- Plan it before you build it and stick with the plan. Changes part way through result in a lot more work.
- Install the plumbing, if you are doing plumbing, before installing the garden. Digging under and through boxes is very challenging. Plumbing is very nice to have.
- If you are connecting this into your existing sprinkler system, make sure that one zone is just the garden. Don't mix zones.
- Build the boxes before you bring in the dirt to fill them. That good rich dirt will grow the thickest matte of weeds and grass with the deepest roots you can possibly imagine in very short order. This changes your good soil into yard waste. Covering it with tarps is not effective either. That was my mistake.
- Find an optimum height for your garden boxes. Some considerations include:
- All the weed pulling and planting happens at the top level. To remove the weeds you will have to bend over however far that is.
- Most of the produce collection happens above the garden bed. Some can happen a few feet above the bed. Think corn. Or vine melons on a trellis.
- A lot more time is spent pulling weeds than harvesting produce. And harvesting produce has more inherent reward making it seem like less work than it is.
- It is easier to work from a seated position than it is to work from a step stool or kneeling position.
- Not all beds have to be the same height. You may choose to make one 3' high for just strawberries and another 8" for just corn.
- If the garden box is taller than the wheel barrow, when you move the dirt from the delivery site to the garden, you will basically have to do it twice. I did mine with two 2x10" boards high. This gives the barrow almost 2" of clearance. If I did it again, I would do one 2x10" followed by one 2x8" board.
- The wider the box is, the more you have to stretch out to get weeds or produce out of the middle. Reaching causes fatigue. A lot of people advocate 4' wide boxes. I prefer 3' wide for this reason.
- Don't bother chipping out the sod before installing the garden boxes. This is a lot of work. You may want to put down some landscaping cloth, newspaper, or herbicide to help prevent some plants from growing up from the gottom. If you do a short box for corn or something which will have roots which want penetrate below the original ground level, definitely do not use an herbicide and probably don't use landscaping cloth. Even then, removing the grass is not strictly necessary but may result in more weeds later. I would at least break the soil up a little though.
- The whole box, if more than 12" high, should not be filled with just good dirt. This saves money as well as helping avoid a later issue weird growth deep in the box. Only the top 4 to 12" should be good dirt depending on the root depth desired. 12" for corn. 6" for most of your above ground plants. Below that can be gravel, logs, untreated lumber scraps ... or other items that serve as a filler as well as allow drainage. Some people strongly advocate logs since they will decay and add nutrients to the soil over the years. This can be a good place to hide some yard waste, but not grass clipping etc. I have very rocky soil. Every time I dug up a sprinkler or planted a tree, I have not been putting any of the rocks back in the hole. I have accumulated a cubic yard or so of rocks which have been put to good use at the bottom of the garden beds.
- Leave lots of room between garden beds. It is one thing for yourself to walk between the beds. It is quite another to take a wheelbarrow through and another yet to turn the barrow around.
- Both the height of the boxes as well as the distance from the fence can help expose the garden to light by getting it out of the shade of the fence. This will affect how early or late you can harvest.
- I did my first two boxes at one level high 3'x8'x10". This was a little awkward as the 8' boards don't fit in the car and are just more awkward to walk through doorways etc. I did the others at 3'x6'x20". This is a lot easier to work with and conveniently the trunk of my car closes with the wood inside.
- Buy the wood for one box in one trip to the store if you are having them cut the boards for you. The guys at homedepot and Lowe's are quite happy to cut your lumber, but their accuracy is about +/-1/4". You get some more accuracy if they set a stop and cut all your 6' sections. Then set a new stop and cut all your 3' sections. Of course, I am rounding off. You have to allow for the amount of material the saw eats. FYI, most of those guys don't. Doing it in two trips, I have some sections that were supposed to be 2' 11 7/8" that are almost a half inch different in length than others. It looks a little sloppy.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Garden Hints
I am nearing the end stage of installing a nice garden in my back yard. There are several small pointers I would like to share. These apply to building a raised garden.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
Fat guy calisthenics
No, that is not intended to be funny. I just couldn't find a lot of exercises online. The articles I found all defer to a doctor. Not helpful.
I did work out a quick and simple routine. It involves 4 dynamic exercises.
