The Most Expensive Word Is Someday

What life lesson did you learn too late?

View all responses

I’ve learned a lot of lessons in my 60 years, and some of them came at a pretty steep price. But if I had to pick one that I wish I’d learned a whole lot sooner, it would be this: Stop worrying so much about whether you’re good enough to do something and start doing it.

That might sound like something you’d find on a motivational poster, but in my case, it cost me about 31 years. And no, that’s not a typo.

I’ve known I was a good writer for most of my life. I spent years working in journalism, editing newspapers and magazines, and putting words together for other people to read. I knew how to tell a story, and I knew I had a certain amount of talent. But there’s a big difference between knowing you can write and actually writing something you’ve dreamed about for years.

In the spring of 1993, I came up with an idea for a novel that I thought could be something extraordinary. It was an ambitious political thriller, one that would require considerable research and a lot of careful writing to pull off. I talked about the idea with a few people, worked through parts of the story in my head, and imagined what it might look like when it was finished.

And then I did absolutely nothing with it.

Part of the problem was that I didn’t think I was ready. I wanted to write the book the right way, and I wasn’t convinced I had the ability to do it justice. I worried about what people would think if I tried and failed. What if the story wasn’t nearly as good on paper as it was in my imagination? What if I discovered that I wasn’t the novelist I thought I could be?

So I kept thinking about it. And thinking about it. And thinking about it.

Meanwhile, life went on. I got married, raised a daughter, changed careers, got divorced, remarried, and eventually became a teacher. I continued writing here and there, but the novels I wanted to write remained largely ideas floating around in my head. As long as I didn’t actually write them, I could keep telling myself that someday I might become a published novelist.

There’s something remarkably comfortable about unrealized potential. You can imagine that you’re capable of doing something wonderful without ever having to risk finding out whether you’re right. Your unwritten novel can be brilliant because nobody has ever read a word of it. You can picture your name on the cover of a bestseller without having to sit down and produce the first chapter.

The problem is that potential doesn’t accomplish much when you never put it to work.

In 2024, I finally finished my first novel. It wasn’t the political thriller I’d envisioned in 1993, but it was a complete manuscript, with characters, a plot, a beginning and an ending. For the first time, I could say that I’d actually written a novel instead of simply telling people I wanted to write one.

I don’t know whether that book will ever be published. I’d certainly like it to be, and I still believe I have what it takes to become a successful novelist. But there’s something different about making that claim now. I have a completed manuscript to back it up. For the previous 31 years, all I had were ideas and blank space.

And the political thriller? I still want to write it.

In fact, that’s part of what makes those lost years so frustrating. The world has changed considerably since 1993, and some of the social and political developments we’ve witnessed over the past three decades bear an unsettling resemblance to the circumstances I’d imagined for the story. I’m not claiming I predicted the future, but I sometimes wonder what might have happened if I’d actually written the book when I first conceived it.

I’ll never know. I talked about it with people, but I never produced a manuscript. I can’t point to something I wrote back then and say, “See? This is what I was thinking about more than 30 years ago.” The opportunity to do that is gone.

The story itself isn’t necessarily gone, though. I still believe it could make a compelling novel, and perhaps an important one. But it’s also the kind of project that demands extensive research and careful craftsmanship. It has to be an entertaining story first, not simply a morality tale dressed up as fiction. Writing it half-cocked would be a mistake, and I don’t have the time right now to give it the attention it deserves.

One of my ambitions is to become successful enough as a novelist that I can eventually write full-time. That would give me the freedom to tackle a project of that magnitude without trying to squeeze years of research and writing into the hours left over from teaching.

In the meantime, I have other books in mind that wouldn’t require nearly as much preparation. Some of them could probably be written in a matter of months rather than years. They’re stories I’d like to tell, and I believe I’m capable of telling them well.

And what am I doing about them right now? Mostly thinking. Apparently, some lessons take longer to learn than others.

But there’s an important difference between where I was in 1993 and where I am today. Back then, I allowed the fear that I might not be good enough to keep me from trying. Today, I know I can write a novel because I’ve already done it. I also understand that some projects require more time and preparation than others. There’s nothing wrong with waiting until you have the resources to do something properly. The mistake is allowing fear to convince you that you’ll never be ready.

I can’t go back to 1993 and reclaim the years I lost. I can’t write the novels I might have written during those decades or find out where a writing career might have taken me if I’d started sooner. All I can do is decide what to do with the time I have left.

And that’s what makes this lesson particularly uncomfortable at 60. When you’re 25, someday seems like a perfectly reasonable place to put your dreams. You’ve got decades ahead of you, and there’s always time to get started later.

At 60, later doesn’t look nearly as generous.

I still have stories to tell, books to write and ambitions I haven’t fulfilled. I may never get to all of them, but I don’t want the reason to be that I spent the rest of my life imagining what I could accomplish instead of doing the work.

The most expensive word I’ve ever used is someday. It cost me 31 years. And I don’t have another 31 years to spend paying for it.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Posted in Daily Prompt, Random | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Thought – Tuesday, November 10, 2026 – Lessons From Mom: Don’t Let the Sun Set on Your Anger

This is the 15th of 25 special reflections based on lessons I learned from my mother. These will run from my birthday on October 27 until her birthday on November 20.

Read

Ephesians 4:17-32

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.
Ephesians 4:26-27

Reflect

A lot of what Mom taught us was just common sense – at least to her kids. But when you look around society, you realize that common sense isn’t so common.

After growing up seeing my Mom and Dad argue with each other – and stay mad – I had a culture shock when Mom married my stepfather. He was a minister, but I now realize that really doesn’t mean a lot. That is to say, a lot of ministers are great at shepherding their flocks, but less great when it comes to shepherding their homes. My stepdad was pretty good about applying the Bible to our home life, so he insisted on Ephesians 4:26-27 in his marriage to my mother:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.

