2015 Resolution check

So, before I set new resolutions, I have to see whether or not I actually did anything I was supposed to in 2015. Probably not. That's usually how I roll.

Let's see.




10) Stop smoking
NO.
0 pts.

9) Stop biting my nails (for real, this is ridiculous)
NO.
0 pts

8) Go to the gym 3 times a week
Mehhh, no.
0 pts.

7) Eat three meals a day and drink at least 4 glasses of water a day (I need to start feeling better).
Nope. I mean, I kept this up for like 4 months, but not enough.
0 pts.

6) Publish 100 pieces.
Nope.
80.
0 pts.

5) Graduate grad school
FINALLY I DID ONE. Damn.
1 pt.

4) Make $350 a week
Yes. ~$500
1 pt.

3) Get a book deal off proposal
Hmm, nah. But things happened and such. This isn't dead, just paused.
0 pts.

2) After school, get a job or increase earnings to $600 a week
Well, like, I just graduated, so...I mean, I got a teaching job? I'm going to give me this one.
1 pt.

1) Finish one of the many books I have floating around that are started and left for dead.
NO.
0 pts.

Three out of ten.
Fail.
Let's do better next year, eh?




FOR KIDS:


5) Keep them at being nice human beings 75 percent of the time (this is too new for me to trust it).
NO. We had like a major slide. They're just coming around again, but they dropped to like, 25 percent for MONTHS. It was bad. Like really hard.
0 pts.

4) Get them up and ready in the morning quickly and quietly.
Nope. But with my husband's help, this will be achievable this year.
0 pts.

3) Make them do chores every single day. Remember to pick chores back up after sickness
Hmm, yeah, I'll give me this one.
1 pt.

2) Have them read every day.
Yes. But not counting weekends.
1 pt.

1) Get them over this intense competition.
NO.
0 pts.


Two out of five.

So, like, not the best year for resolutions. But you know what? It was a really great year, so I don't know what these resolutions are talking about.

Freelancing Numbers - Year 1

At the end of my first year of freelancing, I thought some numbers and stats might help others.


This year, I made $23,833.19.

My lowest income month was April: $735
My highest income month was July: $4,566.81

On average I made $1,986 a month.
That's $496.52 a week.

Remember, though, I still have to do my taxes. So take-home is like two thirds of the total, right? Which leaves me at: $15,729.91.

Okay, so not great. Definitely not great. On the other hand, way better than ZERO. So, that's good. We'll say it's a good start.


To get to that amount, I published 80 pieces this year.

My highest number published in a month was October with 12 pieces published.
My lowest number in a months was February with 4 pieces published.

On average, I published 6.7 pieces a month.
That's 1.5 pieces a week.


In terms of publications, I published in 30 different places, including websites, newspapers and magazines.

The most pieces I published for one place? 17.


The lowest I wrote for was free. I wrote two piece for free this year. Not counting that, $50.
The highest check for one piece I received this year was for $1165.50.

On average, I made $297.91 a piece. (This number skews high because I counted a few reprints and some blogging revenue in my yearly total.) So, let's probably say I made about $250 a piece this year.




Let's talk pitches, rejections and acceptances. To publish my 80 pieces this year, I sent out 329 pitches. I was rejected outright 128 times. I was accepted 97 times (some are still in edits, and some were killed, which brings the published list to 80). I was ignored 104 times (which is a silent rejection, obviously).

So, my percentages work out like this:

Accepted: 29% of the time
Rejected: 39% of the time
Ignored: 32% of the time
Total Rejected: 71% of the time.

I was accepted 29 percent of the time. I was rejected 71 percent of the time.

Please, please, please know that of all the times I was rejected, I never gave up on those pitch ideas. I pitch until an idea is accepted or simply cannot be spun any further.

I've had pieces rejected 10-25 times this year which went on to be published in places like Time, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Vice and more.

Don't let rejections scare you. A piece can find a home. You can do it.

