British Petroleum has 48 hours to identify containment strategies. 48 hours or else ... what? The point of a deadline is to have some sort of consequence. Does the Coast Guard think that they are going to take over? After all, they have soooooo much experience stopping oil leaks.
Perhaps it is 48 hours or else we will beat them in soccer? Nah, that couldn't be it, we just tied them (besides, my guess is that most of the workers for BP in the Gulf are actually Americans - you know the whole multinational corporation thing).
What's the point of the unmentioned threat anyway? It is not like BP is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Usually, Obama saves his "or else" for crazy dictators bent on the destruction of the US. BP, well, they just want to sell us oil. It's not like they have been sitting on their butts doing nothing. Its not even like BP wanted to have a 100 million barrel oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico to begin with. Unfortunately, that is what we have.
Empty ultimatums (while at the same time trying to smooth things over with the homeland's head of state) won't stop the spill. It took 9 months to put out the oil fires and cap the wells after the first Iraq war, and that was on land. I don't seem to remember any ultimatums being given to speed up the process.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
College Football Realignment
With the move of Colorado to the Pac-10 (soon to be renamed Pac-11?) and Nebraska going to the Big Ten (will they finally change their name to something with Twelve in it?), the college football world is set to go through a shuffle of major proportions. Talk right now is about the formation of some super conferences with 16 teams and two BCS bowl births. And the Big 12 (soon to be Big 10) is right in the middle of it.
I see a few good things coming from this, while it does spell the breakup of one of the best BCS conferences (Big 12), I think it will also lead to the inclusion of some of the up and coming mid-majors into a BCS conference. In the end it is all about money.
The Pac-10 is going to want to get a piece of the Texas TV market so more than likely Texas (and probably Texas Tech) will go to the Pac-10. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will also follow. Which then leaves one spot open. Many right now are speculating that will go to Texas A&M. As long time rivals with Texas, this does make some sense, however, it is not a done deal.
The SEC also would like to get a piece of Texas Football and Texas A&M makes a nice pick for them (granted they would prefer Texas, but Texas makes enough money on their own that they don't need the SEC. So, who would the 16th PAC-10 team be. Probably Utah. They have played well against PAC-10 teams in the past and have two BCS bowl wins under their belt (which is more than a lot of schools in the BCS conferences). The thing to get over here is BYU. Utah and BYU have been hand in hand from the beginning. Sometimes you just have to let them go.
Why not pick BYU? Well to their advantage they probably do have a more widespread fan base, but this also works against them. Their fan base outside of Utah is spread so thin that it wouldn't amount to much in the TV viewing ratings. Utah has been much more consistent in the last decade and already does a lot of recruiting out of California.
Back to the SEC, if they pick up Texas A&M then they need another 5 teams to get to 16. Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech from the ACC are good candidates, as is TCU from the Mountain West if they want to increase the Texas market. West Virginia from the Big East.
This shakeup would then require a realignment of the ACC and Big East. Frankly the ACC would absorb the remaining Big East to reach its 16 teams. So, we are left now with a depleted Big-12. They're chance at survival results in absorbing the Mountain West conference. The new Big-12 would be dominated by Missouri, Kansas State, Boise State, and BYU.
Finally, the Big Ten will have four slots available. By this time Notre Dame should realize that they are going to get cut out, swallow their pride and join the Big Ten. The remaining three teams remain a mystery. Since it appears that the Big Ten (at least in words) is going to wait out the expansion, they may have the tables turned on them and be left with picking from the leftovers. Army, Navy, East Carolina, Bowling Green, SMU, and Houston are all possibilities.
The remaining conferences will probably do some realigning to consolidate into two super conferences as well. But the die will be cast. 64 teams in four super conferences leads nicely to a 16 team playoff.
I see a few good things coming from this, while it does spell the breakup of one of the best BCS conferences (Big 12), I think it will also lead to the inclusion of some of the up and coming mid-majors into a BCS conference. In the end it is all about money.
The Pac-10 is going to want to get a piece of the Texas TV market so more than likely Texas (and probably Texas Tech) will go to the Pac-10. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will also follow. Which then leaves one spot open. Many right now are speculating that will go to Texas A&M. As long time rivals with Texas, this does make some sense, however, it is not a done deal.
The SEC also would like to get a piece of Texas Football and Texas A&M makes a nice pick for them (granted they would prefer Texas, but Texas makes enough money on their own that they don't need the SEC. So, who would the 16th PAC-10 team be. Probably Utah. They have played well against PAC-10 teams in the past and have two BCS bowl wins under their belt (which is more than a lot of schools in the BCS conferences). The thing to get over here is BYU. Utah and BYU have been hand in hand from the beginning. Sometimes you just have to let them go.
