Cross-Examine

Cross-examine: (legal) to examine a witness called by the opposing side

I often hear authors explain how they stumble into what they call “writer’s block.”

It’s a condition in which they progress the story, but for some reason or another, they don’t know where to take the tale from this point going forward.

Many of these writers express great exasperation, nervousness and frustration over this uneasy stall.

But the truth is, every one of us suffers from writer’s block. Except it’s actually our real lives.

What halts us is the introduction of deception.

Once we’ve convinced ourselves that it’s impossible to proceed on with what we want to accomplish and still be truthful and above-board in doing it, we might just make a selection that is dishonest, and then find ourselves, like the authors, completely at a standstill.

Why?

Because if we go forward, somebody might come along, notice our deception and cross-examine us in an attempt to get to the truth.

Of course, we certainly don’t want to go backward and look like a loser.

I dare to say, there are people who have lived in the middle of what we shall call “a living block” for years, because they have such a fear of being exposed that they practically have to stay absolutely still to keep from drawing attention to themselves.

Cross-examination is a part of life.

I will agree with you—people who pursue it are annoying and worthy of being avoided.

But there’s always going to be someone who wants to know how we got to where we are. What is the extent of our involvement or guilt in some matter?

Of course, trying to hide only amplifies the interest of the interrogator.

Talking too much and making too many excuses also certainly rings the bell foretelling of great deceit.

So you see, once again, we find out that telling the truth is the only way to escape ‘living block’—allowing us to go forward without being nervous concerning the cross-examination that comes from those who believe it is their job to be the prosecuting attorney, the jury and our judge.

 

funny wisdom on words that begin with a C


Subscribe to Jonathan’s Weekly Podcast

Good News and Better News

 

Critical

Critical: (adj) judging

Two sentences:

  1. I am so good.
  2. I am no good.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Just changing one word in that phrase—from “so” to “no” or from “no” to “so”—renders a completely different conclusion.

It’s where the human race bounces.

Somewhere between so and no, we’re always on a journey to over-exaggerate our value or else proclaim ourselves wormlike.

Matter of fact, if I were to capsulize—perhaps even in a nutshell—what prevents us from becoming nutty is realizing that both profiles are stimulated by a flash-bang of insanity somewhere in the deep regions of our cranium.

No one is SO good.

Even in the midst of excellence, there is error that challenges to increase effort.

And no one is NO good.

Even within those souls we consider worthless, one can find value, even if that one only refers to God.

This is why a nation, or dare I say, a world of critical souls saying critical things to make their critical nature produce critical cynicism, causes the planet to teeter on a critical cliff of danger.

A critical condition.

I don’t agree with the axiom, “if you can’t say something good don’t say anything at all.”

Nor do I assert that everyone who is critical offers something to the “great conversation.”

I have developed a simple procedure in dealing with my fellow humans:

If I view something, hear something, watch something or read something that they have produced and there is nothing at all that I like about it or understand or appreciate or concur with, I remain silent.

Because to be honest, a critical contribution is only valuable if it follows a positive encouragement. If there’s nothing positive to say, being critical places the burden of guilt onto the judge.

In this case, that would be me. I can’t afford the guilt.

If they pursue, and say, “You didn’t have any opinion on the material?” I quickly grab the beauty of the lower seat and reply:

“Sometimes things go over my head.”

 

funny wisdom on words that begin with a C

 


Subscribe to Jonathan’s Weekly Podcast

Good News and Better News

 

Court

Court: (n) a tribunal presided over by a judge

I’ve only been in a courtroom twice. In both cases, I was innocent. In both cases, I walked in innocent and walked out innocent.

But not really.

Contrary to popular opinion from television shows, once you are summoned to the high court, the low court—or even a medium court, you will always be considered suspect.funny wisdom on words that begin with a C

Matter of fact, I have never spoken on the subject before. Why? Because I would not want to deal with what you would think.

Even though I committed no crime, discussing being accused of misbehavior only makes people believe that I found a slick way to weasel out of it—or there just wasn’t enough evidence to produce the desired verdict.

Just as we have faith in our doctors, we also have an unrighteous allegiance to the legal profession—and also the police force.

I do not think it’s good to be critical of those who serve us, but I think it is foolish to contend that their decisions are free of error, and even might occasionally be marked by folly.

Once you find yourself in a court, you must never refer to it again, and you must be fully aware that if anyone finds out about it, they will assume that “where there’s smoke there must be fire.”

It’s very interesting to me that a burning fire produces less smoke than a fire that has been extinguished. That seems to escape us when we’re trying to evaluate, judge and even condemn other people.

So the best thing to do is stay out of court unless you make your living as a lawyer, stenographer, judge or baliff. They are the only ones who seem to escape being tainted by the spirit of the room.

  Donate Button


Subscribe to Jonathan’s Weekly Podcast

Good News and Better News

 

Borrow

Borrow: (v) to take and use something that belongs to someone else with the intention of returning it.

I have an inkling that determining whether people are getting older can be evaluated by judging the shows they watch on television.Dictionary B

For instance, when I was younger I would never have watched “Wheel of Fortune.” And even though I would not call myself an avid viewer now, it is occasionally on in the background while I do other things.

Likewise, I would have made fun of myself for watching the judge shows like “People’s Court.”

I bring this up because on these court TV shows, each case finishes up with an interview in the outside hall, where the announcer asks the litigants what they learned from the experience. Universally, the eternal truth that falls from their lips is, “Don’t trust anybody.”

Benjamin Franklin intoned, in his pseudo-intellectual way, “Neither a lender nor a borrower be.”