Good luck this next year, freelancers. We're going to rock this.

How to make candy Christmas Trees -- Fail Kitchen

MERRY CHRISTMAS







 

Stay Active with the Family This Winter -- S Post

The winter season can make you feel unmotivated to keep active as a family. In addition to shorter amounts of daylight, the cooler temperatures can disrupt your desire to spend any time outdoors. However, if you’ve been cooped up indoors, your family may be feeling the claustrophobic effects of the season with bouts of crankiness and pent up energy. The following are simple ways you can stay active with the family during the winter.

Embrace the Season

It’s difficult to embrace the winter season, especially if you live in a cool climate. It can be even more of a challenge to motivate yourself to exercise and stay active. As a family, it can be easier to welcome the darkness, snow and cooler weather when you shift your attitude. While summer can be filled with swimming, camping, cookouts and longer days, try finding things that you enjoy most about the season and write them down. When you’ve become frustrated with shoveling snow for the umpteenth time, take out your list and do something fun together.

Get Out and Play

Structured activities are nice, but did you ever just free your mind and body to let go? If you live in a warmer climate, it’s easy to find things to do outdoors. A game of tag, racing to the candy store or playing in the park can burn pent up energy. For those buried under cold temperatures, snow and ice, a fun filled snowball fight or making snow angels can be a playful way to spend some time outdoors with the family.

Community Involvement

The winter can be especially hard on those less fortunate. Community involvement can offer up some positive ways to spend some time together as a family. Chris Havlicek has some interesting holiday suggestions on how you can give back to the community. If animals are near and dear to your heart, you can teach your children the importance of helping out by playing with abandoned kitties at a shelter that are looking to get adopted. You may also want to bake holiday treats and bring them to a senior facility. Children who are ill may not be able to leave the hospital for Christmas. You can have your kids pick out presents for those who are sick and deliver them to the hospital. The joy that you see on the faces are sure to warm your hearts.

Take a Stroll

The holiday season is the ideal time to gather your friends and family together and stroll the neighborhood. Here you can get in a healthy walk, burn energy and look at the brilliant holiday lights displays provided by your community. You can also host a holiday caroling party. Send a note to your surrounding neighbors ahead of time, so they’ll be home to enjoy the music. Offer your home as a place where friends can get together afterward and have hot chocolate and cookies for refreshments.

Try Something New

The winter season is the ideal time of the year to try something new as a family. Whether your interests are of the outdoor variety or you want to stimulate your brain, get your children involved in the selection process. Assign each family member a day where they can choose what they would like to do. From museums and ice skating to snow sledding and hiking, you’re sure to find a host of possibilities.

Learn to Cook

No matter the age of your children, teaching them to cook is an important skill set that they’ll be able to use throughout their lives. Because you may be making heartier foods during the winter, they’ll be able to help you in the kitchen no matter if it’s setting the table, stirring or adding ingredients. Some ideal winter foods can include making homemade bread, stews, soups and baking cookies.

The Christmas Play

Once upon a time, about six weeks ago, my husband sent me an email about a cute community play that could use a few extra young girls. My kids love acting, and they rarely get to do it. This was a free experience, and not too time-consuming (just one practice a week, for two hours).

Enter the worst parenting decision of my life.

It's not that the play is bad, or that it's run badly or that anything, actually, is bad. It's just a horrible fit for us. As dramatic as my kids are, they are not trained in the way of acting, and they're still at an age where structure and order is very important for their sense of peace and well-being.

And you cannot expect a group of lovely volunteers who do this in their very limited downtime to be able to provide that kind of structure and order. With just two hours a week to practice, and a dozen kids trying to hammer down their lines and costumes and props and cues in that time, unexpected messes are bound to crop up.

It's been an excellent crash course in learning to go with the flow, but it's not a course my kids have been able to pass.