I cannot recall a time during their 33-year marriage when it seemed like a disagreement between the two of them carried over into a second day. And they ensured that we kids settled all of our differences with each other in a similar manner. As a result, I’m terrible when it comes to staying angry. Strife makes me miserable and I simply can’t function until I get things resolved.

As I’ve said before, my wife is fond of saying that much of the Bible is preventative medicine, so to speak. If we practice what it says, it tends to lead to happier, healthier and more peaceful lives. And that absolutely goes for this passage. Anger that is allowed to fester overnight does not tend to subside with the passing hours. Instead, you usually wake up at least as angry as before and often even angrier.

Picture a splinter that burrows under the skin and is left to resolve itself. Maybe it will eventually work its way out, but along the way, it will cause an infection and could develop into something even worse. The same is true with our disagreements. Left unresolved, something rather simple could develop into a raging relationship infection that does lasting damage.

When it comes to resolving disagreements, put Ephesians 4 into practice. You might not get everything fixed in a day, but you need to make sure to at least put out the fires of your anger before your head hits the pillow. Let the Lord guide you both in love – it’s always a great place to start with both parties are operating within His care and striving for God’s best.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Reflection copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Posted in Faith, Quick Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Bar Hasn’t Moved

Has your idea of what makes a good friend changed as you’ve gotten older?

View all responses

Scott and I after Lizzi’s baptism in 1998.

That’s an interesting question, but I think it makes an assumption that isn’t necessarily true. Why should my definition of a good friend change just because I’ve gotten older? If I knew what made someone a good friend when I was 25, why would I need a different definition at 60?

The truth is, I don’t think my definition has changed at all. If anything, my belief in what makes someone a good friend has only gotten stronger. The bar hasn’t moved. I’ve just had another 35 years to see who could clear it.

I’ve always believed that loyalty is the most important quality in a friendship. That doesn’t mean blind loyalty, where someone agrees with everything I say or supports every stupid decision I make. Sometimes the best thing a friend can do is tell me I’m wrong. But there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and abandoning them. A true friend can tell you the truth, even when you don’t want to hear it, without making you question whether he’ll still be there tomorrow.

I felt that way when I was younger, too. If someone had betrayed my trust or deliberately stabbed me in the back when I was 25, I doubt I would have kept that person as a friend. I certainly wouldn’t today. Loyalty wasn’t something I discovered as I got older. It was something I valued from the beginning.

What has changed is that I’ve had a lot more opportunities to see what loyalty looks like in practice.

.

I’ve had plenty of friends over the years. Some were close friends at one time, people I spent a lot of time with and shared important experiences with. But life has a way of changing relationships. People move away, get married, raise families, change jobs and develop different interests. Before you know it, someone you once saw every day becomes someone you exchange Christmas greetings with, if that.

That doesn’t mean those people were bad friends. It doesn’t even mean they weren’t loyal. Sometimes friendships simply fade because the circumstances that brought people together no longer exist. I still consider many of those people friends, even if we haven’t talked in years.

But then there’s Scott.

We’ve been friends since 1990, and in the years since, we’ve been through just about everything life can throw at two people. He was one of the groomsmen in my wedding in 1994. I’ve been his best man twice, and he was my best man when Daryl and I got married in 2015. We’re godfathers to each other’s children. We’ve watched each other experience marriages, divorces, career changes, financial difficulties, the deaths of people we love and all the other joys and disappointments that come with living.

And through all of it, we’ve remained friends. Not just the kind of friends who occasionally catch up on the phone, but the kind who know that if one of us needs something, the other will be there.

Together again after a barrel tasting and selection at Four Roses in 2025

I wrote about one particularly ridiculous example of that friendship in January, in a story called There Can Be Only One. Back in 1997, Scott needed help retrieving his car from Virginia, and I agreed to go along on an adventure that probably should have involved a little more planning and a lot more common sense. The trip didn’t exactly go as intended, but it was one of those experiences that helped cement a friendship that has now lasted more than 36 years.

I didn’t go because I thought Scott might someday return the favor. I went because he was my friend and he needed help. And I know that if the situation had been reversed, he would have done the same thing for me. That’s not a theory. After all these years, it’s something both of us have demonstrated repeatedly.

Of course, we don’t agree on everything. We have different personalities, different perspectives and occasionally different opinions about things that matter. We can argue about college football, disagree about bourbon and tell each other when we think the other guy has lost his mind. None of that threatens the friendship because neither of us confuses disagreement with disloyalty.

May 2025: Toasting at my daughter’s wedding after Scott helped officiate the ceremony.

I wrote last May about the importance of Unwavering Loyalty, and I haven’t changed my mind about that, either. A true friend doesn’t have to agree with you, but he ought to be someone you can trust to tell you the truth, keep your confidence and stand beside you when life gets difficult. And, of course, you owe him exactly the same thing.

I suppose some people might look at my life and think I have a pretty small circle of friends. They’re right. I’ve known hundreds of people over the years, and I’ve been fortunate to call many of them friends. But there’s a difference between being friendly with someone, sharing common interests and having the kind of friendship that survives decades of changing circumstances.

When it comes to that kind of friendship, I can count my true friends, outside of family, on one finger.

His name is Scott.

So, no, my idea of what makes a good friend hasn’t changed as I’ve gotten older. At 25, I thought I knew what loyalty, trust and friendship were supposed to look like. At 60, I’ve had another 35 years to find out whether I was right.

The bar hasn’t moved. I’ve just come to appreciate the one guy who’s always cleared it.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Posted in Daily Prompt, Random | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Thought – Monday, November 9, 2026 – Lessons From Mom: Don’t Argue in Front of the Children

This is the 14th of 25 special reflections based on lessons I learned from my mother. These will run from my birthday on October 27 until her birthday on November 20.