1) Breast Stroke squats: Stand with your feet shoulder width apart and push outward with your hands as you squat down. Once you get to the bottom your arms should be fully extended in front. Then sweep your hands out to your sides as you stand up. So that your hands straight out at your sides once you are fully standing. Exhale on the way down and inhale on the way up. The arm motion helps prepare the shoulder muscles.
The lower intensity version has you lowering your arms from straight above your head to down at your side as you stand up and raising them as you stand up.
An even lower version would be to use the back of a chair or door knob to assist with the raising and lowering of the body.
The lowest intensity version would be to sit down in a chair and stand up again using a table for assistance.
A higher intensity version would be to lower your hands as you go down and raise them as you go up.
An even more intense version would be to do a full jump at the top.
The point is to use as many as the big muscles in your legs as possible while moving your shoulders simultaneously.
2) Push ups. Yeah. Obvious. It gets into the shoulders and back. There are a lot of variations. on pushups. IF you are really fat you can't do a lot of pushups. Even if you have the muscles to do it, the strain on your wrists can cause a lot of damage.
The lowest intensity would be pushing against a wall.
A higher intensity is to kneel on the ground so your butt is directly above your knees and do pushups with your upper body.
Next would be to kneel on a pillow and straighten your hips and back. Some people like to keep their knees bent at 90 degrees. I prefer to try and keep my toes on the floor as if I was about to do a normal push up. That way I can switch back and forth depending on how the wrist feels.
You can also play with how far apart your hands are and how high they are. Are they low near your solar plexus, above your shoulders near your ears, or in between? Some day I would like to be able to do very difficult version of the pushup where your hands are low near your solar plexus if your back and legs are straight and you do a large circular motion with your torso but don't move your hands or feet. I imagine just the forward transition (from having your knees bent and your shoulders below your hands and sliding your body parallel and very close to the floor until your knees are straight and your hands are down by your solar plexus) would be immensely challenging.
3) Leg raises. Ideally I would be able to lay on my back and fold in half so that I could touch my toes in mid air. Not even close. My body is out of balance besides the muscle issues. Instead I just raise my legs without bending my knees until my feet are above my hips. The hardest version I can do is to lay down on my back and put my hands under by buttocks and raise my head and shoulders off the ground and hold them their while bending at the waist to put my feet above my hips.
A lower intensity is to rest my head.
Even lower is to bend my knees so that my feet don't stick out as far. Or even just get my knees above my hips and leave my feet where ever.
This should get the whole range of abdominal muscles but not the oblique. One hard thing to remember while doing this is that when your flex your abdominal muscles to raise your legs your should be pulling your stomach flat at the same time. Flat is a relative term.
Most exercise gurus would end with an stomach exercise that focuses more on the upper portion of the stomach muscles, but remember I am not trying to get six-pack abs. I am trying to change something that looks like a saggy water balloon into something that looks more like a keg.
One other positive is that the leg raises can help stretch out my lower back which can sag under all the weight or lock-up during push-ups.
4) Ankle and waist rotations. This may sound like one lame exercise, but it is really two super important exercises. Even though it is listed fourth, I like to do it first and last a lot of days. Being fat, it hurts to walk. The load tends to collapse the arches. The arch supports tend to weaken them further. The ankles start to fold sideways, and your toes start to turn out so you are walking like a crippled duck. Over time this can deform your shins and destroy your knees too. Similar problems occur with the lower back. These exercises specifically help with these issues.
Stand on one foot and rotate your toes in as large a circle as you can. You may find that you cannot do a very good circle. The correct structure of your foot has been crushed under the load. But do what you can.
Similarly, stand with your feet shoulder width apart and put your arms straight in the air. Then rotate at the hip so your arms and head move together in a big circle and you touch the ground as you go by. If I am feeling really worn out or my kids are exercising with me, I will bend my knees and pretend to be an agitated ape. This involves a lot more swaying and grunting. Fewer circles. How straight you keep your knees and how low you go on the circles can affect the exercise. Straighter legs and reaching lower both mean more stretch in your legs. But if you go too far or too fast you can hurt your lower back. So ... take it in stride.
I did work out a quick and simple routine. It involves 4 dynamic exercises.