And it's my fault. I know that should a chair be moved two inches from where it is "supposed to be" my children may have a problem with that. I know that if someone accidentally skips their lines, they may have a problem with that. I know that they have trouble existing in the same small space together for any length of time (ask my womb), without starting to fight to the death because they are just so sick of sharing every damn thing.

I knew all this. And I also knew that signing us up meant we couldn't pull out without putting the hard work of others in jeopardy, as they would be counting on us to be able to do our part. I knew this. And I signed us up anyway.

We've had some tantrums. We've had some rehearsals where I've had to drag one screaming twin outside, and some where we've left clothing behind because, dang it, it just got lost and we had to leave now or we risked tearing the whole theatre down with our seven-year-old angst. One of them had to go home wearing one sneaker this week. (The other has since been found, thankfully).

We've had arguments over the Christmas tree changing position, emergency wardrobe malfunctions, and line bumbling. We've had a dead pig thrown on our feet accidentally, causing panic and mayhem.

We've had hours-long rehearsals every day this week over the time when usually the girls would be eating dinner and after their long day at school. Exhausted and starving, how could I expect them to keep it together?

Tonight, however, is the big night. Opening night. The night where my kids will say their lines, and sing their songs, and hopefully go with the flow. Will it be the worst ever? Will we ruin Christmas?

I simply don't know.

But I do know that my girls have memorized the hell out of Carol of the Bells and Good King Wencheslas, so we've got to give it a go.

And no matter what happens, I'm proud of us all for trying.

Artificial Tree? Real Tree? -- S post

Guys, did you ever want to know everything about artificial Christmas trees?

I know I sure did!

So, here, without further ado, is a lovely infographic made by, um, hold on, I have to go look this up. OH! Tree Classics. I'm putting the pic they made up, though, because I actually tried some of their products, and they WORKED. So, like, I trust them a little.

This is probably our last year with a fake tree, so, better make the most of it, eh?

Hmm, maybe not that much of it. This is as large as it gets, so, like. GREAT.

I'll be back in a couple days with a real post though. I have had some thoughts recently.

The gun debate ended with Sandy Hook

Two months ago, exactly, on October 2, 2015, and lord knows how many shootings ago, I was particularly struck by one such shooting. The narrative surrounding it was that those of us sharing links and information and rallying against the rampant, inexcusable use of guns in this country were hard-hearted and hard-boiled for "not even letting the bodies cool." Because when people die via bullet, in a violent, sudden and excruciating way, we are to mourn their lives, not politicize the issue.

And I get that. I do. There's a point there. Well, there was a point there in 1996, anyway. But on Oct. 2, 2015, that point no longer stands. And so I wrote the following:

When a nation's people no longer mourn for those killed in mass shootings but jump straight to indignation and politics... 

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT NATION'S PEOPLE.

What is wrong is that our human experience dictates we digest news with horror, shock and sadness when that news is shocking and against the grain of our narrative. It knocks the wind out of us with how far it strays from the normal. 

The reaction of the people to this story is the most compelling argument for change yet...IF YOU DON'T COUNT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS KILLED. 

It marks not a lack of morality and prudence of the public but the addition of gun violence to the daily normality in America. 

That is why we shout and share links. 

We are sad, too. But there is no decorum in a time of guns and bloodshed. In a time when I open my computer and in just a year, have gone from OH MY GOD to, fuck, another one. 

This needs to stop. 

When a nation's people no longer mourn but shout, there is nothing wrong with the people. There is something wrong with the nation.

Two months ago. SIXTY shootings ago.

Today, there were two more. Bringing the total number of shootings to 355, more than there have been days in this year. More than one shooting a day. Check it. Here are the stats.

We need to do more than share links and shout in outrage. We need to call our representatives. We need to let our leaders know that their jobs depend on their stance on the gun debate.

Because right now, we don't have a gun debate. We have a people living in a dystopian nightmare, eating cake and watching circuses to ease the national pain of thousands of deaths of our own.

I may have said something two months ago.

But Dan Hodges of The Telegraph said it best SEVEN months ago. He makes a point so poignant and true, it takes my breath away to think of it.

"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

Just think about that for a moment. Really let it wash over you.


"In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over."

Christmas Giveaway -- Scentsicles

Christmas is coming. I know, I know, not even Thanksgiving yet, and not everyone is like me, listening to Christmas Pandora on repeat. But, but but! You don't have to be baking cookies, or buying presents, or decorating trees yet to prepare. And next week, it IS Thanksgiving, and we'll be putting up our tree!

We have a fake tree, here. It started because my kids used to be little, and I didn't want them eating it or poking themselves with it, or getting sticky or any of the other issues with a real tree. Now we keep it around because it's easy. I don't have the wherewithal to take care of a living thing, even for a month right now. And environmentally, I feel like my fake tree that's lasted several years is doing a great job being its fake self.

But that doesn't mean I don't want my house to smell like I have a real Christmas tree in here. For me, that means spruce. I know others like fir trees, pine trees and the like, and they're all fantastic, but for me, it's spruce.

And what my house has lacked in these years is the scent of Christmas. Last year I bought a candle. And that worked for a spell, when I remembered to light it. Then I had to remember to put it out again. But this year, I managed to grab some Scentsicles from Tree Classics.

My tree isn't up yet, but I had to try them out. They come six to a canister, and opening it up felt just like Christmas at home (even though I'm in Florida now).

I took just one out to test it for the past few days.

Just about the size of my hand, they come with hangers so you can hide them in your tree, but if you lose yours (like I will), you can use regular bulb hangers, too.

So, I just hung this little guy up on my wall, where my kids' stockings usually go. I wanted to see if I could smell it, just all by itself.

It's been three days now, and you know what, sitting here on my couch, 10 feet away, I can smell it, and it is giving me the perfect whiff of Christmas.

So when I put six of them around my tree, I'm going to breathe in Christmas all season long, I just know it.

And I'm lucky enough to be able to give some away to readers, too. Want some of these amazing little smelly sticks? Of course you do. It is Tree Classics' 40th anniversary, so they're giving some of their products away in celebration.

If you'd like to sign up for some of these amazing things, go ahead and put your name in. I'll do the drawing the weekend after Thanksgiving.

Woot!

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Starbucks and the Internet's Bogeyman

So, Starbucks. I know, I know, but this isn't one of those posts, okay? I want to actually attempt to explain at least some of this bullshit.

As everyone in the United States has seen on repeat for the past news cycle, Starbucks replaced their red cups with snowflakes and doves on them with red cups.

The first I saw of the news was the sudden arrival of 80 billion posts on my friends' list complaining about people complaining about this change.

I saw not one actual complaint about the change.

My guess is, hardly any of my friends posting backlash against the backlash actually saw any original backlash either.

So, our knowledge of this "Starbucks controversy" comes in the form of replies to a complaint that, so far as I can tell, never really took off online. Sure, a few people were raising their hands to clouds and shouting Merry Christmas in their living rooms like every year, but, you know, most years we just tell grandpa to stop yelling at the TV and go back to our lives.

This year, for some reason, we decided to make up a bad guy and skewer him. And this news cycle, it happened to be right-wing Christians attacking Starbucks (whether or not they actually did). Because it is plausible enough that somewhere, someone who believes in the Savior was ticked off about the removal of a few white pictures on a red cup. Or, like, wouldn't it be funny and eye-roll inducing if there were someone mad about something like that? It WOULD. Okay, let's go with that. And then as people continue to open their computers, this happens:

Because it's an easy joke. It's an easy topic. It's an easy debate. It's easy. People like easy. And people love to tell other people that there are more important things going on than what they are worried about. Makes the first lot seem very important and worldly while they also get to contribute to the very topic they deem so unimportant.

