thinks is Thor).

$0.99 in Kindle Store. Free to read on Kindle Unlimited.

The short, Lurker in the Water is horror, the only actual horror I’ve ever written.

$0.99 on Kindle or Free to read on Kindle Unlimited

The Chooser is my most recent release. It’s more or less contemporary fantasy in that it takes place in the present day although most of the action occurs in Valhalla (with brief side trips to Helheim).

$0.99 on Kindle, Always free on Kindle Unlimited

If one just wants a good sampling of my work, then I’d recommend Roaming the Universes.  It collects most of my short fiction published as of its compilation.  It’s the best value in terms of the stories you get for the price.

$2.99 on Kindle, $19.99 in paperback. As always, free to read in Kindle Unlimited

Everything of my own that I’ve released is available free to read on Kindle Unlimited so if you have that, you can try them without needing to spend any money beyond the KU subscription itself. And no need to feel guilty about shorting me in doing so either. I get paid for pages read by KU. So, feel free to indulge. I can’t say that for the anthologies I’m in–I have no control over distribution on that.

I’ve also got a sequel to Oruk Means Hard Work nearing release. Although a sequel my beta readers say that it does stand alone well.