Read

Matthew 18:15-20

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”
Matthew 18:15

Reflect

One of the unfortunate memories I have as a child was my mother and father arguing in the kitchen. I only remember them yelling the one time, but apparently, it was something that happened on a regular basis. It got bad enough that the discord between the two of them was one of the reasons they got divorced.

After Mom married my stepfather, the two of them turned over a new leaf. I know they had disagreements. There was one in particular that I recall when one of them lost their temper to the extent that I was close to leaving the house. (I won’t say which one it was to be fair, because I’m also not going to rehash what led to the hotheaded moment.) They ended up taking that problem behind closed doors, and when it was all over, they both emerged and the angry partner made amends.

We never saw or even really heard them arguing about anything. Unfortunately, I took that to mean in my first marriage that I really wasn’t supposed to ever have any disagreements. Sadly, that just led to us burying our differences and never resolving anything. In fact, a counselor once told me, “You say that you and your wife never argue. I hope you realize that’s not a good thing.”

Arguing might be the wrong word for it. It’s having serious differences in the way we see things, and that’s going to happen now and then if you’re in a relationship with someone. But the way we resolve those differences helps develop and shape our relationships. Having a disagreement isn’t a bad thing. In fact, learning to work through disagreements is an important part of any healthy relationship. The problem comes when those disagreements turn into hostility, accusations or arguments that hurt the people around us, especially our children.

Children need to know that we don’t always agree, but they also need to know that we have a peaceful way of resolving our differences and that their parents are united in their decisions. There’s nothing wrong with children seeing their parents disagree respectfully. They can learn something valuable from watching two people listen to each other, compromise and even apologize when they’ve been wrong. Looking back, that’s one of the things Mom and my stepfather demonstrated that day. They didn’t just take their disagreement behind closed doors. They came back out having resolved it, and one of them made amends.

Whether you have children or not, the best place to begin settling your differences with someone else is privately, and that’s a principle Jesus pointed out in Matthew 18. Go and share your problem with the other person “between you and him alone,” Jesus said. He was specifically addressing how to handle sin between believers, but the principle of going directly to someone rather than involving others unnecessarily applies to many of our disagreements. You can involve someone else later if it’s not resolved that first time, and sometimes a counselor, pastor or trusted mediator can help. But when we discuss our differences in love, we give ourselves a much better opportunity to find a resolution.

When we turn our disagreements into public disputes, especially when we draw our children into them, we only complicate and deepen the problems. There’s a difference between allowing children to see that their parents don’t always agree and making them feel responsible for resolving those disagreements. Our children shouldn’t have to choose sides or carry the burden of problems that belong to the adults.

As you move forward in your faith, make sure to put this principle to work in your life — inside and outside of the home. And make sure to protect your children from the hostility that can arise from disagreements in your marriage. They have enough to handle without having to play referee between their parents.

The lesson isn’t that people who love each other never disagree. It’s that people who love each other learn how to disagree without destroying what they share.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.
 
Reflection copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.
 
Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Posted in Faith, Quick Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sunday Pour: Blind Is Brutal

Labels disappear, reputations vanish and sometimes expensive bottles get embarrassed.

Every time I put cheap bottles against expensive ones in a blind tasting, I get a little nervous. There’s always the possibility that something I previously rated wonderfully is going to finish behind a bottle I pulled off the bottom shelf. And while I love finding a great bargain, there’s something unsettling about discovering that the bourbon I paid $100 for can’t beat something that cost me $25.

It doesn’t happen very often. The good stuff should be the good stuff, after all, and the cheap stuff shouldn’t have magically improved since I put the cork back in the bottle. But sometimes it happens. Sometimes my senses get turned around, especially if I’m moving through samples too quickly. Sometimes I’m simply having an off day and things aren’t tasting quite the way they should. And sometimes, that inexpensive bourbon really is better than the expensive one.

And that’s OK. As long as I’m being honest.

The Trouble With Knowing Too Much

One of the challenges of reviewing bourbon is that it’s almost impossible to approach a bottle without some preconceived notions. I know what I paid for it. I know how old it is, how much proof it carries, and sometimes even where it was distilled and aged. I know whether it’s a highly sought-after limited release or something that’s been sitting on the bottom shelf of my local liquor store for years.

And if I’ve tasted it before, I know what I thought about it the last time.

All that information can influence my expectations before I ever put my nose near the glass. If I know I’m drinking a particularly expensive or well-regarded bourbon, I’m probably going to expect something special. If I’m drinking something that costs less than a decent lunch, I might be pleasantly surprised if it’s merely drinkable.

That’s not necessarily dishonesty. It’s human nature. We bring our experiences, expectations and preferences to everything we evaluate. The trick is recognizing those influences and doing everything possible to keep them from determining the outcome.

That’s where blind tasting comes in.

Take away the label, the price tag, the age statement and the reputation, and suddenly all those things I thought I knew about the bourbon don’t matter nearly as much. All I have is what’s in the glass, and the only question worth answering is whether I actually enjoy it.

In that sense, a blind tasting isn’t just a test of the whiskey. It’s a test of the reviewer.

When the Numbers Don’t Agree

I’ve rated enough bourbon over the years to know that my palate isn’t perfectly consistent. I’ve revisited bottles and wondered what I was thinking when I gave them their original scores. Sometimes a bourbon seems to improve with a little time in the bottle. Sometimes it doesn’t seem nearly as impressive as it did when I first opened it.

And sometimes the difference has nothing to do with the bourbon.

What I ate earlier in the day can affect what I taste. So can the condition of my sinuses, the glass I’m using, how much water I’ve had, or how quickly I’m moving from one sample to another. Palate fatigue is a real consideration, particularly when I’m working through several high-proof bourbons in the same sitting.

I’ve become especially aware of those limitations recently because my sense of smell hasn’t been what it used to be. I’ve found that certain glasses allow me to pick up aromas that seem almost nonexistent in a traditional Glencairn. That doesn’t mean the bourbon has changed. It means the conditions under which I’m evaluating it have changed.