And in this--very rare--case, Sbux cups actually ARE unimportant. (Usually, people telling other people their worries are meaningless because people are starving, or houses are burning and etc., are just falling back on a logical fallacy to inflate their own sense of importance). But not this time.

So, Starbucks cups.

Meanwhile, there is Mizzou, there are protests in the Philippines, Russia has a nuclear torpedo, we're close to finding life outside our solar system, Israelis are killing Palestinians in hospitals, Yale students are being Yale students, the ozone hole is as big as it was at record bigness, and the like.

All below the fold to Starbucks and its new cup.

Why?

Let me tell you.

In communications academia we have this theory called agenda setting. It basically states that the media set the agenda for the public and its opinion. To break that down: the media tell the people what is important to them and how they should think about the issue. And the public then responds. This is a self-propelling phenomenon, as whether or not the public agrees with the salience of the issue the media tell it is important, they still contribute to that salience by responding. Ergo, what the media decide to promote is the issue that goes to the front lines. And all the people railing against that power simply make that power stronger.

So, why would media focus on a Starbucks marketing decision, amid all the actual important news out there? As mentioned before, it is easy.

You see, even though media set the agenda for the public, media are beholden to what the public will actually talk about and they pay people like me big money to tell them what those issues are going to be. In the online age particularly, picking a topic that the public will respond to and argue over quickly and virally is of utmost importance to continue the relevance of any given publications, and guys, the media knows you a little bit. It's been serving you for a while now.

The media knows that liberals want to laugh about how stupid conservative people are, and that conservative people want to be like, bro, I don't even care about a cup, wtf, and that religious people want to chime in about a very important piece of their lives no matter where they fall in the argument.

The argument, remember, that isn't even happening because who of any importance actually said, OMG STARBUCKS HATES CHRISTIANS.

Not one person. At least in the early days.

In fact, the media TOLD Donald Trump (and a few other "important / newsworthy" people, that this was an issue, and basically invited them to be that guy. Because you can't fight a ghost forever.

So when Trump did his Trumply duty and spoke on it, we all wiped our brows in relief. It worked. The plan worked. We got our bad guy.

And when Dunkin' Donuts saw a chance to get its name in the news because holy crap, what a TON of advertising for Sbux right now, and that is totally unfair to the other coffee chains, it, too, made its own followup. Then Ellen and other people with credibility stepped in.

And now we've got a story with legs. And we get to sit back and say, "See, public? We told you this was a big deal and you heard it here first. We told you this was a big story. We broke this story. You know, the story we completely fabricated."

Another win for publications filling pages looking for clicks.

And the public began to play along. After a million posts starting with those memes above, then going into the actual news stories linked just after those, people started to voice their opinions on the issue and we got ourselves a nice (if tiny), eff-the-pc-police camp. So, thanks, internet commenters. You've done your job. In my public search, I found two. TWO.

"So I went to Starbucks to test the no Merry Christmas bull that Donald Trump has been talking about, and sure enough, they are not allowed to say it or write it on your cup! So not only do they support killing babies by employee matching planned parenthood, but they really have banned the use of Christmas this season! Thinking it's about time for a total boycott!"

"Christmas is the best holiday of the year. It has nothing to do with religion - it's about family time, snuggling, warm cider, christmas trees, gift-giving, reindeer and santa claus ...
The disappointment with Starbucks is about the PC-neutralization of American culture, and not about religion.
Once again Trump has the right idea. Dump Starbucks. Peet's has better coffee anyways, and they have holiday cheer!"

Okay great.