1) Breast Stroke squats: Stand with your feet shoulder width apart and push outward with your hands as you squat down. Once you get to the bottom your arms should be fully extended in front. Then sweep your hands out to your sides as you stand up. So that your hands straight out at your sides once you are fully standing. Exhale on the way down and inhale on the way up. The arm motion helps prepare the shoulder muscles.
The lower intensity version has you lowering your arms from straight above your head to down at your side as you stand up and raising them as you stand up.
An even lower version would be to use the back of a chair or door knob to assist with the raising and lowering of the body.
The lowest intensity version would be to sit down in a chair and stand up again using a table for assistance.
A higher intensity version would be to lower your hands as you go down and raise them as you go up.
An even more intense version would be to do a full jump at the top.
The point is to use as many as the big muscles in your legs as possible while moving your shoulders simultaneously.
2) Push ups. Yeah. Obvious. It gets into the shoulders and back. There are a lot of variations. on pushups. IF you are really fat you can't do a lot of pushups. Even if you have the muscles to do it, the strain on your wrists can cause a lot of damage.
The lowest intensity would be pushing against a wall.
A higher intensity is to kneel on the ground so your butt is directly above your knees and do pushups with your upper body.
Next would be to kneel on a pillow and straighten your hips and back. Some people like to keep their knees bent at 90 degrees. I prefer to try and keep my toes on the floor as if I was about to do a normal push up. That way I can switch back and forth depending on how the wrist feels.
You can also play with how far apart your hands are and how high they are. Are they low near your solar plexus, above your shoulders near your ears, or in between? Some day I would like to be able to do very difficult version of the pushup where your hands are low near your solar plexus if your back and legs are straight and you do a large circular motion with your torso but don't move your hands or feet. I imagine just the forward transition (from having your knees bent and your shoulders below your hands and sliding your body parallel and very close to the floor until your knees are straight and your hands are down by your solar plexus) would be immensely challenging.
3) Leg raises. Ideally I would be able to lay on my back and fold in half so that I could touch my toes in mid air. Not even close. My body is out of balance besides the muscle issues. Instead I just raise my legs without bending my knees until my feet are above my hips. The hardest version I can do is to lay down on my back and put my hands under by buttocks and raise my head and shoulders off the ground and hold them their while bending at the waist to put my feet above my hips.
A lower intensity is to rest my head.
Even lower is to bend my knees so that my feet don't stick out as far. Or even just get my knees above my hips and leave my feet where ever.
This should get the whole range of abdominal muscles but not the oblique. One hard thing to remember while doing this is that when your flex your abdominal muscles to raise your legs your should be pulling your stomach flat at the same time. Flat is a relative term.
Most exercise gurus would end with an stomach exercise that focuses more on the upper portion of the stomach muscles, but remember I am not trying to get six-pack abs. I am trying to change something that looks like a saggy water balloon into something that looks more like a keg.
One other positive is that the leg raises can help stretch out my lower back which can sag under all the weight or lock-up during push-ups.
4) Ankle and waist rotations. This may sound like one lame exercise, but it is really two super important exercises. Even though it is listed fourth, I like to do it first and last a lot of days. Being fat, it hurts to walk. The load tends to collapse the arches. The arch supports tend to weaken them further. The ankles start to fold sideways, and your toes start to turn out so you are walking like a crippled duck. Over time this can deform your shins and destroy your knees too. Similar problems occur with the lower back. These exercises specifically help with these issues.
Stand on one foot and rotate your toes in as large a circle as you can. You may find that you cannot do a very good circle. The correct structure of your foot has been crushed under the load. But do what you can.
Similarly, stand with your feet shoulder width apart and put your arms straight in the air. Then rotate at the hip so your arms and head move together in a big circle and you touch the ground as you go by. If I am feeling really worn out or my kids are exercising with me, I will bend my knees and pretend to be an agitated ape. This involves a lot more swaying and grunting. Fewer circles. How straight you keep your knees and how low you go on the circles can affect the exercise. Straighter legs and reaching lower both mean more stretch in your legs. But if you go too far or too fast you can hurt your lower back. So ... take it in stride.
Excercising as a FAT person
There was a time when I would say I was in pretty good shape. I was never a professional grade athlete and would never have made it on a collegiate sports team, but I would regularly run 5 miles in 30 minutes without worrying about it making me too tired for other activities.
