Last Sunday in church we were talking about Job, and although the class did not get into the topic of justice, my mind did. Job is a great story for understanding justice and injustice.
We sometimes want to think that justice means equal outcome for equal effort and talent. We see from Job that this is not the case. God does not guarantee good things to good people. In fact, He says "...that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong,
neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding,
nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them
all." Ecc. 9:11
Sometimes, people get lost in the idea that a person 'will not be tempted beyond that which they are able' to resist. This leads them to think that really bad things only happen to the strongest individuals. But here again, this does not appear to be the case. Sometimes, people break.
What are we left with then for God's judgement and justice? Is it just reward in heaven and recompense in the hereafter? In some ways, it is not even that.
The parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20: 1-16) appears to have been composed to illustrate that the reward for following God's commandments does not correlate with the effort in following them and further to express that this is just by definition. However, I think that by societies' standards, if the issue with the laborers were taken to a court of modern law the judge would side with the all-day laborers.
Further, it appears that opportunities in this life are not equal. A person whose family comes to God is surely blessed with more exposure to the gospel than a person related solely to atheists ... by no fault of their own.
Even further, if we allow the definition of salvation to mean eternal increase, we are given no guarantee that the rate of increase will in any way correlate to our talents and sacrifices.
Such is the injustice of God. However, I don't want to be misread as criticizing the Almighty. I am trying to point out the twisted views of justice that we have developed. The truth is that God blesses everybody beyond what we deserve. If it is not the same as the next guy or not quite the blessings we wanted ... tough. We miss the point when we worry about justice. What we really need to focus on is mercy and charity.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Poem: All the King’s Men
Each day you put it together
What entropy has undone
You brush and shower
You stretch and run
You wash dishes
And sweep floors
You run errands
And do chores
But in the end
And in the beginning
And everywhen in between
Entropy …
Entropy is winning
Winning everything you’ve seen
Though life be undone
Live the life you dream
And entropy will say you’ve won
You’ve won,
You’ve won everything you’ve seen.
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Aquarium Light Lamp Hack
I decided to redo the aquarium to remove the lid and grow plants on top ... the only problem was getting the lighting I needed. I went through several ideas that I decided would not work for me before deciding to get a tall floor lamp. This turned out to be an ordeal, and so I am writing this for anybody else who would like to benefit from my experience.
- Look online and find the cheapest lamp that might work and balk at the cost.
- Go to Walmart and see that they have a hooked floor lamp at 81" high for only $20 and buy it.
- While opening the lamp, notice it says "flexible" and get a sick feeling as you realize that the 81" is with the lamp pointing up, not bent over. The lamp is too short.
- Realize you can avoid admitting you made a mistake, by buying a second lamp, taking some of the vertical pipes from it. and making a taller and a shorter lamp.
- Take a moment to think about how clever you are.
- Take apart lamps with bear hands, including pulling the electrical wires out of the bulb socket.
- Have conversation with wife to reassure her that you are being safe.
- Go to test the pipe fittings and realize that even though the packaging on the two lamps are identical, the fittings are in fact different.
- Count to 10 to avoid swearing in front of children.
- Sing counting songs with children.
- Go to hardware store to buy nuts to protect the threads on the pipe fittings as you remove them.
- Remove the first pipe fitting and realize that inside of the pipes are not threaded and it doesn't matter that the threads are different between the lamps.
- Count to 10 to avoid swearing in front of the children.
- Sing counting songs with children.
- Try to push wires though the pipes.
- Realize you should have tied a string on the wires before pulling them out of the pipes so that you could use the same string to pull the wires back through the pipes.
- Get needle and thread, using needle as weight to pull thread through pipes.
- Realize that pipes and inserts are magnetic and needle will not easily go through pipes.
- Reassure wife that you are not damaging the furniture while you beat the pipes against the sofa and rug to get the needle through.
- Give the children hugs and reassure them that you do love them and you are not angry with them.
- Connect pipes.
- Realize you don't know which wire is "hot" and which is "neutral" and that it does matter.
- Get electrical tester and determine that it is broken.
- Wait for wife to run errand so you can avoid explaining to her what you are doing next.
- Get ladder so you can steal nine volt battery out of smoke detector and test the wires by "sparking" them.
- Talk to children about ladder safety and staying off the ladder while you are on it.
- While taking apart smoke detector threaten children if they don't get off the ladder.
- Convincingly threaten to beat children.
- Console children and reassure them that you still love them.
- Explain to wife why children are crying when she gets home.
- Test wires and try to reattach them to the bulb socket.
- Realize that you have damaged the socket by ripping the wires out with your bare hands.
- Count to 20 to avoid swearing in front of children.
- Sing counting songs with children.
- Find super glue.
- Retest wires so you know which one is which.
- Glue wires and fingers to bulb socket.
- Count to 100 to avoid cursing in front of children while you rip your fingers off the socket.
- Realize that no amount of singing is going to make your children like numbers after that.
- Finish assembling lamps and admire how good they look.
- Test wiring with and without having them plugged in to verify that they work well and are safe.
- Admire your work and think of all the money you saved.
- Look up the other lamp online to figure out exactly how much money you saved, and see that the lamp is now on sale for the same amount you have spent.
- Swear in front of children.
UPDATE:
In hind sight, it would have been cheaper and easier to buy a stool to put the lamp on. On the up side, I really like the shorter lamp on the table next to the recliner as a reading light.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Mahan Complex
This is a term that I take credit for coining. This is not saying much since I have heard nobody else use it.
Basically, I use it to refer to somebody who feels a need to be master of a great secret.