And those conditions matter.

When I score a bourbon, I’m recording my experience with that whiskey at that particular moment. I’m trying to be as consistent and objective as possible, but there’s no laboratory instrument measuring how much caramel, cherry, oak or cinnamon I’m experiencing. There’s just me, my senses and my best attempt to describe what’s happening.

That doesn’t make the scores meaningless. It simply means they aren’t carved in stone.

When the Blind Gets Brutal

Last June, I conducted an 11-bottle blind tasting of double-oaked bourbons, including a couple that had been triple- and even quad-oaked. I randomized the bottles, transferred their contents into numbered samples, and mixed everything up again. By the time I started tasting, I genuinely had no idea what was in any particular glass.

The results were fascinating, and a few were downright surprising.

The overall winner was a special Father’s Day selection of Woodford Reserve Double Oaked that I’d purchased at the distillery. It scored an 88.21, which didn’t particularly surprise me. What did surprise me was that three of the next four positions belonged to Bondstone, Total Wine’s house brand. The Triple Oak finished second, the Quad Oak third, and the Double Oak Cask Strength fourth.

Not bad for a brand that doesn’t carry the prestige of some of the better-known names in bourbon.

But perhaps the most interesting result involved Old Forester. The regular Old Forester 1910 finished fifth with an 86.69. The considerably more exclusive 117 Series 1910 Extra Extra Old finished ninth with an 83.44. That’s a difference of more than three points, and it wasn’t what I would have expected.

Then there was Kentucky Credential Double Oak, an ABC-exclusive bourbon that costs less than $50. It scored an 85.82, good enough for eighth place in the blind. That might not sound particularly impressive until you consider the competition. More importantly, that score was strong enough to earn Kentucky Credential a place in my 2027 Bourbon March Madness bracket.

That’s something worth remembering about blind tastings. Finishing in the middle of a strong field doesn’t necessarily mean a bourbon is mediocre. Sometimes it means an inexpensive bottle has demonstrated that it belongs in the company of bottles costing considerably more.

And then there’s the other side of the equation.

Buzzard’s Roost Signature Double Oak, a bourbon costing somewhere around $50 to $60, finished dead last with a score of 79.86. It was beaten by Jim Beam Double Oak, which costs about $20 and scored an 81.81. Neither bourbon threatened to win the competition, but the much less expensive Jim Beam managed to outperform a bottle costing nearly three times as much.

Was the regular Old Forester really better than the Extra Extra Old? Was Jim Beam really better than Buzzard’s Roost? On that day, with those samples, that’s exactly what my palate told me.

Would I get precisely the same results if I repeated the tasting tomorrow? Maybe. Maybe not. But I wasn’t going to change the rankings because I didn’t like what they revealed.

That’s the beauty of tasting blind. And sometimes, it’s the brutality.

The Bottom-Shelf Upset

Here’s the uncomfortable reality: Sometimes the less expensive bourbon wins because it’s actually the better bourbon. Or at least it’s the bourbon I prefer.

Price and quality aren’t always closely related. A bourbon can be expensive because it’s old, rare, difficult to produce or backed by a reputation that creates enormous demand. None of those things guarantees that I’m going to enjoy drinking it more than something that’s readily available for a fraction of the price.

That’s one of the reasons I enjoy my Bourbon Cheapskate series so much. There’s genuine satisfaction in discovering something inexpensive that delivers far more than its price suggests. I love being able to tell readers that they don’t have to spend a fortune to find a bourbon worth drinking.

But there’s a difference between enjoying a bargain and allowing that bargain to defeat something I previously considered exceptional.

When that happens, I have to ask myself some questions. Did I get the original evaluation wrong? Am I having an off day? Did the proof or tasting order affect my perception? Or did that unassuming bottle simply bring something to the table that the expensive one couldn’t match?

Sometimes the answer is obvious. Sometimes it isn’t.

What I can’t do is change my score because I don’t like the result. I can’t give a famous bottle a few extra points to protect its reputation, or take points away from something inexpensive because I can’t believe it performed that well.

If I’m going to call it a blind tasting, I have to be willing to accept what the blind tasting tells me.

Looking Beyond the Label

There’s a spiritual lesson in all of this, too.

When the prophet Samuel went looking for the man God had chosen to become Israel’s next king, he thought he’d found him almost immediately. Eliab, the oldest son of Jesse, looked like exactly the sort of man who should be king. But God had other plans.

The Lord told Samuel:

“For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” — 1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV)

Samuel was making a judgment based on appearances, and he was wrong. God’s choice was David, the youngest son, who hadn’t even been brought before Samuel when the selection process began.

I wonder how often we make the same mistake. We see someone’s appearance, learn about their background, discover what they do for a living, or hear something about their reputation, and we start forming opinions before we really know them. Sometimes those opinions are favorable. Sometimes they aren’t. But either way, we’re allowing information that may have little to do with someone’s character to shape our judgment.

That’s a much more consequential mistake than overrating an expensive bottle of bourbon.

Blind tasting reminds me that what I think I know isn’t always what I actually know. And if I’m willing to set aside my assumptions about something as relatively unimportant as whiskey, I ought to be even more willing to do so when I’m dealing with people.

There’s another lesson in that Kentucky Credential result, too. We sometimes judge people by where they rank in comparison to others, forgetting that someone doesn’t have to finish first to be exceptional. There’s value in recognizing what a person brings to the table rather than measuring them against everyone else.

After all, a label can tell you quite a bit about what’s supposed to be inside a bottle. But it can’t tell you whether you’re going to like what’s actually there.

And appearances tell us even less about what’s inside a person’s heart.

Honesty Is the Whole Point

There’s a reason I keep putting myself through these exercises, even when the results make me uncomfortable. It’s because I want to know what I actually like, not what I’m supposed to like.