I didn't used to think much about the exercise I did. I had a lot of time to do it in and a lot of psychological drive to do it with.
Now, I hold my breath to tie my shoes.
Now, I find that I don't know much about exercise and there is not a lot of good material out there for people like me who are more than 100 lbs over weight and busy with life. I have a hard time getting enough sleep on even one night in any given week. How am I supposed to find the time to exercise and lose weight? Here are a few notes from my thoughts about loosing weight:
1) Consistency is most important. I am fat because I don't have good habits. Establishing an exercise habit is the most important thing I can do. It is more important than improving my diet or sleep. Really it is. I have set the goal of exercising 10 times a week. Yes 10. Why 10? So that it becomes a core habit of my life. How many times do you eat? Go to the bathroom? Brush your teeth? Those are a few of your core habits. More specifically they are habits required to maintain your body. Why should exercise be any different? And, if I don't make exercise one of the core habits of my life, I don't think I will be able to get or stay healthy.
2) Make it quick. Time is of the essence. If I require myself to do a 30 minute workout, it will be difficult to find the time. I need to make it a 5 minute workout. I need to be able to squeeze it in and move on with my day. The longer the workout takes the easier it is to decide that I don't have time. A gym membership is completely out of the question.
3) Make it lite. Being fat it is easy to get tired out. And being out of shape it is easy to hurt myself by doing too much exercise. The truth is that I am no longer familiar with my body. If I do too much exercise in the morning I am miserable all day long. If I do too much at night, I won't sleep well and will be miserable all the next day. And it will be harder to convince myself to exercise again.
4) Track the exercise. I have a calendar in the bath room that I put a number and "e" for how many times I exercised that day. This has not worked very well for me. I am also using it to track weight and other things as well. I think that maybe it is too much stuff on the calendar. Maybe it is too many goals. But I think that recording the effort is important.
Again, the goal is to establish the habit. Over time the exercises can evolve into more intense or more rewarding workout. But for now... It has to be a simple routine.
I didn't used to think much about the exercise I did. I had a lot of time to do it in and a lot of psychological drive to do it with.
Now, I hold my breath to tie my shoes.
Now, I find that I don't know much about exercise and there is not a lot of good material out there for people like me who are more than 100 lbs over weight and busy with life. I have a hard time getting enough sleep on even one night in any given week. How am I supposed to find the time to exercise and lose weight? Here are a few notes from my thoughts about loosing weight:
1) Consistency is most important. I am fat because I don't have good habits. Establishing an exercise habit is the most important thing I can do. It is more important than improving my diet or sleep. Really it is. I have set the goal of exercising 10 times a week. Yes 10. Why 10? So that it becomes a core habit of my life. How many times do you eat? Go to the bathroom? Brush your teeth? Those are a few of your core habits. More specifically they are habits required to maintain your body. Why should exercise be any different? And, if I don't make exercise one of the core habits of my life, I don't think I will be able to get or stay healthy.
2) Make it quick. Time is of the essence. If I require myself to do a 30 minute workout, it will be difficult to find the time. I need to make it a 5 minute workout. I need to be able to squeeze it in and move on with my day. The longer the workout takes the easier it is to decide that I don't have time. A gym membership is completely out of the question.
3) Make it lite. Being fat it is easy to get tired out. And being out of shape it is easy to hurt myself by doing too much exercise. The truth is that I am no longer familiar with my body. If I do too much exercise in the morning I am miserable all day long. If I do too much at night, I won't sleep well and will be miserable all the next day. And it will be harder to convince myself to exercise again.
4) Track the exercise. I have a calendar in the bath room that I put a number and "e" for how many times I exercised that day. This has not worked very well for me. I am also using it to track weight and other things as well. I think that maybe it is too much stuff on the calendar. Maybe it is too many goals. But I think that recording the effort is important.
Again, the goal is to establish the habit. Over time the exercises can evolve into more intense or more rewarding workout. But for now... It has to be a simple routine.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
New Age Philosophy and Modern Physics part 2
The other physics phenomenon that seems to come up a lot with new age philosophers is wave-particle duality. This is not what they usually call it. What they are interested in is the idea that observation affects the measurement. Let me take a minute to describe the basic double-slit experiment that is used to validate this.
You take a laser and turn it down super low so that only one photon goes through the experiment at a time. The individual photons go though a very closely spaced pair of slits. And hit a photographic screen on the opposite side. Each individual photon hits the screen leaving a single dot as if it was a particle, a miniature cannonball. However, if photons were little cannonballs then after several hundred photons you would see two clusters of dots ... one behind each of the two slits. But this is not what you see. What you see is a distribution of photons consistent with a wave going through the slits. See the picture I 'borrowed' from another website.
Now we get to the interesting part. IF we add a sensor to the experiment in between the slits and the photographic screen to find out if the photon went through the left slit, the right slit, or both THEN we get two clusters of dots like for little cannonballs. ( I didn't quickly find a picture I liked, so I used copy and paste to modify the picture from above and create the picture below. )
You take a laser and turn it down super low so that only one photon goes through the experiment at a time. The individual photons go though a very closely spaced pair of slits. And hit a photographic screen on the opposite side. Each individual photon hits the screen leaving a single dot as if it was a particle, a miniature cannonball. However, if photons were little cannonballs then after several hundred photons you would see two clusters of dots ... one behind each of the two slits. But this is not what you see. What you see is a distribution of photons consistent with a wave going through the slits. See the picture I 'borrowed' from another website.
Now we get to the interesting part. IF we add a sensor to the experiment in between the slits and the photographic screen to find out if the photon went through the left slit, the right slit, or both THEN we get two clusters of dots like for little cannonballs. ( I didn't quickly find a picture I liked, so I used copy and paste to modify the picture from above and create the picture below. )
Never mind the exact details of this new sensor, suffice it to say that this part is tricky and a lot of physicists have reviewed and repeated the experiment. Details of the sensor is something that I don't consider myself qualified to comment on. The experiment has been performed to varying degrees with photons, electrons, atoms, and molecules by various researchers. Let me get back to that in a second or two (see item 1 below).
The new age philosopher gets excited about this experiment because the act of observing the photon affected it's behavior. It is important to note however that the experimenter still had no control over where the photon went. So while there was an effect, there is no control. This is an important distinction. All credible scientific sources and theories of which I am aware do not allow the observer to have control.
When I point this out, I am usually rebuffed with anecdotal stories of experiments where thoughts reduced crime, changed the shape of water crystals, or a hundred other things. I have looked into several of these and found no credible scientific evidence. One that comes up a lot is Dr. Emoto's "Messages from Water" or a similar publication by the same author. There are several issues with this including but not limited to:
1) Lack of peer repetition. I have found no publications from other researchers that substantiate the claims. There is however, a publication testing crystal formation at specific temperatures which appears to disprove Dr. Emoto's hypothesis. But the author (Libbrecht) was only testing for temperature, not the mood of the technician.
2) No blind tests. In fact, the good Doctor has been quoted as denouncing this procedure. So the person taking the picture of the water crystal knows exactly what to expect and can easily affect the results.
3) Limited data release. The good Doctor has chosen to only release one picture from 1 in 100 samples tested. This means that he could have chosen whatever he wanted to support any hypothesis. Full disclosure would require releasing a video of every sample.
If somebody wanted to substantiate the claims of Dr. Emoto, they could do a blind experiment where the photographers are given samples from three groups without knowing which group they are from. One group could be "love", another "hate" and the last unlabeled. Then it would be the photographer's job to determine which group the sample came from. The accuracy of their categorization would go a long ways to substantiate or disprove Dr. Emoto's claims.
So, why do new age philosophers gravitate towards the same examples regardless of the fact that they do not actually provide evidence of their claims or beliefs? I suppose it is the same reason we all do it, we want to believe what we want to believe and we want to be lazy about it too. But I do get frustrated having the same conversation over and over again ... especially when it is with the same person(s).
Sunday, July 19, 2015
New Age Philosophy and Modern Physics part 1
It seems that science is doomed to be used to justify the beliefs of individuals who have a very limited understanding. I write this post knowing that I am by no stretch of the imagination an authority or minor expert on quantum physics. In fact, I found some of the conclusions and consequences of quantum physics so abhorrent that I switched my major in college from physics to applied physics just to avoid two classes on the topic.