We all can get lost in excitement about a new idea or insight. I know I have. But this is something different. It is something about how the individual needs something to be true. You often see it with conspiracy theorists. They get wrapped up with UFOs or 9-11 as a US government sponsored bombing. (I think everybody agrees it was the result of a conspiracy, the argument is about whose.) But this is something different. The person equates their personal value or status with their insights and knowledge of these theories. Because of this, they become unhinged from the reality of the evidence and lack the ability to learn. Often these are really smart people that you would expect to know better too. They often jump from one theory to another over time, but will generally never disavow a theory. You can also see this with health fads, MLMs, and religions. Some individuals get mixed up in some or all of these.
As a sad example, take example X. He was a professor of physics at BYU. He got put on administrative leave shortly 9-11. He was convinced that the Twin towers came tumbling down due to government planted implosive and or thermite devices. The problem wasn't that he thought there was a consipracy. The problem was that he was tarnishing the University by publishing papers and holding special lectures about it where-in he failed to present any real evidence or research. Further, he did this in stead of some of other research etc. I watched one (that is to say I watched only one) online video of him in a BYU lecture hall filled with impressionable students. He honestly seemed very enamored with the attention and took time to make a fair number of jokes at the expense of others. He was always a jovial professor, so making jokes in and of themselves was not out of character. However, after about 30 minutes of speaking, the only evidence he had given was time stamp on a video that looked like the tower fell faster than free fall. This is intriguing, but he failed to address several key questions that needed to be addressed in the process such as, was the time stamp accurate? Would this be characteristic of all implosive demolitions and only of implosive demolitions? Would this be characteristic of all demolitions of exo-load buildings? (I made up the work exo-load. I don't know what you call it. But I do know that most sky-scrapers are designed so that the weight of the building is carried by a core structure, while the twin towers were designed so a large portion of the weight was carried by the external skin so it is possible that the middle of the building had fallen first and via rebar etc was pulling the outer skin down faster than gravity) Those are just the first three questions that came to mind. In 30 minutes, I don't remember any plans to investigate these or similar questions, nor do I remember any reporting on such investigations being done. Perhaps it was intended as a charismatic lecture.
Basically, I use it to refer to somebody who feels a need to be master of a great secret.
We all can get lost in excitement about a new idea or insight. I know I have. But this is something different. It is something about how the individual needs something to be true. You often see it with conspiracy theorists. They get wrapped up with UFOs or 9-11 as a US government sponsored bombing. (I think everybody agrees it was the result of a conspiracy, the argument is about whose.) But this is something different. The person equates their personal value or status with their insights and knowledge of these theories. Because of this, they become unhinged from the reality of the evidence and lack the ability to learn. Often these are really smart people that you would expect to know better too. They often jump from one theory to another over time, but will generally never disavow a theory. You can also see this with health fads, MLMs, and religions. Some individuals get mixed up in some or all of these.
As a sad example, take example X. He was a professor of physics at BYU. He got put on administrative leave shortly 9-11. He was convinced that the Twin towers came tumbling down due to government planted implosive and or thermite devices. The problem wasn't that he thought there was a consipracy. The problem was that he was tarnishing the University by publishing papers and holding special lectures about it where-in he failed to present any real evidence or research. Further, he did this in stead of some of other research etc. I watched one (that is to say I watched only one) online video of him in a BYU lecture hall filled with impressionable students. He honestly seemed very enamored with the attention and took time to make a fair number of jokes at the expense of others. He was always a jovial professor, so making jokes in and of themselves was not out of character. However, after about 30 minutes of speaking, the only evidence he had given was time stamp on a video that looked like the tower fell faster than free fall. This is intriguing, but he failed to address several key questions that needed to be addressed in the process such as, was the time stamp accurate? Would this be characteristic of all implosive demolitions and only of implosive demolitions? Would this be characteristic of all demolitions of exo-load buildings? (I made up the work exo-load. I don't know what you call it. But I do know that most sky-scrapers are designed so that the weight of the building is carried by a core structure, while the twin towers were designed so a large portion of the weight was carried by the external skin so it is possible that the middle of the building had fallen first and via rebar etc was pulling the outer skin down faster than gravity) Those are just the first three questions that came to mind. In 30 minutes, I don't remember any plans to investigate these or similar questions, nor do I remember any reporting on such investigations being done. Perhaps it was intended as a charismatic lecture.
Monday, May 26, 2014
The Reasons Don't Matter
In spite of the title, this is not a universal truth. However, it was a recurring statement in Sunday school this week. The teacher asked a question that I was thinking about asking two weeks before, "Why are you here?" Apparently it was part of the Bishop's Youth Council (BYC) recently too. They collected the answers and told everybody they had great reasons for being there and that what really mattered was that they were where they were supposed to be.
I kept my mouth shut.
The answer I was thinking of the week before was that I was there to learn something, but it is more than that. The processes of learning and seeking truth cleans and focuses the lens through which we see the world. The collective effort means that I can get answers from others that have already found them and also ... hopefully ... be kept from excessive false doctrine while getting peer reinforcement.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. We all know of the people who have gone to church for "the wrong reasons" and been converted by the spirit while there. I know I have been touched by the spirit more than once when I was there just because I was supposed to be. This happens. However, when we are there for the right reasons, the Lord's ways need not be mysterious. They can be direct and powerful. We can get even more out of Sacrament meeting and all our other meetings if we know why we are there and are there for the right reasons.
Will we always be there for the right reasons? I know I am not. I can say that having two little girls mostly keeps me out of my meetings when I don't have the right reasons. It is such a struggle to get there, that I often don't make it if my heart is not already in the right place. So, sometimes I forget to appreciate the individuals who did not make it for "the right reasons".
It was a good lesson for me.
I would like to shift gears now and look at criminals. The reasons don't matter why one person decided to kill a bunch of people. Every so often we hear of some mass murder or serial killer. Politicos, reporters and various busy bodies get to talking about why they did it. The latest one was last Friday. Some people are using it to advertise gun control. Others want it to change women's rights or something... I really am not clear what they expect to get out of it but just that they are trying to take advantage of the tragedy.