I want my readers to know that when I recommend a bottle, I’m doing so because I believe it’s worth their consideration. Not because it carries a prestigious label, commands a premium price or received glowing reviews from everyone else.

And when a bourbon falls short of my expectations, I want to be able to say that, too.

That doesn’t mean every blind tasting result becomes the final word on a particular bottle. If something performs dramatically differently from my previous experience, I’m perfectly willing to revisit it. One tasting, especially on a day when my senses aren’t cooperating, shouldn’t necessarily erase everything I’ve experienced before.

But I won’t pretend the result didn’t happen, either.

I don’t particularly enjoy discovering that a bourbon I spent $100 on can’t beat something I bought for $25. And I certainly don’t enjoy discovering that a whiskey I previously praised doesn’t hold up when I don’t know what I’m drinking. But that’s the whole point of tasting blind. I’m not there to defend a purchase, protect a reputation or justify an earlier score.

I’m there to find out what’s actually in the glass.

Sometimes the expensive bottle wins. Sometimes the cheap bottle pulls off an upset. And sometimes I have to admit that my palate just isn’t having its best day.

Blind is brutal. But it’s also honest. And honesty is worth considerably more than the price of the bottle.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

 

Posted in Bourbon, Faith, The Sunday Pour | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Love Is Still the Only Thing I Can’t Live Without

What is one thing you can’t live without?

View all responses

Today’s WordPress question asks, “What is one thing you can’t live without?”

Back in March, I answered a similar question about three objects I couldn’t live without. I considered my cellphone, my car, and my computers, all of which are important parts of my daily life. But I concluded that none of them was truly indispensable. I could find ways to live without them, just as generations before me did.

My conclusion was that love is the only thing I can’t live without.

Eight months later, that answer hasn’t changed. If anything, I believe it more strongly today.

I can’t imagine my life without Daryl. I can’t imagine it without Lizzi, or Sully, or Aurelia. Each of them occupies a place in my heart that no possession, accomplishment, or experience could ever fill. They are among the greatest blessings God has given me, and I can’t imagine what my life would look like without them.

Without those people in my life, everything else would seem empty and pointless. The things I enjoy, the things I accomplish, and even the things I dream about doing someday would lose much of their meaning. But that’s not because I depend on them to make me happy. It’s because I love them so much. Loving them gives my life a richness and purpose that nothing material could ever provide.

And here’s something else I’ve come to understand: My love for them isn’t dependent on how much love I receive in return. I love them because they’re part of my life, because of who they are, and because loving them is part of who I am. Having their love returned is the icing on the cake and the cherry on top.

Of course, underlying all of that is God’s love for me. His love is the foundation that makes it possible for me to love others, even when loving isn’t easy. As John reminds us in 1 John 4:19, “We love because he first loved us.”

There are plenty of things I enjoy having and plenty of things I would hate to lose. But things can be replaced, routines can be changed, and conveniences can be surrendered. Love is different. It gives meaning to the people, places, experiences, and memories that make up a life.

So my answer remains the same as it was in March. The one thing I truly can’t live without isn’t something I can hold in my hands or put on a shelf.

It’s love. It always has been, and I pray it always will be.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

 

Posted in Daily Prompt, Faith, Random | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Thought – Sunday, November 8, 2026 – Lessons From Mom: Thank Those Who Compliment You

This is the 13th of 25 special reflections based on lessons I learned from my mother. These will run from my birthday on October 27 until her birthday on November 20.

Read

1 Thessalonians 5:12-28

…give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
1 Thessalonians 5:18

Reflect

Saying “thank you” is a dying art. As a teacher, one of the first habits I try to instill in my students is saying “thank you” when I or one of their fellow students does something nice for them. Being gracious goes a long way, even when the other person doesn’t expect any thanks in return. It’s more about our attitude of gratitude than it is about what the other person expects or receives in return for their kind action.

Mom was acutely aware of this principle. We were trained from an early age to write thank-you cards for gifts. But the greatest lesson about saying “thank you” had nothing to do with a gift, but instead with a compliment.

It’s sometimes hard to hear people tell us that we did something well. Often, it feels like we’re bragging if we accept what they have to say about our talents, so we say something like, “It was nothing,” or “I really didn’t do that well.” That was my case one day after church. I had sung a solo, and a couple came up to tell me how much they enjoyed my singing. I think the lady said, “You were so wonderful. You sounded just like Neil Diamond!”

It might have been that I received that as something other than a compliment, in part because sounding like Neil Diamond was never one of my goals. But I said something like, “That wasn’t my best,” or “I actually made a mistake.” They smiled and walked away, and Mom came over and said, “Whenever someone pays you a compliment, the correct response is always, ‘Thank you.'” She went on to say that when I didn’t receive the compliment, I was actually showing ingratitude to the person offering it. Saying “thank you” simply receives their kind words and shows that we appreciate those words, even if we don’t completely agree with what is being said.

Gratitude is absolutely a godly characteristic. Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians to give thanks in all circumstances. We see gratitude commanded by the Lord in Psalms, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews and other books of the Bible. James reminds us that every good and perfect gift comes from above (James 1:17). God wants us to remember that every good gift ultimately comes from Him, including the abilities and opportunities we sometimes take for granted. When we thank Him for those gifts, and thank others for the kindness they show us, we cultivate the gratitude He calls us to demonstrate.

Don’t get out of the habit of thanking those around you for their kindness. Whether someone gives you a gift, lends you a helping hand, or simply offers a compliment you don’t think you deserve, two little words are almost always the appropriate response: “Thank you.” Gratitude may be going out of fashion in the modern world, but it will never go out of fashion with the Lord.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Reflection copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Faith, Quick Thoughts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Story Between the Lines: The Clothes Didn’t Make the Man

Little Chuck was embarrassed. He was about to go to school wearing something that belonged to his older sister, and he knew the other children would notice. But there wasn’t much he could do about it. His family couldn’t afford new clothes, and what he wore was determined largely by what his older siblings had outgrown.