Why not pick BYU? Well to their advantage they probably do have a more widespread fan base, but this also works against them. Their fan base outside of Utah is spread so thin that it wouldn't amount to much in the TV viewing ratings. Utah has been much more consistent in the last decade and already does a lot of recruiting out of California.
Back to the SEC, if they pick up Texas A&M then they need another 5 teams to get to 16. Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech from the ACC are good candidates, as is TCU from the Mountain West if they want to increase the Texas market. West Virginia from the Big East.
This shakeup would then require a realignment of the ACC and Big East. Frankly the ACC would absorb the remaining Big East to reach its 16 teams. So, we are left now with a depleted Big-12. They're chance at survival results in absorbing the Mountain West conference. The new Big-12 would be dominated by Missouri, Kansas State, Boise State, and BYU.
Finally, the Big Ten will have four slots available. By this time Notre Dame should realize that they are going to get cut out, swallow their pride and join the Big Ten. The remaining three teams remain a mystery. Since it appears that the Big Ten (at least in words) is going to wait out the expansion, they may have the tables turned on them and be left with picking from the leftovers. Army, Navy, East Carolina, Bowling Green, SMU, and Houston are all possibilities.
The remaining conferences will probably do some realigning to consolidate into two super conferences as well. But the die will be cast. 64 teams in four super conferences leads nicely to a 16 team playoff.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Teacher's Caught Cheating
Wouldn't you know, when there are incentives for high scores (and punishments for low scores), some people will cheat? It doesn't matter that some of these are the teachers and principals who would (at least used to) fail students for cheating, being a public school teacher doesn't make you immune from greed and self preservation.
Then again, society doesn't look at cheating like it used to.
Then again, society doesn't look at cheating like it used to.
"Proving" the Bible
Why do some people feel compelled to "prove" their faith? Faith is not something you can "prove" by any universally accepted methods. That is what we call science. Science doesn't (except in the political world) delve into faith issues. Likewise, most people's attempts at "proving" their faith come to laughable attempts. It is called FAITH for a reason.
During my drive on the interstates of Iowa on Sunday afternoon and evening, I listened to about a half hour of a religious program on a radio station. Basically, Sundays bite for listening to the radio, but I needed something to keep me awake for the final bit of the drive. As part of the program a preacher was talking with the host about the Bible and how "we know" that the Bible is the word of God. He started out good by saying we shouldn't use circular reasoning, i.e. the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God. But then it went downhill from there. Below are a couple of the arguments he made and my personal views of how those are a bunch of bunk and don't "prove" anything.
The Bible is unique. After saying this he had to clarify himself, after all, every religious book (or any book) is unique. What he meant is that it was consistent over the period in which it was written of 1500 years and was written on three continents. Well, the three continents part is correct Europe, Africa, and Asia although of the roughly 1500 pages of the Bible, only about 20 are "in Egypt" and another 50 are "in Europe."
Then he tried to make a comparison, "it would be like me writing about God here in America and someone else writing about God in China and both of our accounts were consistent." Uh, no. While I will concede that the Bible is purportedly written on three continents, the comparison of the US to China is ludicrous. The Bible was written on three continents because the major location of the Bible (Israel) happens to be at the crossroads of those three continents. Not only that, but the actual area covered (from Rome, around the Greek cities, over through parts of Iran, down around Iraq and Jordan, and then looping around Cairo and back up to Rome) is an area no larger than the eastern half of the United States. But that doesn't sound as impressive to say that one person in New York and one person in South Carolina wrote about God and were consistent.
The next part of his consistency argument also has problems. The Bible was written over a 1500 year period. Well, if we consider that Moses wrote the first five books and the apostles wrote the last of the epistles, then yeah that is a 1500 year period. Except that we don't have any of Moses' original writings. Nor do we have any of the Apostles' original letters (and if we did we would have no real way of knowing since we don't have any samples of their writing to compare it to). So, what we do have are copies of copies of copies (ad nauseum). The earliest texts of the old testament date to only about the 2nd century BC. Assuming that the Apostles writings were written by 100 AD, the 1500 year timeline could be only a 300 year timeline. I hope that doesn't shake anyone's faith.
The preacher expanded his analogy and said that "it would be like me writing about God here in America today and someone else writing about God in China 1000 years ago and both of our accounts were consistent when read by someone 2000 years from now." Well, you sort of have to have some more qualifiers in there. Besides the geographic discrepancy that I already mentioned, the books of the Bible were not written in isolation. Later authors clearly had access to earlier authors works. Not only that, the authors in most all cases were immersed in the religious and cultural training of the people. All of the writers of the Bible were Hebrews, some of them just migrated to different parts of the three continents.