The truth is that it doesn't really matter why one person decided to become a mass murderer. If your loved one got killed in the horrific event, I am certain that you would want to know why in order to gain some sort of closure. However, reasons like revenge don't relieve remorse nor wrongs done. To think otherwise is to lie to yourself.
When a car engine blows up, engineers ask why so that they can prevent future issues with more ... engineering. People aren't like that. A massive scientific and technological leap forward might require a deeper conversation, but I will leave that alone since we can't read minds or psychologically engineer people in spite of the efforts of various charismatic and military leaders.
God can sort out the reasons. For the rest of us it is left to deal with the results.
I am not saying that justice should be blind to circumstance. Self defense is far different than first degree murder, and mostly distinguished by the reasons. I do not envy any judge or jury that has to wade into that murky water.
However, no matter what this latest villan's reasons are ... it will not change the facts of what was done. And all the people who are using it to satisfy their own twisted curiosity or advance their own agenda will not succeed in hindering nor changing the mind of the next person who is inclined to do something similar.
I kept my mouth shut.
The answer I was thinking of the week before was that I was there to learn something, but it is more than that. The processes of learning and seeking truth cleans and focuses the lens through which we see the world. The collective effort means that I can get answers from others that have already found them and also ... hopefully ... be kept from excessive false doctrine while getting peer reinforcement.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. We all know of the people who have gone to church for "the wrong reasons" and been converted by the spirit while there. I know I have been touched by the spirit more than once when I was there just because I was supposed to be. This happens. However, when we are there for the right reasons, the Lord's ways need not be mysterious. They can be direct and powerful. We can get even more out of Sacrament meeting and all our other meetings if we know why we are there and are there for the right reasons.
Will we always be there for the right reasons? I know I am not. I can say that having two little girls mostly keeps me out of my meetings when I don't have the right reasons. It is such a struggle to get there, that I often don't make it if my heart is not already in the right place. So, sometimes I forget to appreciate the individuals who did not make it for "the right reasons".
It was a good lesson for me.
I would like to shift gears now and look at criminals. The reasons don't matter why one person decided to kill a bunch of people. Every so often we hear of some mass murder or serial killer. Politicos, reporters and various busy bodies get to talking about why they did it. The latest one was last Friday. Some people are using it to advertise gun control. Others want it to change women's rights or something... I really am not clear what they expect to get out of it but just that they are trying to take advantage of the tragedy.
The truth is that it doesn't really matter why one person decided to become a mass murderer. If your loved one got killed in the horrific event, I am certain that you would want to know why in order to gain some sort of closure. However, reasons like revenge don't relieve remorse nor wrongs done. To think otherwise is to lie to yourself.
When a car engine blows up, engineers ask why so that they can prevent future issues with more ... engineering. People aren't like that. A massive scientific and technological leap forward might require a deeper conversation, but I will leave that alone since we can't read minds or psychologically engineer people in spite of the efforts of various charismatic and military leaders.
God can sort out the reasons. For the rest of us it is left to deal with the results.
I am not saying that justice should be blind to circumstance. Self defense is far different than first degree murder, and mostly distinguished by the reasons. I do not envy any judge or jury that has to wade into that murky water.
However, no matter what this latest villan's reasons are ... it will not change the facts of what was done. And all the people who are using it to satisfy their own twisted curiosity or advance their own agenda will not succeed in hindering nor changing the mind of the next person who is inclined to do something similar.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Yeah, kiss it!
I was busy in the kitchen cleaning or cooking or something and not paying that much attention to my wonderful little girls. My littlest was trying to get my attention and I was trying to work around her when she slipped and knocked her head against the wall. She didn't knock it hard so I wasn't worried, but it was very upsetting to her to bump her head on top of being ignored. So, she softened my heart a little and I knelt down to ask her what happened. Now, Faith can't talk well yet so it was good I already knew what had happened. But I listened to her explanation and repeated back to her what I had seen. Then I asked her where she had bonked her head, and she pointed to the spot on the wall. And I kissed the wall. It took her about a half second to process what had happened before she said, "Yeah, kiss it!" And happily toddled off.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
The universe could be finite
There is an old bit of philosophy that argues that the universe is infinite. It goes something like this:
imagine that the universe if finite. There must be an edge to the universe, a cliff or perhaps a wall. Let's say it is a wall. If you go to the top of the wall and look out, there is something on the other side of the wall. The wall divides something. So you go to the other side of the wall and explore only to eventually find another wall marking the edge of the universe. You climb up that wall and see that it divides something ... ad infinitum
It occurs to me that this is bad logic. There need not be anything on the other side of the wall. It relies on our daily experience with land being divided by walls. This need not apply to a universe. Imagine that the matter and energy ratios are such that the universe will eventually collapse into a black hole. You would then find that you have a very finite universe. There need not be anything outside the event horizon. There need not be space, matter, energy, light ... nothing can get out. The universe would be a closed finite system.
It appears that this is not the case in reality. I am just saying that the logic was flawed. My argument is flawed as well. I was just trying to get the reader to the point where they could start to imagine an enclosed finite universe without creating a monstrous treatise.
In reality, in the case of a big crunch, I believe that a vast amount of energy in the form of light from the initial bang would continue to expand out into space, or the void if I may. I also think that void, due to quantum uncertainty is actually filled with virtual particles and that these must already exist in the regions into which our universe expands. And that the void exists. But as physics progresses, I suppose we may find that void is finite. There is a lot that could be said on this topic. But this is enough for now.
imagine that the universe if finite. There must be an edge to the universe, a cliff or perhaps a wall. Let's say it is a wall. If you go to the top of the wall and look out, there is something on the other side of the wall. The wall divides something. So you go to the other side of the wall and explore only to eventually find another wall marking the edge of the universe. You climb up that wall and see that it divides something ... ad infinitum
It occurs to me that this is bad logic. There need not be anything on the other side of the wall. It relies on our daily experience with land being divided by walls. This need not apply to a universe. Imagine that the matter and energy ratios are such that the universe will eventually collapse into a black hole. You would then find that you have a very finite universe. There need not be anything outside the event horizon. There need not be space, matter, energy, light ... nothing can get out. The universe would be a closed finite system.