Chuck was one of 15 children, and there were never enough resources to go around. His father shaved the children’s heads to prevent lice, and even something as simple as a pair of socks was a shared family resource. When Chuck came home from school, he sometimes had to remove his socks so an older brother could wear them to work. The family’s circumstances were so desperate that when a labor dispute cost them their company-owned home, they moved into the basement of another family’s house. The family upstairs had eight children of its own.

For Chuck, the experience was humiliating. But it was also normal. He had never known a life in which there was enough of anything to go around. And while he couldn’t possibly have known it, the experiences that made his childhood so difficult would eventually help make him one of the most recognizable men in the world. The irony was that much of his eventual success would depend upon convincing audiences that he was the toughest man they’d ever seen.

A Hard Place to Grow Up

Chuck’s hometown wasn’t the sort of place people visited for pleasure. It was a company town, built around an industry that demanded tremendous physical effort while offering workers relatively little financial security. The streets were unpaved, the landscape scarred by industrial waste, and the water frequently contaminated by sulfur. Enormous piles of discarded rock smoldered from fires burning deep inside them, occasionally exploding when rainwater seeped down and turned to steam.

Chuck’s father worked in the local industry, as did many of the men in town. Their livelihood depended upon exhausting, dangerous labor, and the company that employed them controlled much of their daily existence. When his father died, the family’s already precarious situation became even more difficult. Eventually, Chuck joined his older brothers at work, spending long hours in an environment where serious injury or death was a constant possibility.

The work was physically punishing. Men labored in cramped spaces, surrounded by dust and darkness, earning their wages according to how much material they could extract. An unusually productive day could mean a little more money for the family, but it also meant greater exhaustion and danger. Chuck later recalled that he had little affection for the work. It was something men in his community did because there were few alternatives, and he couldn’t imagine spending the rest of his life there.

But something was happening far beyond the boundaries of Chuck’s little hometown, and it would change his life forever. A global conflict was drawing young men away from their families and into military service. For many, it would mean leaving comfortable homes and promising careers behind, trading security for uncertainty and risking their lives in places they’d never imagined visiting.

For Chuck, the prospect held an entirely different kind of promise.

An Unlikely Escape

When Chuck entered military service, he discovered something remarkable. For the first time in his life, he had dependable meals, clothing that fit and a place to sleep that wasn’t shared with a crowd of siblings. He later described entering the military as one of the luckiest things that had ever happened to him.

His background initially made the transition difficult. The son of immigrants, Chuck had grown up in a community where several languages and accents mingled. His English reflected that environment, and people sometimes assumed he had been born overseas. Military life gave him an opportunity to improve his language skills and discover a world far larger than the one he had known.

Eventually, Chuck found himself serving in a dangerous position aboard an American military aircraft. His assignment carried him into combat thousands of miles from home, where he completed 25 missions and earned a Purple Heart for wounds received during his service.

The military had provided an escape from the life he dreaded, but it had also exposed him to dangers that few people could fully comprehend. And yet, when the war ended, Chuck emerged with something he had never possessed before: the freedom to imagine a different future.

He didn’t want to return to the work that had consumed his childhood and early adulthood. Instead, Chuck became interested in something that might have surprised the men who had worked alongside him.

Art.

Chuck enjoyed drawing and painting. He appreciated the opportunity to create something beautiful, something that didn’t involve physical exhaustion or the dangers he’d known since his youth. He pursued educational opportunities available to returning veterans and began exploring a world of creativity that would eventually lead him into an entirely different profession.

Along the way, he encountered people involved in theatrical productions. He discovered that the creative arts offered possibilities beyond drawing and painting, and he began studying another discipline that required imagination, expression and the ability to communicate with an audience.

It was a remarkable transformation for a young man whose early life had offered so little opportunity for self-expression. But Chuck was about to discover that breaking into his new profession would require a different kind of perseverance.

The Wrong Face for Fame

Chuck had a distinctive appearance. His features were rugged, his expression often severe, and his naturally reserved personality sometimes made him seem intimidating. He wasn’t the sort of handsome young man that industry executives traditionally envisioned as a leading performer.

Instead, Chuck found himself assigned to parts that emphasized his appearance. He portrayed dangerous men, hardened criminals and other characters whose faces suggested lives filled with trouble. He was convincing in those roles, perhaps because he understood hardship better than most of the people around him.

But convincing performances didn’t necessarily translate into opportunities for stardom. For years, Chuck worked steadily without becoming a household name. He appeared alongside some of the industry’s biggest personalities, occasionally making a memorable impression but rarely receiving the sort of attention that might transform his career.

He even changed his professional name. During a period when political suspicions could damage careers, his Eastern European surname seemed an unnecessary liability. The new name sounded more comfortably American, but it didn’t immediately change the kinds of roles he was offered. Changing his name was easy enough. Changing the way industry executives viewed him was another matter entirely.

As Chuck approached middle age, it appeared that he might spend his entire career playing supporting characters. He was respected as a dependable performer, but the industry seemed unable to imagine him carrying a major production. His appearance, which had helped him find steady work, also appeared to have placed a ceiling on his ambitions.

Then something remarkable happened. People in another part of the world began to see something in Chuck that his own country’s entertainment industry had largely overlooked.

A Star Nobody Saw Coming

The very qualities that had limited Chuck’s opportunities at home made him especially appealing to audiences overseas. His weathered appearance, quiet intensity and ability to communicate without saying much became tremendous assets. He didn’t need long speeches or exaggerated gestures to command attention. Sometimes a glance or a slight change in expression could communicate more than an entire page of dialogue.