It is a wonderful philosophy–if you are never in need.

But since my life has been bespeckled with all varieties of poverty and prosperity, I can appreciate the fact that every once in a while … you are one cup of milk and one bowl of cereal short of breakfast.

Donate ButtonThank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix 


Jonathan’s Latest Book Release!

PoHymn: A Rustling in the Stagnant

Click here to get your copy now!

PoHymn cover jon

 

 

Bigot

Bigot: (n) a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.

Dictionary B

No sane people would ever admit they were intolerant.

It is easy to tuck and hide intolerance behind the holy pillars of experience, education, religious affiliation, racial discoveries and traditions.

In other words, tolerance cannot be defined by merely claiming that no intolerance exists.

To avoid being a bigot, it may be necessary to accept a universal definition for intolerance. Arriving at this proclamation–or getting any group of individuals to agree on it–may be completely impractical.

So let me just say that I’ve developed my own definition which lets me know when I have slipped into the role of being a bigot.

It is as follows:

Intolerance is a smugness that prods me to change someone’s mind.

Whenever that creeps into my soul and churns with an evangelism to chase down an infidel idea, I know that I am flirting dangerously with, or have even consummated the action of becoming a bigot.

It should be satisfactory to possess a truth that enriches our lives.

There is nothing wrong with living that truth out boldly, allowing the fruit of that tree of knowledge to sprout evidence.

But the minute we begin to judge others by whether they are planting a similar seed is when we literally end up … with bigotry.

Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix 

 

Applicable

dictionary with letter A

Ap·pli·ca·ble (adj): relevant or appropriate.

Sometimes I feel like a helpless city with no defenses, being bombarded by a society which senses no responsibility for viciously attacking in the pursuit of gaining its will.

It doesn’t matter what the issue is–every advocacy group is obsessed with its own form of tunnel vision, and contends that if you do not agree with them in every principle, that somehow or another you are suffering from a phobia against their cause.

No one is stopping to ask an important question: what principle is really applicable to the ongoing sanity and peaceful coexistence of human beings?

Let me explain.

I have lots of foibles. I suppose some people would even consider them sins. I am fat, bald, somewhat lazy and silly. There are individuals who would take any one of those and isolate me off in a box for direct FedEx shipment to hell. I have no malice toward them. I do not wish that they, too, would experience a fiery end. I just think their cause is overwrought and is trumped by a greater good which is often ignored in the pursuit of these pundits proving their point.

I just believe that the only applicable statement for those dwelling on Earth and confined by mortality is “no one is better than anyone else.”

  • So on the issue of abortion, I have empathy for both mother and child, so I grant freedom for choice and discovery of restraint.
  • How about racial issues? Since no one is better than anyone else, having God color you in with a different hue doesn’t seem very important.
  • Homosexuality? Since I probably will not be joining you in your bedroom, I would rather appreciate your company in the fellowship hall.

Life is not nearly as complicated as angry pollsters and protesting advocates try to make it out to be. I cannot judge you because if I were judged by the same standard, I would be weighed in the balances and found wanting.

Therefore what is applicable becomes that which is relevant. And what is relevant is that I have no control over your happiness–only the ability to hurt you and take away your joy.

So I shall not.

“No one is better than anyone else. ”

That is applicable.

Everything else is merely conversational, aggravating bullshit.

 Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix

Admissible

Words from Dic(tionary)

dictionary with letter AAdmissible (adj.): acceptable or valid, especially as evidence in a court of law.

Now THIS is interesting.

What if we conducted our relationships with one another with the same meticulous style that evidence is procured, packaged and presented in a courtroom?

What does constitute a case?

In relationships we think that all we have to do is express that we FEEL something, have an inkling, “we’re afraid,” or we’re just in a bad mood. We consider that to be sufficient circumstantial proof that our partner should bend his or her will in our direction.

Of course, that would never be admissible in a court room.

Can you imagine the prosecuting attorney rising to his or her feet and turning to the jury box and saying, “I don’t know.,.. maybe it’s because I didn’t get enough sleep last night, but I just really feel like Bob, sitting over in that chair, killed his friend, Phil, and even though I’m not positive, if you love me, you’ll go along with it …”?

No, that wouldn’t be acceptable. The defense attorney would lodge an objection which would be sustained by a judge, who would frown at the prosecutor for such presumptuous allegations.

So if we DID conduct our personal affairs with the same litigious demands required in the justice system, would we be better or worse off?

  • First of all, we couldn’t make accusations without evidence. And by the way, that particular proof would have to be obvious AND not merely hearsay on what our friends and neighbors allegedly believe.
  • Secondly, it would help if the culprit’s fingerprints were all over the weapon. The fact that our loved one OWNS a knife does not necessarily mean that he or she used it to kill somebody.
  • How about this one? We’d have to allow for cross-examination. Once we presented our case we’d have to be willing to listen to someone disagree without copping an attitude or stomping out of the room.
  • Eye witnesses would be helpful.
  • Photo evidence?
  • A video loop?
  • Past deeds could not be brought into play, because prior acts cannot be used in a present case.
  • And no allegation can be spoken aloud without evidence already being put forth and accepted.
  • We then would have to turn it over to either a judge or a jury of our peers, who would not be in our back pocket, but would swear impartiality to both parties.

In other words, we’d have to make a case instead of just have an attitude.

In order for our particular assertion to be admissible, it would have to be based on the facts instead of merely our feelings. We would probably end up with fewer fights … but more grudges.

Please make note: I am not suggesting that we do this, but I am saying that the same amount of effort it takes to convict someone of shoplifting should be granted as a courtesy to anyone we love.