The last part of his analogy that I don't like is the false implication of a linear advancement in technology. Comparing someone living in the Information Age to someone a thousand years ago living in the Dark Ages is a stark contrast to someone in 100 AD living in the Iron Age to someone in 900 BC also living in the Iron Age. The technological advancement from 900 BC to 100 AD was minimal compared to 1000 AD to 2000 AD. In other words, in spite of the purported 1500 year separation and geographic distances, the authors of the Bible were very similar people. Hence, that they were consistent in their religious teachings (especially given that they had the previous writings to refer to) is not unique. Every major religion can probably make similar claims (and in 1000 years, every major religion will still be able to make those same claims).
The apostles all died for their beliefs and you don't die for something that you know is false. Alright, but again, every major religion can claim this in some way. Humans have shown that they are very good at persecuting others for whatever reason they come up with (skin color, lanuguage, religious beliefs, or just because they want the land). Oh wait a moment, what "proof" is there that the apostles all died for their beliefs?
Turns out, very little. There are historical traditions, but written accounts didn't really occur until the 1500's. The early church father's have some veiled references to a couple of the apostle's martyrdom, but nothing concrete. Besides, how would we know that an apostle killed in India was killed for his belief in Christ as opposed to just being a foreigner and ticking off the local cheiftain?
After this the preacher decided to get on to the topic of creationism and started touting the no transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, and Cambrian explosion arguments. I had had enough at this point. I was left to drive home pondering why if you are accepting the resurrection of Jesus on faith, you have to prove it in some convoluted way. If it was all just laid out with perfect evidence that required no faith, wouldn't that frustrate the whole faith, hope, charity thing and the faith, repentance, baptism thing?
Perhaps believers of all stripes should look at their life and examine why they believe what they believe. If you do it because of "proof" similar to what this preacher was saying, then maybe your faith isn't as rock solid as you think.
During my drive on the interstates of Iowa on Sunday afternoon and evening, I listened to about a half hour of a religious program on a radio station. Basically, Sundays bite for listening to the radio, but I needed something to keep me awake for the final bit of the drive. As part of the program a preacher was talking with the host about the Bible and how "we know" that the Bible is the word of God. He started out good by saying we shouldn't use circular reasoning, i.e. the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is the word of God. But then it went downhill from there. Below are a couple of the arguments he made and my personal views of how those are a bunch of bunk and don't "prove" anything.
The Bible is unique. After saying this he had to clarify himself, after all, every religious book (or any book) is unique. What he meant is that it was consistent over the period in which it was written of 1500 years and was written on three continents. Well, the three continents part is correct Europe, Africa, and Asia although of the roughly 1500 pages of the Bible, only about 20 are "in Egypt" and another 50 are "in Europe."
Then he tried to make a comparison, "it would be like me writing about God here in America and someone else writing about God in China and both of our accounts were consistent." Uh, no. While I will concede that the Bible is purportedly written on three continents, the comparison of the US to China is ludicrous. The Bible was written on three continents because the major location of the Bible (Israel) happens to be at the crossroads of those three continents. Not only that, but the actual area covered (from Rome, around the Greek cities, over through parts of Iran, down around Iraq and Jordan, and then looping around Cairo and back up to Rome) is an area no larger than the eastern half of the United States. But that doesn't sound as impressive to say that one person in New York and one person in South Carolina wrote about God and were consistent.
The next part of his consistency argument also has problems. The Bible was written over a 1500 year period. Well, if we consider that Moses wrote the first five books and the apostles wrote the last of the epistles, then yeah that is a 1500 year period. Except that we don't have any of Moses' original writings. Nor do we have any of the Apostles' original letters (and if we did we would have no real way of knowing since we don't have any samples of their writing to compare it to). So, what we do have are copies of copies of copies (ad nauseum). The earliest texts of the old testament date to only about the 2nd century BC. Assuming that the Apostles writings were written by 100 AD, the 1500 year timeline could be only a 300 year timeline. I hope that doesn't shake anyone's faith.
The preacher expanded his analogy and said that "it would be like me writing about God here in America today and someone else writing about God in China 1000 years ago and both of our accounts were consistent when read by someone 2000 years from now." Well, you sort of have to have some more qualifiers in there. Besides the geographic discrepancy that I already mentioned, the books of the Bible were not written in isolation. Later authors clearly had access to earlier authors works. Not only that, the authors in most all cases were immersed in the religious and cultural training of the people. All of the writers of the Bible were Hebrews, some of them just migrated to different parts of the three continents.