The filmmakers who embraced him recognized that Chuck’s unconventional appearance gave him an authenticity that couldn’t easily be manufactured. He seemed like someone who had actually experienced the hardships his characters endured. And in many respects, he had.

Chuck began receiving increasingly prominent opportunities. Audiences responded enthusiastically, and his reputation grew far beyond anything he had experienced at home. The man who had spent years working in supporting roles suddenly found himself regarded as a major international attraction.

The transformation was extraordinary. He hadn’t changed his face, abandoned his reserved personality or dramatically reinvented his approach to performing. What had changed was the willingness of others to recognize his value.

Eventually, Chuck received one of the entertainment industry’s honors recognizing international popularity, sharing the distinction with another performer who had become famous for portraying a particularly sophisticated and dangerous character.

The recognition was especially satisfying because Chuck had spent so many years struggling to establish himself. While audiences around the world celebrated his performances, the industry back home was still catching up.

But that would change, too.

A major production finally gave Chuck the opportunity to carry a story before American audiences. His character was an ordinary professional whose life was shattered by a brutal crime. What followed was a controversial descent into violence that divided critics but captivated moviegoers.

The production became a commercial success and established Chuck as a major attraction in his own country. By then, he was already in his early fifties, an age when many performers were beginning to wonder how much longer their careers might last.

Chuck, however, was just reaching the pinnacle of his popularity.

The Man Nobody Really Knew

Success brought recognition, financial security and opportunities that would have seemed unimaginable to the little boy who once went to school wearing his sister’s clothes. But it also brought an image that didn’t necessarily reflect the man behind it.

To audiences, Chuck was the embodiment of toughness. He seemed capable of handling almost any threat, usually without saying very much. His characters were frequently dangerous men, and even when they were on the right side of the law, they often relied upon violence to accomplish their objectives.

Yet Chuck himself was considerably more complicated. He was a private man, often uncomfortable with interviews and publicity, who preferred painting and spending time with his family to cultivating the image of a celebrity. The profession that made him famous had been an unexpected development in a life that initially seemed headed toward an entirely different artistic pursuit.

And there’s something fascinating about that contradiction. The young man who had survived an impoverished childhood, exhausting labor and the dangers of military combat had chosen to pursue art when he finally had the freedom to decide what to do with his life. Yet the public came to know him primarily for portraying men whose solution to almost every problem involved force.

That doesn’t mean Chuck wasn’t tough. Anyone who had endured the experiences that shaped his early life had certainly demonstrated remarkable resilience. But resilience and violence aren’t the same thing, and neither necessarily defines a person’s character.

There’s another lesson in the way Chuck’s career unfolded. For years, industry executives looked at his face and saw limitations. They decided what sort of man he ought to portray and largely confined him to those expectations. It took people from another part of the world to recognize that the qualities others considered liabilities could become his greatest strengths.

The little boy who had once been embarrassed by what he wore had grown into a man who was still being judged largely by what other people saw when they looked at him.

Only this time, the judgment would eventually make him a star.

The Clothes Didn’t Make the Man

Chuck continued working for many years, although his later career became increasingly associated with the image that had made him famous. His personal life included both great happiness and devastating loss, including the death of his beloved wife after a long battle with cancer. He eventually retired from performing and died at 81, leaving behind an extraordinary body of work and one of the most recognizable faces in entertainment.

His life is remarkable enough as a story of triumph over poverty. But the deeper story is about the judgments people make based upon appearance, background and circumstance. Chuck spent his childhood embarrassed by things he couldn’t control, then spent much of his adult life struggling against an industry that seemed determined to define him by his appearance.

And there’s a particularly delicious irony in the fact that a man who enjoyed painting and drawing would become famous largely because he looked like someone who’d never pick up a paintbrush.

Remember little Chuck, the boy who sometimes wore his sister’s dresses to school because his family couldn’t afford decent clothing? The one who worked in the coal mines, escaped through military service and flew 25 combat missions during World War II? The quiet young man who wanted to become an artist but eventually found himself portraying some of the toughest characters ever seen on the silver screen?

He was born Charles Dennis Buchinsky in Ehrenfeld, Pennsylvania, on November 3, 1921. He was the 11th of 15 children, and after years of struggling to establish himself as an actor, he found international fame in such classics as The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen and Once Upon a Time in the West. His starring role in 1974’s Death Wish finally cemented his reputation as one of Hollywood’s biggest action stars.

We’ve known him throughout this story as little Chuck. But the world came to know him by another name.

Charles Bronson.

Hollywood looked at his weathered face and saw a criminal, a gunman or a thug. European filmmakers looked at that same face and saw a leading man. Audiences eventually saw one of the toughest characters ever to appear on the silver screen. But behind that face was a boy who had known desperate poverty, a young man who had survived the coal mines and combat, and an artist who wanted something more out of life than the circumstances of his birth seemed willing to offer.

The clothes he wore as a child didn’t define him. Neither did the characters he portrayed as an adult. Charles Bronson’s greatest achievement wasn’t convincing audiences that he was tough. It was building a life that nobody looking at that impoverished little boy could have imagined.

And that’s the story between the lines.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

 

 

Posted in Movies, Random, The Story Between the Lines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Things We Remember (And the Things We Don’t)

What’s a small moment from your past that you still think about years later?

View all responses

Having a good memory is both a blessing and a curse. I can remember some of the most meaningful things people have said or done for me over the years. I can also remember the most random, insignificant moments that nobody else would ever think to remember. Sometimes I wonder why my brain holds on to certain things while letting others slip away.

Today’s WordPress prompt asks about a small moment from my past that I still think about years later. I could probably come up with a hundred examples, but there’s one that stands out, partly because it demonstrates just how differently two people can remember the same events.

Years ago, when I was leaving the Air Force and moving away from Louisiana, an ex-girlfriend gave me a special gift. She had created a watercolor pencil drawing just for me. We weren’t going to be together, and I knew that, but I thought it was incredibly thoughtful of her to spend the time making something so personal.