It appears that this is not the case in reality. I am just saying that the logic was flawed. My argument is flawed as well. I was just trying to get the reader to the point where they could start to imagine an enclosed finite universe without creating a monstrous treatise.
In reality, in the case of a big crunch, I believe that a vast amount of energy in the form of light from the initial bang would continue to expand out into space, or the void if I may. I also think that void, due to quantum uncertainty is actually filled with virtual particles and that these must already exist in the regions into which our universe expands. And that the void exists. But as physics progresses, I suppose we may find that void is finite. There is a lot that could be said on this topic. But this is enough for now.
insight from a conversation with Dad / more evidence of photons
Last night I was driving home from a long field job. I was exhausted and it was showing in my driving quality. I needed help staying awake, so I called my Dad. I had nothing to talk about, but just needed to keep talking to help me stay awake. My Dad was kind enough to go over some things he had been thinking about. And in the midst of this groggy conversation I had a new insight into light. It may not seem like much, but here it is:
If light were a wave like sound waves or water waves that traveled on some medium (water or air), we wouldn't be able to see the stars. The energy would diffuse over so much distance. But because light is made up of discrete packets of energy, photons, that exist independent of everything else around them we get to see the stars at night. There is an underlying assumption here that the medium is fundamentally granular. Air and water are both made up of lots of little atoms. Even sound traveling through a more rigid material like steel is made up of lots of little atoms. This granular nature is what causes the wave energy to disperse over a distance. But light being made up of its own little particles can only disperse down to single photons. After that it cannot get more dispersed.
If light were a wave like sound waves or water waves that traveled on some medium (water or air), we wouldn't be able to see the stars. The energy would diffuse over so much distance. But because light is made up of discrete packets of energy, photons, that exist independent of everything else around them we get to see the stars at night. There is an underlying assumption here that the medium is fundamentally granular. Air and water are both made up of lots of little atoms. Even sound traveling through a more rigid material like steel is made up of lots of little atoms. This granular nature is what causes the wave energy to disperse over a distance. But light being made up of its own little particles can only disperse down to single photons. After that it cannot get more dispersed.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
children's story: Goldy Locks and the 3 Bears
( I know this is over done, but I like my version even though I didn't change much.)
Once upon a time there was a bear family with a Papa Bear, a Mama Bear, and a Baby Bear. They lived in a beautiful house deep in the forest. Just outside the forest there was another house where another family lived. In that family there was a little girl named Goldy Locks because of her beautiful golden hair.
One day, Goldy Locks went for a long walk all by herself deep into the forest and she found the Bear home. She walked all around the Bear home, looked in all the windows, and saw that nobody was home. So Goldy Locks decided to go inside even though it was not her home and she did not have permission.
Inside the Bear home Goldy Locks saw three bowls of porridge on the kitchen table: a big bowl, a medium bowl, and a small bowl. She tasted the porridge in the big bowl and said, "Humph, this porridge is toooo hot!" Then she tasted the porridge in the small bowl and said, "This porridge is toooo cold!" Then she tasted the porridge in the medium bowl and said, "Ummmm, this porridge is juust right!" And she ate the whole bowl even though it was not her porridge and she did not have permission.
Then Goldy Locks decided to explore the rest of the house and she made a big mess while she did so. She knocked over a lamp in the living room. She unrolled a bunch of toilet paper in the bathroom and splashed a bunch of water on the floor. Then she went upstairs and found a room with a reallly big bed. She jumped all over the really big bed and threw the pillows around.
Then Goldy Locks realized she was very tired from her long walk and all her exploring. So she laid down on the bed and said, "This bed is toooo hard!". Goldy Locks got up and went to the next room where she found a little bed. She laid down on the little bed and said, "This bed is juuust right!" And she went to sleep even though it was not her bed and she did not have permission.
While Goldy Locks was asleep, the Bear family came home and Papa Bear said, "Somebody has been in the house and somebody has tasted my porridge." Baby Bear said, "Somebody tasted my porridge too!" And Mama Bear said, "Somebody ate all of my porridge." Then Papa Bear said, "Mama Bear, Baby Bear wait here. I am going to go through the rest of the house and make sure it is safe."
Papa Bear saw the lamp that Goldy Locks knocked over in the living room. He saw the toilet paper she unrolled and the water she splashed around in the bathroom. When Papa Bear went into his room he saw that Goldy Locks had jumped all over his bed and threw his pillows around.
Then Papa Bear went into Baby Bear's room and saw Goldy Locks asleep in Baby Bear's bed. This made Papa Bear very angry because Papa Bear loves Baby Bear very much and seeing Goldy Locks asleep in Baby Bear's bed without permission made him feel like Baby Bear wasn't safe. So he roared very loudly and woke Goldy Locks up. She went, "Ahhhh!" Then Papa Bear swatted Goldy Locks, and because Papa Bear is very big this hurt Goldy Locks and she began to cry. "Whaaaah!"
Then Papa Bear realized that Goldy Locks wasn't going to hurt Baby Bear, but he still couldn't be very nice to her because of all the bad decisions she made. So he sent Goldy Locks away and she had to make the long walk home through the forest all alone even though she was hurt and crying. Meanwhile, Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear gave each other big hugs and cleaned up the house together.
******
1) I did the order of the bowls of porridge to match natural cooling rates for food dished up from the same pot at the same time. The biggest bowl is the hottest and the little bowl the coolest. This is not the way I have heard it told.
2) Lists. Little kids love the lists, but the list of messes that Goldy Locks made are common messes that little kids to make. It helps later when I ask them not to make the messes. Occasionally, I will roar instead of using my words.