The last part of his analogy that I don't like is the false implication of a linear advancement in technology. Comparing someone living in the Information Age to someone a thousand years ago living in the Dark Ages is a stark contrast to someone in 100 AD living in the Iron Age to someone in 900 BC also living in the Iron Age. The technological advancement from 900 BC to 100 AD was minimal compared to 1000 AD to 2000 AD. In other words, in spite of the purported 1500 year separation and geographic distances, the authors of the Bible were very similar people. Hence, that they were consistent in their religious teachings (especially given that they had the previous writings to refer to) is not unique. Every major religion can probably make similar claims (and in 1000 years, every major religion will still be able to make those same claims).
The apostles all died for their beliefs and you don't die for something that you know is false. Alright, but again, every major religion can claim this in some way. Humans have shown that they are very good at persecuting others for whatever reason they come up with (skin color, lanuguage, religious beliefs, or just because they want the land). Oh wait a moment, what "proof" is there that the apostles all died for their beliefs?
Turns out, very little. There are historical traditions, but written accounts didn't really occur until the 1500's. The early church father's have some veiled references to a couple of the apostle's martyrdom, but nothing concrete. Besides, how would we know that an apostle killed in India was killed for his belief in Christ as opposed to just being a foreigner and ticking off the local cheiftain?
After this the preacher decided to get on to the topic of creationism and started touting the no transitional fossils, irreducible complexity, and Cambrian explosion arguments. I had had enough at this point. I was left to drive home pondering why if you are accepting the resurrection of Jesus on faith, you have to prove it in some convoluted way. If it was all just laid out with perfect evidence that required no faith, wouldn't that frustrate the whole faith, hope, charity thing and the faith, repentance, baptism thing?
Perhaps believers of all stripes should look at their life and examine why they believe what they believe. If you do it because of "proof" similar to what this preacher was saying, then maybe your faith isn't as rock solid as you think.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ebay: Scrapbook Supplies
Sometimes my eBay sales end up being good blog material (either that or I just like to plagiarize myself to get me traffic). This is an item I posted tonight.
SCRAPBOOKING I really like the word extravaganza. In any case, I finally had enough of my wife spending hours and hours scrapbooking and chatting it up with all of her friends, so after sending her to the spa for a day I went into the craft room and gathered up all of the scrapbook supplies that I could find and now I am selling the whole lot on eBay! Click on any of the pictures for a larger image. Hurry and bid now before she gets home and strangles me.*** |
|
Next, we have not one, not two, not three, but SIX stamp sets. Some of these (perhaps all of them) are Close to My Heart wooden base with rubber stamps. Plus I have thrown in some odds and ends. There is an alphabet set, a short saying set, |
|
|
There is also a handy dandy tool set. It is a Making Memories brand and comes with all the tools you need |
|
We're not done yet. This prize package also includes a Xyron Sticker Maker. Put anything that is 2.5” wide, turn the handle and out comes a sticker. Try it on movie tickets, try it on a business card, try it on a squashed cockroach (or just put the cockroach through to squash it). With this bad boy you can make a sticker out of most anything!!! My wife says that the cartridge is new so this is good to go right out of the box!!! (I know the picture is sideways, I am just too lazy to rotate it). |
Finally, there is the sticker carrying case with 12 x 12 sheet protectors for all of your paper, scraps, and sticker needs. Keep your stickers organized and ready to go. As an added bonus (not really, but just pretend that it is) 17 of the pages are already filled with stickers. There are letters, there is Disney, there is Thomas, there is theme pages, there are borders, there are churchy things, there are random bits of wisdom. In a nutshell, there is a whole smattering of everything. Most of the sheets of stickers have some missing, but there are some complete sets in here. The case zips closed so if the stickers do fall out of the page protectors you can keep the resulting mess contained. |
There are also some other odds and ends that I included that really aren't worth mentioning. I have no idea how much all of this would cost if you had to buy it new. $200, $300, $5000, maybe even $100,000 (I'll admit I didn't go through everything so there is a small, although very unlikely, possibility that a stack of $100 bills made its way into the bag when I wasn't looking – there also may be some rare gold coins, but I doubt it – I guarantee there are no small mammals or citrus plants). I don't scrapbook so I don't know. It is about 30 lbs of stuff. |
We'll start the bidding at $0.01. Bid on it for you sister, bid on it for your mother, big on it for your crafty brother-in-law. Just start the bidding! All this can be yours, if the PRICE IS RIGHT (well, actually if you are the highest bidder then you win it all). ***For those of you who didn't get the humorous quip, my wife has actually converted over to digital scrapbooking and so she doesn't need all of these supplies. She culled them out herself and I took the pictures and wrote the ad. So please, no nasty emails, my wife and I love each other. |
Here's the merchandise: It begins with this handy dandy tote bag. This black nylon bag was specially designed for scrapbookers, it has large pockets, plenty of pen holders, and a collapsible handle (like airline luggage) that you can use to roll it around where you need too. Wheels are still working. The snap clasps on the top are broken although one partial connects together. Bags like this range from $40-$100 new.
Next up is the five hole punches. Not just any hole punches these are the one's that make fancy holes. Squares, curves, and something else. These things feel like they are made of cast iron, and I bet if your fingers were thin enough to slip in there you could punch a fun shape through your hand (not that I would advocate it, although your husband may want to do it if you are addicted to scrapbooking). These go for $5 to $10 at the scrapbooking stores (I think, I could just be making that up).
At this point, most people would be saying, this is enough, how could you provide anything else. Well, this is the deal everyone has been waiting for. Next up are some lovely markers. They are in a variety of colors and have both a fine tip and a broad tip. You'll be able to write and decorate to your hearts content (at least until the ink runs out).
And since you have the tool set, you need an assortment of notions to go with it (isn't notions such a funny word!). I literally have no clue what these things are or how you are suppose to use them, but why not get them here at a discount.
Engineering Packrats
I changed positions in my company recently and took over for an engineer who had been in his position for a couple of decades and basically was the industry guru for his field. In this respect, I feel rather inadequate as a replacement, but it also is a major challenge then to be successful following in the shoes of a giant.
One thing that I have noticed throughout my career is that engineers are natural packrats. The older generation are paper packrats and it can be evidenced by my current position. There are at least 4 filing cabinets of documents and notes that are for my position, carefully gathered and sorted by my predecessor. Unfortunately, besides being packrats, engineers also are obsessive/compulsive in the way that they organize things. And no two are alike.
This makes taking over an engineering position difficult. Besides being a newbie to this area, I now have to sort through, mentally catalog, and try to assimilate 100,000 pages of information that is in a filing system which a) I don't know, b) has no index to describe it, and c) more than likely is diametrically opposed to my own OC tendencies.
I am a digital packrat though. I like to keep things electronically and throw out as much as I can. In my first job out of college, I was similarly dumped on with boxes of papers. I sorted through what I could, digitized much of it (using my own folder filing system) and then after 4 years boxed up the rest for the next guy to deal with (I still got emails for about 4 years from my successors to ask me to explain something about the documentation).
At my current position, there are two computer folders that I consider mine. The first day on the job, I literally spent 5 hours rearranging the folder and documents in them. I was half expecting some gnashing of teeth the next day as some of the other engineers had lost links to important information. But nothing. My rearrangement went unnoticed.
I cleaned off two shelfs of one of the bookshelfs by getting rid of the empty binders (that should give me enough room to bring the books from home that I may use at some point in my career). Oh yeah, and I have a big schematic on one wall that I spent a couple of hours color coding. Engineers can't get over the childhood urge to color everything.
One thing that I have noticed throughout my career is that engineers are natural packrats. The older generation are paper packrats and it can be evidenced by my current position. There are at least 4 filing cabinets of documents and notes that are for my position, carefully gathered and sorted by my predecessor. Unfortunately, besides being packrats, engineers also are obsessive/compulsive in the way that they organize things. And no two are alike.
This makes taking over an engineering position difficult. Besides being a newbie to this area, I now have to sort through, mentally catalog, and try to assimilate 100,000 pages of information that is in a filing system which a) I don't know, b) has no index to describe it, and c) more than likely is diametrically opposed to my own OC tendencies.
I am a digital packrat though. I like to keep things electronically and throw out as much as I can. In my first job out of college, I was similarly dumped on with boxes of papers. I sorted through what I could, digitized much of it (using my own folder filing system) and then after 4 years boxed up the rest for the next guy to deal with (I still got emails for about 4 years from my successors to ask me to explain something about the documentation).
At my current position, there are two computer folders that I consider mine. The first day on the job, I literally spent 5 hours rearranging the folder and documents in them. I was half expecting some gnashing of teeth the next day as some of the other engineers had lost links to important information. But nothing. My rearrangement went unnoticed.
I cleaned off two shelfs of one of the bookshelfs by getting rid of the empty binders (that should give me enough room to bring the books from home that I may use at some point in my career). Oh yeah, and I have a big schematic on one wall that I spent a couple of hours color coding. Engineers can't get over the childhood urge to color everything.