As I was leaving town, I stopped at a gas station to fill up my car. While I was standing there, I pulled out the drawing to admire it one more time. I remember thinking how nice it was that she’d gone to the trouble of making it for me, even though our relationship was over.

Then I made a mistake. I set the drawing on top of my car while I finished filling the tank. I probably went inside to get a drink or take care of something else. Eventually, I put the gas nozzle back in its holster, climbed into the car and drove away.

Without the drawing.

I was already on the Interstate when I realized what I’d done. Somewhere behind me, back at that gas station, was a beautiful, thoughtful gift that I’d managed to lose through sheer carelessness. The next exit was about 20 miles away, and even if I’d turned around, I couldn’t imagine the drawing would still be there. It had probably blown off the roof of the car before I even made it out of the parking lot.

I felt terrible. Not because the drawing was particularly valuable, but because someone had cared enough about me to create something special, and I’d lost it before I even made it out of town.

Here’s the strange thing: I don’t remember what the drawing looked like. I couldn’t tell you what she’d drawn or what colors she’d used. But I remember standing at that gas station admiring it, setting it on the roof of the car and realizing, miles down the road, that it was gone.

And I remember how sad I felt about losing it.

But there’s a kicker to this story. Years later, thanks to the miracle of Facebook, I managed to find that ex-girlfriend. We exchanged a few messages, and at some point I mentioned the drawing she’d made for me and how I’d lost it on my way out of Louisiana.

She didn’t remember the drawing. Actually, she didn’t even remember me.

Well, that certainly puts things into perspective.

Here I was, carrying around this little memory for years, remembering her kindness and my own stupidity, and the person responsible for the whole thing didn’t remember any of it. Apparently, what had been a memorable moment in my life hadn’t even registered as a footnote in hers.

I don’t hold that against her. People remember different things for different reasons. I probably remember things about people who have long since forgotten me, just as there are undoubtedly people who remember something I said or did that I couldn’t recall if my life depended on it.

That’s the blessing and the curse of having a good memory. Sometimes you get to relive wonderful moments that might otherwise have disappeared. Other times, you find yourself carrying memories that nobody else shares, including a few you’d probably be better off forgetting.

But I still think about that drawing from time to time. Not because I miss the relationship or because I regret moving away. I just remember that someone once took the time to make something special for me, and I appreciated it.

I don’t remember what she drew. She doesn’t remember drawing it. Apparently, she doesn’t even remember the guy she drew it for. But all these years later, I still remember how much it meant to me.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Posted in Daily Prompt, Random | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Quick Thought – Saturday, November 7, 2026 – Lessons From Mom: God Bless the Bulldogs!

This is the 12th of 25 special reflections based on lessons I learned from my mother. These will run from my birthday on October 27 until her birthday on November 20.

Read

Psalm 71

But I will hope continually
    and will praise you yet more and more.
Psalm 71:14

Reflect

Mom loved sports. At least she loved the sports that we loved. I rooted for the Philadelphia Phillies, so Mom was a Phillies fan. Most of us rooted for the Florida Gators, so Mom was a big Gator fan. And she was a huge supporter of any sport that we played. If you were one of her children and you were involved in a game (or in the case of two of my sisters, involved in cheering for the game), you could expect to look in the stands and see Mom there.

There were only two teams I remember that Mom loved that had nothing to do with her children. One was the Dallas Cowboys. She had started rooting for the Cowboys in their early days, and she had a soft spot in her heart for their longtime head coach, Tom Landry, and their Hall of Fame quarterback, Roger Staubach. No one was happier when the Cowboys won the Super Bowl than my mother.

The other team was her beloved alma mater, the Carthage High School Bulldogs. Carthage never had much of a football team when she went to school there in the late 1950s, and they always seemed to fall short in the years after that. A little before she died, she told me, “I would love for my Carthage Bulldogs to win a championship just one time.”

That was in 2007. Mom died at the end of July, and when the school year started in Carthage the next month, the Bulldogs welcomed their new head coach, Scott Surratt. That year, the Bulldogs did something new – they won their district and made it into the second round of the playoffs. And the next year, Surratt and the Bulldogs made Mom’s wish come true by winning the Texas 3A state championship.

Since then, the Bulldogs have not slowed down at all. In the 19 years since Mom passed, Carthage has won 11 state championships and is attempting to win a 12th and its third in a row. Until it was interrupted by a loss to their rival, Gilmer, Carthage was in the midst of a 38-game winning streak and has gone 138-5 since 2017. Surratt has never lost a state championship game, going a remarkable 11-0. Again, no one would be cheering any harder or feel any prouder of the Bulldogs than my mother.

Paul wrote that “these three remain: faith, hope and love,” and Mom had more than her share of all three. Her faith in the Lord seemed infinite, and her love for others was always on display. But hope – that was something she never seemed to lose. She never gave up hope in the things she cared most about, whether it was her country, her children or her beloved high school football team. I really wish she had lived long enough to see just one of those 11 championships. She missed the first one by less than a year and a half. But it brings me joy thinking that she somehow knows about them on the other side.

Hope is another of those qualities that God prizes, in part because He is the source of our hope. He is a God who remains faithful to His people, and He wants us to be people who display hope in our lives. We should always hope for the best in situations, even when things don’t turn out the way we want, and we should never lose our hope for the glory that comes from faith in Christ. We live in a cynical world that often reveals that it has lost its faith in goodness and its hope for better days. Christians have an opportunity to stand out and make a difference when we lead with our faith and share our hope with those who have lost theirs.

Enjoyed this? Subscribe and get future reflections, bourbon notes, and assorted nonsense delivered straight to your inbox.

Reflection copyright © 2026 Doug DeBolt.

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

Posted in Faith, Quick Thoughts, Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment