Showing posts with label suggestion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suggestion. Show all posts

Thursday, February 26, 2026

Nature Writing Reading

 Hey, all,

I have been reading a lovely tome every morning for several months. I sometimes stop at one of its brief entries, and I sometimes read two or three. I found it quite randomly, perusing the shelves at a local treasure--the Rhino Booksellers about a mile and a quarter from our home in The Nations, here in Nashville. Rhino's does have some social media identities, and a (single page) website, but seriously, the only way to "get" Rhino is to visit it. Make sure you have plenty of time.

I had been looking for anything by Tristen Gooley, having read and thoroughly enjoyed his Lost Art of Reading Nature's Signs. That accounts for my being so investigative of the nature section; but though I didn't find any Gooley, my explorations proved to my advantage when I discovered this hardcover edition of The Oxford Book of Nature Writing. It had been marked down from 11 to 10 dollars, the 11 on its liner page lined through with pencil and the 10 entered (in the same handwriting) in pencil beneath it. Whoopee! 

So I opened the book and read its brief introduction by editor Richard Maybey, a celebrated nature writer in his own right, and scanned the first few pages. They include several paragraphs from Aesop, and nearly two pages from Aristotle, 344BC. I flipped through and saw brief writings by folks like Darwin, Emerson, Thoreau, GM Hopkins, along with many from authors unknown to me. The final writing is from Primo Levi in 1985. The book is arranged in chapters, each roughly identifying with one of seven historical periods chronologically.

But I digress. Imagine that. 

Anyway, when I read these passages, I sometimes find myself reading aloud, because the language, oh, the language. The varied voices, some in translation, come alive in the reading, so so vividly and with such detail. I recorded a few of them to see if they sound as delicious as they read, and I think one could make that argument. Here's a just under 6 minute reading of one of them, credits at the end. I'm slowly creating a collection of them, and though they may sound better read by a digital voice in Speechify or another speech to text app, they are so much fun to read aloud that I'm going to share one here. I highly recommend this little book!

Nature Writing Reading 5

The Oxford Book of Nature Writing

Monday, November 11, 2024

Chat GPT Shortshort: "The Birthday Wish"

Note: If he really wants to shake up the world and establish his place in history as the political spoiler he has always claimed to be, something like this could be the beginning of the turn toward it, remolding his own legacy as the most caring, positive, and progressive leader in the history of the world. May 25 is my birthday.

The Birthday Wish

By ChatGPT 4.0, creative prompt by Scott Merrick

 

 

The Nomination

It was May 25, 2025, and the country had been on edge for months. The death of Justice Clarence Thomas had left a deep void on the Supreme Court, and in the weeks that followed, the media had speculated endlessly about who would fill the seat. The nation had seen an unprecedented political climate over the past few years, and every major decision seemed to feel like a spark in a powder keg.

 

That morning, President Donald Trump sat in front of a camera in the Oval Office, the familiar blue tie hanging loosely around his neck. His usual confidence was tempered by the gravity of the announcement he was about to make. The livestream had just started, and thousands of people across the country—Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike—were waiting for the news.

 

“Good afternoon, my fellow Americans,” Trump began, his voice steady but tinged with something else, something like resolve. “As you know, earlier this month we lost a great justice, Clarence Thomas. A man who served this nation with honor, with unwavering principle. And now, it is my solemn duty to nominate someone who will continue his legacy, someone who will uphold the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of every American.”

 

There was a moment of silence. His audience, half of which was no doubt anticipating the name of a staunch conservative, leaned in closer to their screens. But what Trump said next left them stunned.

 

“That’s why today, I am proud to announce that I am nominating… Kamala Harris, former Vice President of the United States, to the Supreme Court.”

 

A sharp intake of breath rippled through the livestream chat. Twitter erupted in confusion, disbelief, and outrage. The idea of Trump, a Republican president, nominating a Democrat—Kamala Harris, no less—was as shocking as it was unprecedented.