Don't Throw Rocks at People with Guns
Unfortunately, a Mexican teenager learned this lesson the hard way. Rocks happen to be a deadly weapon when thrown at people. It doesn't matter if the rocks are jagged or smooth, large or small. Rocks can kill people (that is why stoning was a form of capital punishment in the ancient world).
So, whether you agree with the family's story or the INS agents story is irrelevant. Don't throw rocks at people with guns. If your friends decide to do that, get away from your friends as fast as possible. I don't care if the people with guns are good guys or bad guys - don't throw rocks at them unless you are willing to risk being shot.
Oh wait, this choir boy happens to be a known smuggler. I guess the straight A student thing doesn't elicit so much sympathy now.
Don't throw rocks at people with guns, especially if you are a a known criminal.
So, whether you agree with the family's story or the INS agents story is irrelevant. Don't throw rocks at people with guns. If your friends decide to do that, get away from your friends as fast as possible. I don't care if the people with guns are good guys or bad guys - don't throw rocks at them unless you are willing to risk being shot.
Oh wait, this choir boy happens to be a known smuggler. I guess the straight A student thing doesn't elicit so much sympathy now.
Don't throw rocks at people with guns, especially if you are a a known criminal.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Sugar Cereals and Other Parental Inanities
We had a rule when it came to breakfast cereals when I was growing up. Only three boxes of cereal were allowed to be open at one time, only one of which could be a sugar cereal. The three boxes of cereal I can understand, its to keep the cereal from going stale. The one sugar cereal I kinda get, you don't want to encourage your kids to always be eating sweets, but then again, we would have donuts for breakfast about once a month, and there is no way you can convince me (except when I am trying to convince my wife) that donuts are healthy.
Another completely irrational cereal rule was that we could put one spoonful of sugar on a non-sugar cereal (to make it more palatable), but none on a sugar cereal. So the other day I decided to test out my parents wisdom. I chose Corn Flakes and Sugar Pops as my two cereals. Corn Flakes has 3 grams of sugar per serving (of course the way my brothers and I pour cereal, there is probably 6 grams of sugar per serving). Sugar Pops has 10 grams (20 grams the way we pour sugar). So how much in a spoonful of sugar? I weighed a spoonful of white granulated sugar and came up with a mass of 14 grams. So even accounting for the extra large bowl of cereal we had, the way we ate it there was just as much sugar in a "non-sugar" cereal as there was in a "sugar" cereal. Why not just let your kids have whatever cereal they want? That is what I do now.
Parents come up with all sorts of crazy rules to try and reign in our kids. Growing up you recognize this and swear that you will never do that when you are a parent, and then you find yourself doing the exact thing you swore to high heaven would never happen. Turns out, kids have a mind of their own and without rules (sometimes even with rules), they would probably get themselves run over or worse. I never wore a bicycle helmet growing up, not even in the Boy Scout Road Rallies I attended. My wife is adamant about our kids wearing their bicycle helmets, I'm OK with that. She feels it makes them safer (and it probably does in a small statistical way), so I don't fight it.
Every now and then I try to purge myself of the crazy rules that my parents ingrained in me. It usually doesn't work. You could almost say that parenting is sort of like brainwashing your kids into doing what you think is right for society. Without the brainwashing, you never know how the kids will turn out. And right now, with the chaos they already cause around the house, I want to hang on to as much control as I can.
Another completely irrational cereal rule was that we could put one spoonful of sugar on a non-sugar cereal (to make it more palatable), but none on a sugar cereal. So the other day I decided to test out my parents wisdom. I chose Corn Flakes and Sugar Pops as my two cereals. Corn Flakes has 3 grams of sugar per serving (of course the way my brothers and I pour cereal, there is probably 6 grams of sugar per serving). Sugar Pops has 10 grams (20 grams the way we pour sugar). So how much in a spoonful of sugar? I weighed a spoonful of white granulated sugar and came up with a mass of 14 grams. So even accounting for the extra large bowl of cereal we had, the way we ate it there was just as much sugar in a "non-sugar" cereal as there was in a "sugar" cereal. Why not just let your kids have whatever cereal they want? That is what I do now.
Parents come up with all sorts of crazy rules to try and reign in our kids. Growing up you recognize this and swear that you will never do that when you are a parent, and then you find yourself doing the exact thing you swore to high heaven would never happen. Turns out, kids have a mind of their own and without rules (sometimes even with rules), they would probably get themselves run over or worse. I never wore a bicycle helmet growing up, not even in the Boy Scout Road Rallies I attended. My wife is adamant about our kids wearing their bicycle helmets, I'm OK with that. She feels it makes them safer (and it probably does in a small statistical way), so I don't fight it.
Every now and then I try to purge myself of the crazy rules that my parents ingrained in me. It usually doesn't work. You could almost say that parenting is sort of like brainwashing your kids into doing what you think is right for society. Without the brainwashing, you never know how the kids will turn out. And right now, with the chaos they already cause around the house, I want to hang on to as much control as I can.
Why Libertarians Will Never Be a Major Party
Everyone knows about the Republicans and Democrats. Few know about the Libertarians. And fewer still can distinguish between a libertarian and a Libertarian. For the last 150 years, the Republicans and Democrats have slowly developed a political empire that has virtually shut out all other parties. Sure there was the Bull Moose party with Teddy Roosevelt, but that was more of a temper tantrum. Then there was Ross Perot. And there is the perpetual Green candidate and Libertarian candidate on the presidential ballot that garner's about 1% of the vote.
Our nation's political history wasn't always a two party machine. In the beginning there were a number of political parties and the Congress at times was made up of 4 or 5 political parties. Compromise between them was needed to get anything done. Of course, back then there was very little federal power so Congress didn't have a whole lot to do.
With the rise of the Republicans in the 1850's, the future political course of the US was born. The Civil War helped to consolidate federal power over the states and being an elected official in the US Government started to mean something. Now, you had power. Real power. With the gradual encroachment of the government through taxation and regulation, elected officials amassed more power.
With this increase in power, the two major players, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, needed to protect it for themselves. Neither party was large enough or popular enough to completely dominate the other, but together they were able to pass laws and regulations regarding elections, their funding, and such. These laws were made to ensure that the major players had advantages over any upstart in the political process. Those advantages came with access to money and power.
While there is an opening for any party to "rise up in the ranks", our political system has evolved into a two party political system. In actual practice, the chance of it happening is next to none. Which brings me to the title of this post. Libertarians want to be left alone and consequently, want to leave everyone else alone to live their lives. Which is why they don't win. Promising people the freedom to live their lives as they choose is nothing compared to the promise of a $500 rebate for buying a new refrigerator.
The two major parties want to control people (in spite of the rhetoric one of the parties uses - actions speak louder than words). They have both gotten into the habit of passing laws which cause problems and therefore need more laws to fix those problems. Never realizing that they are the reason for many of the problems in the first place. Libertarians don't lust for power, but would rather be productive members of society. Unfortunately, the federal goverment is a natural magnet for those who lust for power.
Our nation's political history wasn't always a two party machine. In the beginning there were a number of political parties and the Congress at times was made up of 4 or 5 political parties. Compromise between them was needed to get anything done. Of course, back then there was very little federal power so Congress didn't have a whole lot to do.
With the rise of the Republicans in the 1850's, the future political course of the US was born. The Civil War helped to consolidate federal power over the states and being an elected official in the US Government started to mean something. Now, you had power. Real power. With the gradual encroachment of the government through taxation and regulation, elected officials amassed more power.
With this increase in power, the two major players, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, needed to protect it for themselves. Neither party was large enough or popular enough to completely dominate the other, but together they were able to pass laws and regulations regarding elections, their funding, and such. These laws were made to ensure that the major players had advantages over any upstart in the political process. Those advantages came with access to money and power.
While there is an opening for any party to "rise up in the ranks", our political system has evolved into a two party political system. In actual practice, the chance of it happening is next to none. Which brings me to the title of this post. Libertarians want to be left alone and consequently, want to leave everyone else alone to live their lives. Which is why they don't win. Promising people the freedom to live their lives as they choose is nothing compared to the promise of a $500 rebate for buying a new refrigerator.
The two major parties want to control people (in spite of the rhetoric one of the parties uses - actions speak louder than words). They have both gotten into the habit of passing laws which cause problems and therefore need more laws to fix those problems. Never realizing that they are the reason for many of the problems in the first place. Libertarians don't lust for power, but would rather be productive members of society. Unfortunately, the federal goverment is a natural magnet for those who lust for power.
Zero Impact Living
Zero impact living is the holy grail of many environmentalists. As with the mythical holy grail, it is an impossible goal. Unless of course you selectively define what zero impact living is. Using linen bags, and non-packaged food is great, and if it makes you feel good, ok. Go ahead and do it. But returning your milk bottles or egg cartons back to the store you bought them from is just passing on the responsibility of creating waste.
I read a book called "Garbageland" which was written by someone who was willing to buy into the whole recycling, no waste concept. After doing some investigation, it was found that somewhere around 40-60% of the stuff that is "recycled," actually goes to the landfill. So taking your egg cartons and milk jugs back to the store you bought them from, probably results in some of them being sent to the landfill. In other words, you didn't create zero waste, you just let someone else throw it away.
Why do we throw away so much stuff? Because it costs more to recycle it than it does to make new stuff from virgin materials. There are exceptions - metals primarily. My guess is every municipal recycling program is operated at a loss. Even with free raw materials, the price for re-used milk jugs doesn't cover the cost of sorting, cleaning and processing. Even with oil at hundreds of dollars a barrel. Copper wire on the other hand is a different story.
So do I make a conscious effort to "Live Green," heck no! I fill my recycling container up every week because otherwise I would have to pay extra to put it in the regular trash. I alternate between bagging my grass clippings and leaving them on the lawn. I have a garden, but haven't been very successful in the last year, except for brocoli. I make sure I always get plastic bags because they are used to line our garbage cans (there's great health benefits to not having bits of trash, rotted food, or poop lying around your house, it smells better too!).
I have been to farmer's markets in three states, only the one in Texas had competitively priced produce compared to the supermarkets. In the end, I would rather buy my produce from a company that ships it in on a truck from California than the farmer who lives 2 hours away that drives it in to the farmers market. Why? Because it is cheaper when shipped 80,000 lbs at a time across the country, rather than 1000 lbs at a time from down the road. (And those mass produced vegetables with all of their chemicals sure do look a lot better. Plus, in blind taste tests, people actually prefer the mass produced chemical laden produce. Go figure, we've progressed.)
When did this war of man/nature begin? Do we fault the Beavers for making dams and messing up the waterways? So why be upset when mankind builds a road to bring cheap produce all over the nation? The world is a much bigger place than we think, and in spite of the large sounding numbers as to the amount of trash we produce, it isn't that much and doesn't take up that much space. So, feel free to throw away that cheeseburger wrapper and not feel guilty. I certainly don't. And if you won't, then the next time I go to McDonald's I'll get two cheeseburgers and throw away a wrapper for you. Heck, I might even be kind enough to throw out the cheeseburger too and let one of Mother Nature's creations see what they are missing!
I read a book called "Garbageland" which was written by someone who was willing to buy into the whole recycling, no waste concept. After doing some investigation, it was found that somewhere around 40-60% of the stuff that is "recycled," actually goes to the landfill. So taking your egg cartons and milk jugs back to the store you bought them from, probably results in some of them being sent to the landfill. In other words, you didn't create zero waste, you just let someone else throw it away.
Why do we throw away so much stuff? Because it costs more to recycle it than it does to make new stuff from virgin materials. There are exceptions - metals primarily. My guess is every municipal recycling program is operated at a loss. Even with free raw materials, the price for re-used milk jugs doesn't cover the cost of sorting, cleaning and processing. Even with oil at hundreds of dollars a barrel. Copper wire on the other hand is a different story.
So do I make a conscious effort to "Live Green," heck no! I fill my recycling container up every week because otherwise I would have to pay extra to put it in the regular trash. I alternate between bagging my grass clippings and leaving them on the lawn. I have a garden, but haven't been very successful in the last year, except for brocoli. I make sure I always get plastic bags because they are used to line our garbage cans (there's great health benefits to not having bits of trash, rotted food, or poop lying around your house, it smells better too!).
I have been to farmer's markets in three states, only the one in Texas had competitively priced produce compared to the supermarkets. In the end, I would rather buy my produce from a company that ships it in on a truck from California than the farmer who lives 2 hours away that drives it in to the farmers market. Why? Because it is cheaper when shipped 80,000 lbs at a time across the country, rather than 1000 lbs at a time from down the road. (And those mass produced vegetables with all of their chemicals sure do look a lot better. Plus, in blind taste tests, people actually prefer the mass produced chemical laden produce. Go figure, we've progressed.)
When did this war of man/nature begin? Do we fault the Beavers for making dams and messing up the waterways? So why be upset when mankind builds a road to bring cheap produce all over the nation? The world is a much bigger place than we think, and in spite of the large sounding numbers as to the amount of trash we produce, it isn't that much and doesn't take up that much space. So, feel free to throw away that cheeseburger wrapper and not feel guilty. I certainly don't. And if you won't, then the next time I go to McDonald's I'll get two cheeseburgers and throw away a wrapper for you. Heck, I might even be kind enough to throw out the cheeseburger too and let one of Mother Nature's creations see what they are missing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)