But we still haven't answered why the media choose to inflate the importance of stories like this. And I can't speak for them, I can only speak for me, but I can tell you, as a member of the media, it is hard to report on news. News is sad. And bad. And angry. And unfair. And people are fucking dying out there every day. And it's our job to tell you about it. And you don't want to hear about it, and we don't want to write about it, not because we don't care, but because we care so much, and we are helpless. We are the mouthpiece of the atrocities of the world, and we soon learn that just telling people about these atrocities does not end those atrocities. Only action and behavioral change on a systemic level does. And news articles are like bb guns in the fight to create that change. We have entire models on this, again, in academia. Changing behavior in just ONE individual takes the perfect recipe of facts, timing and interest on the part of that person that must be applied for months if not years. Changing the behavior in a society? That takes decades, and millions of voices, and the change is slow and painful and we're tired.

So, the public wants a break to complain about a cup?

Sometimes we just give up and agree. Yes, let's do that instead. For today. Tomorrow, back on the social justice boat.

Financial literacy should be added to school syllabuses -- S post

The need to accelerate financial literacy, as expounded and championed in South Africa by (perhaps most appropriately) an online loan vender, who have published their "Do you understand debt" initiative on their website, is rapidly gaining support all over the world. Even places like the United States, which are often seen as already being financially literate, are grasping the nettle too.

Alabama, USA pushing for financial literacy to benefit future generations

The Times-Daily.com based in Florence, Alabama, has recently published an article entitled “The push for financial literacy can benefit future generations;” an article which centres on the failure in the US to educate citizens and children about handling money. The article opens up by saying that only a paltry 4.2% of the population have any savings.

The article, published in the Times-Daily.com newspaper, refers to how uncomfortable many people are when it comes down to talking about their financial situations. The same is true even of family members all living in the same household and this reluctance to talk freely about money has created something of a stumbling block, meaning that many children grow up knowing little or nothing about managing their money, their debt, and spending within their budgets. The article refers to the fact that as a result, many do not know how to balance their cheque books or even reconcile their monthly bank statements.

This is a situation that is reflected around the world, and in many countries (like Saudi Arabia for example), many young adults having had little or no exposure to official institutions like banks and finance companies. Instead, they turn to friends and family for advice;but given the low levels of financial literacy, they often do not get appropriate help.

Sweet Home state of Alabama adds personal financial instruction to school syllabus

In Alabama, also known in the US as the “Sweet Home” state, they had the foresight to launch a financial awareness initiative back in 2003, when the state made it a legal requirement that personal finance instruction should become a mandatory part of the 9th grade prospectus; an initiative that should soon start to reap benefits as school leavers go out into the world with a little more financial savvy than some of their predecessors had.

Adding personal financial awareness and instruction to school syllabuses is perhaps something that should be adopted more widely. Having good numeracy skills is one thing, but knowing what you need to know in order to compare the terms of the various offers that the various lending establishments make, is something else.

Wonga helps potential lenders to work out if they can afford a loan or not

That why the guide to debt seems like such a good idea. Putting it on the Wonga.co.za website means that it is available to those people who may benefit from it most – those actively seeking a loan product. The same basic knowledge principles apply, whether it’s a long term loan that is being considered or a short term loan like a payday loan.

The informative article that Wonga SA has compiled tells readers what the difference is between good debt and bad debt, and together with illustrations, helps readers to work out for themselves whether they can afford the debt they are considering. It’s an important tool that potential lenders could and should use to their best advantage.

Halloween 2016

Another Halloween come and gone. So many people had such amazing costumes this year!

We simply went trick or treating around our neighborhood, then out for dinner, and it was really great.

My husband dressed up for the first time ever (not at the restaurant, though, boo).

Happy Halloween to everyone else!

I went as "Hillary's Listening to Men Face"

My husband and kids were a clown, a vampire, and a pirate. I have the best family.

That little vampire does smile, I promise! She's just in character!

My kids at the first trick or treating event.

Dulce as a clown.

Natalina as a vampire.

How to be a successful writer in the online age

There are three very simple steps to becoming a successful writer online. (It helps to have a well-shared platform, but it can be done even with a small publication or a blog. You never know what's going to take off.)

If you would like to be a successful writer on the internet, follow these instructions on repeat for the rest of your life:

1) Write things people hate.