3) Emphasis on permission.
4) Explanation of motivation for Papa Bear, who isn't arbitrarily angry, mean, or bad like the other versions of the story I have heard.
5) I don't put the whole Bear family in one bedroom nor in three like the other versions of the story I have heard. I made the sleeping arrangements like home.
6) This is Caroline's favorite story (she is starting to transition to Daniel and the Lion's Den) and even though I get tired of telling it every night, I love it at the end when she wants her hug and she asks if I am her Papa Bear or alternately if she is my Baby Bear. That is definitely the best part.
Once upon a time there was a bear family with a Papa Bear, a Mama Bear, and a Baby Bear. They lived in a beautiful house deep in the forest. Just outside the forest there was another house where another family lived. In that family there was a little girl named Goldy Locks because of her beautiful golden hair.
One day, Goldy Locks went for a long walk all by herself deep into the forest and she found the Bear home. She walked all around the Bear home, looked in all the windows, and saw that nobody was home. So Goldy Locks decided to go inside even though it was not her home and she did not have permission.
Inside the Bear home Goldy Locks saw three bowls of porridge on the kitchen table: a big bowl, a medium bowl, and a small bowl. She tasted the porridge in the big bowl and said, "Humph, this porridge is toooo hot!" Then she tasted the porridge in the small bowl and said, "This porridge is toooo cold!" Then she tasted the porridge in the medium bowl and said, "Ummmm, this porridge is juust right!" And she ate the whole bowl even though it was not her porridge and she did not have permission.
Then Goldy Locks decided to explore the rest of the house and she made a big mess while she did so. She knocked over a lamp in the living room. She unrolled a bunch of toilet paper in the bathroom and splashed a bunch of water on the floor. Then she went upstairs and found a room with a reallly big bed. She jumped all over the really big bed and threw the pillows around.
Then Goldy Locks realized she was very tired from her long walk and all her exploring. So she laid down on the bed and said, "This bed is toooo hard!". Goldy Locks got up and went to the next room where she found a little bed. She laid down on the little bed and said, "This bed is juuust right!" And she went to sleep even though it was not her bed and she did not have permission.
While Goldy Locks was asleep, the Bear family came home and Papa Bear said, "Somebody has been in the house and somebody has tasted my porridge." Baby Bear said, "Somebody tasted my porridge too!" And Mama Bear said, "Somebody ate all of my porridge." Then Papa Bear said, "Mama Bear, Baby Bear wait here. I am going to go through the rest of the house and make sure it is safe."
Papa Bear saw the lamp that Goldy Locks knocked over in the living room. He saw the toilet paper she unrolled and the water she splashed around in the bathroom. When Papa Bear went into his room he saw that Goldy Locks had jumped all over his bed and threw his pillows around.
Then Papa Bear went into Baby Bear's room and saw Goldy Locks asleep in Baby Bear's bed. This made Papa Bear very angry because Papa Bear loves Baby Bear very much and seeing Goldy Locks asleep in Baby Bear's bed without permission made him feel like Baby Bear wasn't safe. So he roared very loudly and woke Goldy Locks up. She went, "Ahhhh!" Then Papa Bear swatted Goldy Locks, and because Papa Bear is very big this hurt Goldy Locks and she began to cry. "Whaaaah!"
Then Papa Bear realized that Goldy Locks wasn't going to hurt Baby Bear, but he still couldn't be very nice to her because of all the bad decisions she made. So he sent Goldy Locks away and she had to make the long walk home through the forest all alone even though she was hurt and crying. Meanwhile, Papa Bear, Mama Bear, and Baby Bear gave each other big hugs and cleaned up the house together.
******
1) I did the order of the bowls of porridge to match natural cooling rates for food dished up from the same pot at the same time. The biggest bowl is the hottest and the little bowl the coolest. This is not the way I have heard it told.
2) Lists. Little kids love the lists, but the list of messes that Goldy Locks made are common messes that little kids to make. It helps later when I ask them not to make the messes. Occasionally, I will roar instead of using my words.
3) Emphasis on permission.
4) Explanation of motivation for Papa Bear, who isn't arbitrarily angry, mean, or bad like the other versions of the story I have heard.
5) I don't put the whole Bear family in one bedroom nor in three like the other versions of the story I have heard. I made the sleeping arrangements like home.
6) This is Caroline's favorite story (she is starting to transition to Daniel and the Lion's Den) and even though I get tired of telling it every night, I love it at the end when she wants her hug and she asks if I am her Papa Bear or alternately if she is my Baby Bear. That is definitely the best part.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Save 74% on dish soap
A few years ago I got frustrated enough with dish soap prices that I did some experimentation, I have stuck with the blue Dawn dishsoap and not experimented with other varieties.
I found that I could use the suds pump (direct foam) with the ultra concentrate soap if I dilute it. The soap comes in 24 oz and 56 oz bottles. After going through a 56 oz bottle, I pour the 24 oz of ultra concentrate soap into the empty 56 oz bottle, fill the rest of it with water (32 oz of water) and shake it up to mix it. (Without a lot of air, you can't make a lot of suds. I use that diluted ultra concentrate to refill the suds pump. And there you go, cheaper dish soap!
The process of going through the initial 56 oz bottle is a bit of a pain, especially if somebody throws out the empty bottle on you. If you use a graduated 1 cup measure, fill it to the 1/3 cup mark with ultra concentrate soap and then to the 3/4 cup mark with water. This is NOT 1/3 cup soap and 3/4 cup water. It is 1/3 cup soap and (3/4 - 1/3) cups water. Then stir it gently with a fork to get it mixed but not foamed. This makes 6 oz of soap for the pump, which takes 10 oz at a time. So as you slooooowly go through the gigantic 54 oz bottle, you have to refill the pump about halfway at a time. At least that is how I did it. You could always just use an alternate container and mix a bunch up at once.
So, how cheap is it?
at walmart.com the 30.9 oz refill bottle is $5.64 or $0.1825 per oz.
The 24 oz ultra concentrate is $2.63, but we dilute it to 56 oz, for $0.0469 per oz.
That is a savings of 74% on the refills which Dawn claims already saves a bunch of money!
Update: I have tried the purple Dawn ultra concentrate and maybe I messed up the ratios some how but it is not pumping right. Even if it was a mistake on my part, I will not be doing more purple just in case. I got it because it is my daughter's favorite color, but she was unhappy when I diluted it and put it in a blue container making it not purple any more.
I found that I could use the suds pump (direct foam) with the ultra concentrate soap if I dilute it. The soap comes in 24 oz and 56 oz bottles. After going through a 56 oz bottle, I pour the 24 oz of ultra concentrate soap into the empty 56 oz bottle, fill the rest of it with water (32 oz of water) and shake it up to mix it. (Without a lot of air, you can't make a lot of suds. I use that diluted ultra concentrate to refill the suds pump. And there you go, cheaper dish soap!
The process of going through the initial 56 oz bottle is a bit of a pain, especially if somebody throws out the empty bottle on you. If you use a graduated 1 cup measure, fill it to the 1/3 cup mark with ultra concentrate soap and then to the 3/4 cup mark with water. This is NOT 1/3 cup soap and 3/4 cup water. It is 1/3 cup soap and (3/4 - 1/3) cups water. Then stir it gently with a fork to get it mixed but not foamed. This makes 6 oz of soap for the pump, which takes 10 oz at a time. So as you slooooowly go through the gigantic 54 oz bottle, you have to refill the pump about halfway at a time. At least that is how I did it. You could always just use an alternate container and mix a bunch up at once.
So, how cheap is it?
at walmart.com the 30.9 oz refill bottle is $5.64 or $0.1825 per oz.
The 24 oz ultra concentrate is $2.63, but we dilute it to 56 oz, for $0.0469 per oz.
That is a savings of 74% on the refills which Dawn claims already saves a bunch of money!
Update: I have tried the purple Dawn ultra concentrate and maybe I messed up the ratios some how but it is not pumping right. Even if it was a mistake on my part, I will not be doing more purple just in case. I got it because it is my daughter's favorite color, but she was unhappy when I diluted it and put it in a blue container making it not purple any more.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Children's Story: Jesus and the storm
A long time ago, Jesus was traveling by boat with the apostles from one city to another. And Jesus was very tired so he went downstairs, what they call below deck on a boat, and he went to sleep.
While Jesus was asleep a big storm came. There was a lot of wind, and a lot of rain. There was a lot of lightening and a lot of thunder. And there were big waves. The waves were bigger than the boat. And everybody on the boat thought that they were going to die. Except for Jesus because he was asleep.
Then one of the apostles, I think it was Peter, went and woke Jesus up saying, "Jesus, How can you sleep we are going to die!" And Jesus got up, went upstairs, and told the storm to stop. And the wind stopped. And the rain stopped. And the lightening stopped. And the thunder stopped. And waves stopped crashing over the side of the boat. And everybody on the boat knew it was going to be okay. They knew that they were going to live. And Jesus went back downstairs and went back to sleep because he was still very tired.
*************
I want to make a few comments about this. I know there are a few discrepancies from the Biblical account. Namely,
1) In the Bible Christ in the "hinder part of the ship" (Mark 4), which I take to mean aft of the boat not below deck.
2) There is no mention of rain, thunder, or lightening in the Bible, only wind and waves.
3) The biblical account says disciples, which I think is generally understood to mean Apostles in this context, but it definitely names no names about who woke Jesus up.
There are a few features about this that I really like.
1) It focuses a lot on sleep and how people need it. Good bedtime story. It is usually my finale.
2) It has two features in particular that indicate it is a real and not make believe story.
a) It starts out with the chronological reference, "A long time ago"
b) The phrase, "I think it was Peter" indicates there are real facts you could get wrong.
3) The list of elements of the storm get repeated twice. Most of the time we hear songs and stories that use quantities (Three bears, three pigs, five monkeys, ...) but seldom the list and less seldom does it repeat (think Old McDonald). My girls love hearing the list. They count on it. If I change the order either time it comes up, Caroline will complain about it. The list is something that helps their memory skills and enthralls them.
4) It gives the idea that they can ask Jesus for help, and hopefully their parents too.
While Jesus was asleep a big storm came. There was a lot of wind, and a lot of rain. There was a lot of lightening and a lot of thunder. And there were big waves. The waves were bigger than the boat. And everybody on the boat thought that they were going to die. Except for Jesus because he was asleep.
Then one of the apostles, I think it was Peter, went and woke Jesus up saying, "Jesus, How can you sleep we are going to die!" And Jesus got up, went upstairs, and told the storm to stop. And the wind stopped. And the rain stopped. And the lightening stopped. And the thunder stopped. And waves stopped crashing over the side of the boat. And everybody on the boat knew it was going to be okay. They knew that they were going to live. And Jesus went back downstairs and went back to sleep because he was still very tired.
*************
I want to make a few comments about this. I know there are a few discrepancies from the Biblical account. Namely,
1) In the Bible Christ in the "hinder part of the ship" (Mark 4), which I take to mean aft of the boat not below deck.
2) There is no mention of rain, thunder, or lightening in the Bible, only wind and waves.
3) The biblical account says disciples, which I think is generally understood to mean Apostles in this context, but it definitely names no names about who woke Jesus up.
There are a few features about this that I really like.
1) It focuses a lot on sleep and how people need it. Good bedtime story. It is usually my finale.
2) It has two features in particular that indicate it is a real and not make believe story.
a) It starts out with the chronological reference, "A long time ago"
b) The phrase, "I think it was Peter" indicates there are real facts you could get wrong.
3) The list of elements of the storm get repeated twice. Most of the time we hear songs and stories that use quantities (Three bears, three pigs, five monkeys, ...) but seldom the list and less seldom does it repeat (think Old McDonald). My girls love hearing the list. They count on it. If I change the order either time it comes up, Caroline will complain about it. The list is something that helps their memory skills and enthralls them.
4) It gives the idea that they can ask Jesus for help, and hopefully their parents too.
Children's Song: Daddy's ABCs
Most of this one does not have an original tune as such. This more of a keep the rythm kind of song.
I use the ABC's as a chorus:
7 ABCDEFG
6 HIJKLM
7 NOPQRST
6 UVWXYZ
(Verses I heard as a kid)
+
7 Mary had a little lamb
7 She kept it in the closet
7 And ev'ry time she let it out
8 It left a little deposit
7 Minnie was a skinny girl
6 The slimmest girl in town
8 She took a bath, went down the drain
6 And now the poor girl's drowned
(original verses for the girls)
6 Kittens are the cutest
5 Little balls of fur
8 And if you're really nice to them
5 Maybe they will pur
(I think this next one is my wife's favorite)
5 Paul was a preacher
7 And a very handsome man
8 Had the local girls confessing
5 Any way they can
7 Sally married a rockstar
6 For his fame and his wealth
7 But now she's divorced him
6 For his brains and his health
7 Fruit is my favorite food
7 It makes me feel all airy
7 That's because I'm all backed up
7 From eating eaten too much dairy
I went back and deleted a few of them that were less appropriate. While I personally have a sometimes irreverent and inappropriate sense of humor, I have decided that there is enough garbage out there without me adding to it.
I use the ABC's as a chorus:
7 ABCDEFG
6 HIJKLM
7 NOPQRST
6 UVWXYZ
(Verses I heard as a kid)
+
7 Mary had a little lamb
7 She kept it in the closet
7 And ev'ry time she let it out
8 It left a little deposit
7 Minnie was a skinny girl
6 The slimmest girl in town
8 She took a bath, went down the drain
6 And now the poor girl's drowned
(original verses for the girls)
6 Kittens are the cutest
5 Little balls of fur
8 And if you're really nice to them
5 Maybe they will pur
(I think this next one is my wife's favorite)
5 Paul was a preacher
7 And a very handsome man
8 Had the local girls confessing
5 Any way they can
7 Sally married a rockstar
6 For his fame and his wealth
7 But now she's divorced him
6 For his brains and his health
7 Fruit is my favorite food
7 It makes me feel all airy
7 That's because I'm all backed up
7 From eating eaten too much dairy
I went back and deleted a few of them that were less appropriate. While I personally have a sometimes irreverent and inappropriate sense of humor, I have decided that there is enough garbage out there without me adding to it.
Children's song: Does your Diaper Hang Low?
Having two little girls, I get the opportunity to tell a lot of stories and make up a lot of songs. A few of them I am particularly happy with and have decided to start sharing.
As a note, I view sing-along songs as somewhat malleable in their timing. Sometimes I don't strictly adhere to the number of syllables. To help with that problem, I will put the lyrics from the base song first and the number of syllables at the beginning of each line.
ORIGINAL SONG: Do your ears hang low?
5 Do your ears hang low?
7 Do they wabble to and fro?
7 Can you tie them in a knot?
7 Can you tie them in a bow?
8 Can you throw them o'r (over) your shoulder
8 like a continental soldier?
5 Do your ears hang low?
MY VERSION: Does your diaper hang low?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
8 Does it wiggle when you waddle?
7 Have you smelt it for a while?
7 Can you smell it for a mile?
7 Is it hanging by your knees
7 begging someone change me please?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
As a note, I view sing-along songs as somewhat malleable in their timing. Sometimes I don't strictly adhere to the number of syllables. To help with that problem, I will put the lyrics from the base song first and the number of syllables at the beginning of each line.
ORIGINAL SONG: Do your ears hang low?
5 Do your ears hang low?
7 Do they wabble to and fro?
7 Can you tie them in a knot?
7 Can you tie them in a bow?
8 Can you throw them o'r (over) your shoulder
8 like a continental soldier?
5 Do your ears hang low?
MY VERSION: Does your diaper hang low?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
8 Does it wiggle when you waddle?
7 Have you smelt it for a while?
7 Can you smell it for a mile?
7 Is it hanging by your knees
7 begging someone change me please?
6 Does your diaper hang low?
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Gun control
This topic is making another round, so here is my two sense (not cents on purpose, OP) in about 900 words.
One inalienable right not listed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right to defend your life, liberty, and ... property. (Pursuit of happiness is a little etheric for this post.) By inalienable, I mean to say that it is not something that can be sold nor ownership thereof transferred and should not be forcibly taken. Government is inherently at odds with all inalienable rights. It is a fundamental conflict implied by the words govern and liberty.
For example, governments need funding. Hence taxes and a conflict with property as they claim your resources. A conflict with liberty as they don't give you a choice. And a conflict with the right to defend them in that they cannot tolerate you not paying. But this isn't an analysis of rights and governments, this is about gun control.
You have the right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones. Nobody can take that right away from you. Further, nobody can do it for you, and the government really can't do it for you. Imagine that somebody breaks into your house. What do you do? Do you call 911? Even back when they took 911 calls seriously it still took several minutes for the police to arrive. When I was a little kid, maybe 10 years old, a guy broke into our house through the back door while Dad was at work, Mom was doing dishes with my older brother, and my little sister and I were watching TV together. In about 3 seconds Mom got his attention and I grabbed the cordless phone and disappeared into the house calling 911. Fortunately, the intruder's real goal was to intimidate us ... which didn't work too well. But it took 30 minutes for the Police to arrive and fill out a report. If he had decided to hurt us, (which he might have if he had better control of the situation and my brother wasn't bigger than him and standing next to the knives), the whole scene would have still played out before the police arrived. If the same thing happened today, it would likely take a half hour to get through to 911 like it did about a year ago when we had a medical emergency in my home.