 

Trump gave a brief smile, his hands folded in front of him. "You all remember her, right? She's tough, smart, and knows the law. I think you’ll all be surprised at how well she’ll fit in. It’s time for a change—an unexpected change."

 

### **The Reaction**

 

Within minutes, pundits on both sides of the aisle were reacting.

 

“Well, that’s one way to unite a fractured nation,” a Republican commentator quipped, his voice dripping with sarcasm. “A former vice president, a known progressive, nominated by a president who’s spent the last decade denouncing everything she stands for? Pure genius, or pure madness. You decide.”

 

On the left, liberals were equally flummoxed. "Is this a joke?" one headline read. "Kamala Harris: The Last Person We Expected to See in This Moment." Social media was on fire with debates over whether it was an act of reconciliation or political theater designed to confuse.

 

Across the country, a ripple effect spread through Washington D.C. Senators, both Democrat and Republican, were left scrambling. Some called the nomination "a political maneuver" while others wondered if Trump was setting the stage for something bigger—an attempt to transcend partisan divides, to shift the political calculus of the coming elections.

 

Kamala Harris herself was caught off guard. She had been in her office in California when she received a call from the White House. It had taken a moment for her to process the words.

 

“Mr. President,” she said, her voice measured but filled with disbelief. “You’re serious?”

 

“Very,” Trump replied. “You’ve got my full support. I know it sounds crazy, but we need someone who understands both sides. You’re the perfect person for the job.”

 

After a long silence, Harris replied. “I never thought I'd be sitting across from you again in this kind of way... but I’ll consider it.”

 

The Confirmation Battle

 Within days, the hearings began. It was a spectacle unlike any other. Harris, seated at the witness table, was cool and composed as senators from both parties launched into their questioning. They had come prepared to attack, to dissect her record, her policies, her entire career. But there was something different this time.

 

Trump’s unprecedented nomination had left the typical partisan attacks on the backburner. Both sides found themselves, strangely, united in their confusion. There was no clear precedent for how to react. A Democrat in a conservative-majority court? Or was this an opportunity to reach across the aisle?

 

Senator Lindsey Graham, a long-time ally of Trump, stared across the room at Harris during the hearings and found himself unable to fully oppose her. “I disagree with nearly everything she’s stood for,” he said in his opening statement. “But I’ve always respected her intelligence. This is a wild card, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing.”

 

Senator Elizabeth Warren, sitting on the other side of the aisle, was less circumspect. “This is a grave mistake. Kamala Harris is too much of a partisan for this position,” she declared, pounding her fist on the table. “We need someone who represents the people, not a politician with a divided agenda.”

 

But as the questioning continued, it became apparent that the confirmation hearings weren’t simply about Harris’s political ideology. They were about trust. Could America trust a decision as volatile as this one? Could Kamala Harris, with her deep ties to the Democratic Party, truly represent the full spectrum of the nation’s values?

 

The Unexpected Victory

 In the weeks that followed, the country braced for the vote. Public opinion was divided, with both sides feeling the pressure to assert their influence over the proceedings. But when the final vote came—miraculously—it was a narrow victory. Kamala Harris was confirmed as the next Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

The nation reacted in shock and awe. The news spread like wildfire, and the political analysts quickly set to work trying to decode the true meaning of the nomination. Was this a masterstroke by Trump? Or was it a gamble that had somehow paid off?

 

In her first public statement after the confirmation, Justice Harris stood before the cameras, a figure of strength and composure.

 

“This country is divided, there’s no denying that. But I’m here to remind us all that the Constitution is our common ground. We all agree on that. And I will work every day to serve all of America, regardless of party or persuasion. My goal is simple: justice for all.”

 

As she spoke, the reality began to sink in. America had just entered a new era, one in which nothing could be taken for granted. Even the most improbable, the most impossible, things could—and would—happen.

 

And with Justice Kamala Harris now sitting on the Supreme Court, the future of the nation was more uncertain—and more exciting—than it had ever been.

Aaaaaaaaand, May

 Hi y'all. May 6th here. Up in the morning and dedicated to getting something online for this month so here: Up at 6:30 a.m. after sleep...