2) Don't care that people hate them.

3) Write more things people hate.


So, as simple as these steps are, they need a bit of explanation, a bit of context, a bit of background.

When I started out writing, I wanted to write things people loved. That's how it used to be done. That's how you used to define "successful." Winning prizes for beloved, well-thought-out, important pieces that spread messages and information the public really needed or wanted to hear. Expanding horizons. Educating those who did not have the time or resources to do the research themselves, but wanted to go about their day informed and aware of certain issues.

It's a lofty and great goal.

It fails on the internet.

Of all my pieces, the ones I put the most hours in on--the investigative, the scientific, the health stories that I spent my sweat and tears on--they remain the pieces I am personally most proud of. But they languished in relative obscurity. I'd get a few thousand shares, and maybe 20 supportive comments. End scene.

The only reason I still write them at all is because they remain my personal reason for writing. And don't make the mistake of thinking success on the internet is why many writers write. Not true. It's just a necessary evil to keep yourself relevant as the wheels of internet debate continue to spin.

The pieces that propel an internet writer's career (and help it get into print) are the pieces everyone hates. They're provocative. They spin facts and figures to support an opinion that's controversial. They often exist just to attack something a set group loves illogically. (That group, for me, changes with each piece. Usually I'm pissing off conservatives, but I've made exceptions for Bernie Sanders supporters and liberals in general on occasion. I've pissed off people who like a certain show, people who like a certain brand, people who like boys to be boys and girls to be girls, transphobes, homophobes, classists, racists, and more. The point is, I'm always pissing someone off.)

Those pieces are usually shorter. They don't delve into the particulars of the situation as they should to be legitimate journalism. They ignore certain arguments to concentrate on one probably off-to-the-side point. They make strong assertions that would be seen by supporters as well-conceived, but lack the evidence to back those assertions up (usually not because there is no evidence but because that evidence is not needed to further the end-goal, which is clicks and shares so editors and publications continue to acknowledge you as a force on the internet). They're fun to write, and not difficult to write. They're fairly quick. A dash of oil on a fire already burning.

I wrote a piece about the Gilmore Girls two days ago, for instance, enraging fans everywhere. 11,000 shares so far. I wrote a piece on the Ferguson Riots, enraging conservatives everywhere, 40,000 shares. Meanwhile, my piece on groundbreaking stem cell research garnered 387 shares. My piece on human trafficking within door-to-door magazine sales groups got maybe 1,500 shares.

Write things people hate.

Okay, on to the second step. Rejection, either by editors or readers has never bothered me at all. In order to really excel at this business, you have to not care what people think about you. Remember, you're the one who keeps getting published. There's got to be something to that.

I've been asked how I manage to brush off the hatred, anger and malice tossed my way every single time I'm published, and here's what I've come up with. It can be a combination of any or all of these things for each piece that goes up.

Here is my fool-proof way to not give any fucks about what people think about your writing:

1) Don't care about the topic about which you are writing.
2) Care about what you are writing so much that you automatically assume haters lack reading comprehension or common sense.
3) Think that nothing you do is important, therefore comments from strangers on things you do must be absolutely miniscule.
4) Firmly believe that no one looks at bylines but you, and that a commenter who tells you to kill yourself over a piece about network television is probably the same commenter high-fiving you over a piece you wrote about Target.
5) Be used to people thinking you are worthless, and take pleasure in proving them wrong by being more successful, ambitious, tenacious or awesome than them.

Using these five methods, you should have the mental strength to pump out a piece that's been hate-shared 50,000 times along with comments like FIRE THIS WRITER, or GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC YOU DUMB CUNT, brush it off, and pump out a piece the next day that will anger an entire other population of people.

Do I wish this wasn't the case? Absolutely. I want to write enlightening, well-researched, bullet-proof tomes on important social issues of our times.

But that's not going to cut it. Not on the internet.

Good luck, soldier. We're in this together.