I don't blame the government or the police for their slow response time in either case. They cannot protect and provide for us. They cannot be everywhere all the time, and even if they could then they still wouldn't be able to do the job. Besides, we wouldn't want them every where all the time.
To try to abdicate our right to defend ourselves or responsibility to defend our loved ones is to surrender a key part of who we are. It is fundamental in our psyche to strive. If we do not strive we do not thrive. The only question is what tools we should have at our disposal for self defense?
Every society, has to draw the line somewhere. We have to decide what tools are rightful for individuals to have at their disposal for their defense. This is our decision to make collectively as citizens, not a decision for a 'government'. There are some things that are simply not in the realm of defense ... they fall in the category I would like to call immoral weapons. Think weaponized small pox and nuclear bombs. I don't know anybody who is arguing for unrestricted access to these items. The big issue with these is that there is no real way to limit bystander casualties.
The capacity to control damage is the key to determining whether or not a weapon should be controlled by the government or not. A semi-automatic any-gun is relatively easy to use and control damage. It is fully at the discretion of the shooter to pick a target and pull the trigger. The person with the gun has to make a bullet by bullet decision about what they want to do. This makes it a moral weapon.
Further, the gun is ubiquitous. No amount of regulation or government effort would be able to remove all the guns from society. And further, they are relatively easy to make. I have access to all the resources necessary to manufacture a gun completely off the books. I even have the knowledge necessary to figure it out, and I think there are a few hundred people living in the same valley that could do it better. The same tools that are used to fix a car or make a table leg can be used to manufacture a gun. You cannot have the capacity to make or repair machines without the capacity make or repair guns. It is up to the individual what they want.
Since a gun is a moral weapon useful for our inalienable right to defend us and ours, and since we cannot by action or will of government remove guns from our lives: guns should have virtually NO legal restrictions. The only restrictions that a government can rightfully or realistically put on guns is for individuals that have demonstrated they have issues with sanity, morality, or law. We have given our government the tools of imprisonment and restraining orders. We have established the precedent of registries for offenders of the law. Government can use these tools to regulate access to guns by those few whom we deem fundamentally irresponsible or immoral.
One inalienable right not listed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right to defend your life, liberty, and ... property. (Pursuit of happiness is a little etheric for this post.) By inalienable, I mean to say that it is not something that can be sold nor ownership thereof transferred and should not be forcibly taken. Government is inherently at odds with all inalienable rights. It is a fundamental conflict implied by the words govern and liberty.
For example, governments need funding. Hence taxes and a conflict with property as they claim your resources. A conflict with liberty as they don't give you a choice. And a conflict with the right to defend them in that they cannot tolerate you not paying. But this isn't an analysis of rights and governments, this is about gun control.
You have the right to defend yourself, your property and your loved ones. Nobody can take that right away from you. Further, nobody can do it for you, and the government really can't do it for you. Imagine that somebody breaks into your house. What do you do? Do you call 911? Even back when they took 911 calls seriously it still took several minutes for the police to arrive. When I was a little kid, maybe 10 years old, a guy broke into our house through the back door while Dad was at work, Mom was doing dishes with my older brother, and my little sister and I were watching TV together. In about 3 seconds Mom got his attention and I grabbed the cordless phone and disappeared into the house calling 911. Fortunately, the intruder's real goal was to intimidate us ... which didn't work too well. But it took 30 minutes for the Police to arrive and fill out a report. If he had decided to hurt us, (which he might have if he had better control of the situation and my brother wasn't bigger than him and standing next to the knives), the whole scene would have still played out before the police arrived. If the same thing happened today, it would likely take a half hour to get through to 911 like it did about a year ago when we had a medical emergency in my home.
I don't blame the government or the police for their slow response time in either case. They cannot protect and provide for us. They cannot be everywhere all the time, and even if they could then they still wouldn't be able to do the job. Besides, we wouldn't want them every where all the time.
To try to abdicate our right to defend ourselves or responsibility to defend our loved ones is to surrender a key part of who we are. It is fundamental in our psyche to strive. If we do not strive we do not thrive. The only question is what tools we should have at our disposal for self defense?
Every society, has to draw the line somewhere. We have to decide what tools are rightful for individuals to have at their disposal for their defense. This is our decision to make collectively as citizens, not a decision for a 'government'. There are some things that are simply not in the realm of defense ... they fall in the category I would like to call immoral weapons. Think weaponized small pox and nuclear bombs. I don't know anybody who is arguing for unrestricted access to these items. The big issue with these is that there is no real way to limit bystander casualties.
The capacity to control damage is the key to determining whether or not a weapon should be controlled by the government or not. A semi-automatic any-gun is relatively easy to use and control damage. It is fully at the discretion of the shooter to pick a target and pull the trigger. The person with the gun has to make a bullet by bullet decision about what they want to do. This makes it a moral weapon.
Further, the gun is ubiquitous. No amount of regulation or government effort would be able to remove all the guns from society. And further, they are relatively easy to make. I have access to all the resources necessary to manufacture a gun completely off the books. I even have the knowledge necessary to figure it out, and I think there are a few hundred people living in the same valley that could do it better. The same tools that are used to fix a car or make a table leg can be used to manufacture a gun. You cannot have the capacity to make or repair machines without the capacity make or repair guns. It is up to the individual what they want.
Since a gun is a moral weapon useful for our inalienable right to defend us and ours, and since we cannot by action or will of government remove guns from our lives: guns should have virtually NO legal restrictions. The only restrictions that a government can rightfully or realistically put on guns is for individuals that have demonstrated they have issues with sanity, morality, or law. We have given our government the tools of imprisonment and restraining orders. We have established the precedent of registries for offenders of the law. Government can use these tools to regulate access to guns by those few whom we deem fundamentally irresponsible or immoral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)