So why do I take the time to write this? I have repeatedly had portions of a conversation with people who want to cite experiments and conclusions from quantum theory as evidence of one belief or another. Unfortunately, they never get the basics right and invariably end up on the defensive rather than learning anything. Excuses range from them not being able to remember some key detail and therefore claiming that we must be talking about different things all together to outright dismissing what I have to say because it is irrelevant or inaccurate. I really should just let it go. But apparently I am not going to just yet.
A recent conversation involved a description of what I am fairly certain was quantum entanglement. Person X could not remember the word entanglement but described two objects that were connected some how and that when researchers did something to object A it affected object B instantly and over great distance. Honestly, even that description is far clearer than what was given to me. I am not certain why they were excited by this. But they followed up by talking about anecdotal evidence (with no specifics as to dates, names, or locations) of twins or parents who 'instantly knew' when something bad had happened to their sibling or child.
So why bring up quantum entanglement (or something like it)? If you take the time to wiki this topic, you will find that current theories and corresponding research indicates that no information can be communicated via quantum entanglement. This is not a route to faster than light communication. Therefore, it has no bearing on topics such as remote viewing even in its familial variation.
However, there is a well established and understood scientific phenomenon which does relate to the interconnectedness of people and communication 'instantly' over great distances. It is called radio. Suppose that we radiate emotions and ideas. We would similarly receive those emanations just like a radio does. It would be foolish to assume that science has discovered all the forces and phenomena in the universe. I think that it is quite possible that there is an emotive phenomenon that science has not discovered. I also think that it is equally reasonable that emotions do radiate in the electromagnetic. However, I have not seen any compelling research or evidence to either effect.
I wish to write more on this subject but have spent far more time in the last while dealing with little children than trying to write ... so I am going to give up for a bit.
So why do I take the time to write this? I have repeatedly had portions of a conversation with people who want to cite experiments and conclusions from quantum theory as evidence of one belief or another. Unfortunately, they never get the basics right and invariably end up on the defensive rather than learning anything. Excuses range from them not being able to remember some key detail and therefore claiming that we must be talking about different things all together to outright dismissing what I have to say because it is irrelevant or inaccurate. I really should just let it go. But apparently I am not going to just yet.
A recent conversation involved a description of what I am fairly certain was quantum entanglement. Person X could not remember the word entanglement but described two objects that were connected some how and that when researchers did something to object A it affected object B instantly and over great distance. Honestly, even that description is far clearer than what was given to me. I am not certain why they were excited by this. But they followed up by talking about anecdotal evidence (with no specifics as to dates, names, or locations) of twins or parents who 'instantly knew' when something bad had happened to their sibling or child.
So why bring up quantum entanglement (or something like it)? If you take the time to wiki this topic, you will find that current theories and corresponding research indicates that no information can be communicated via quantum entanglement. This is not a route to faster than light communication. Therefore, it has no bearing on topics such as remote viewing even in its familial variation.
However, there is a well established and understood scientific phenomenon which does relate to the interconnectedness of people and communication 'instantly' over great distances. It is called radio. Suppose that we radiate emotions and ideas. We would similarly receive those emanations just like a radio does. It would be foolish to assume that science has discovered all the forces and phenomena in the universe. I think that it is quite possible that there is an emotive phenomenon that science has not discovered. I also think that it is equally reasonable that emotions do radiate in the electromagnetic. However, I have not seen any compelling research or evidence to either effect.
I wish to write more on this subject but have spent far more time in the last while dealing with little children than trying to write ... so I am going to give up for a bit.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Easy Pizza
I almost called it "homemade", but that would be stretching it for me. I love pizza more than most people. There is a huge range of enjoyable pizza out there, but my favorite is my homemade pizza. Unfortunately, the crust takes about 1.5hours by itself, so I don't make it very often. It is more common for me to eat freezer pizza or pizzeria pizza, but I like the easy pizza better than either of those. Simplest recipie:
Loaf of store bought french bread. cut it in half to expose the largest inner surface possible in one straight cut (parallel to the table when the loaf is just sitting there).
Sauce.
Spices.
Grated cheese.
Toppings of choice.
Bake it in the oven.
Now for the long version.
Bread: The more artisan breads can make a very good pizza. However, often they are cooked to have an almost burned color to give that fire baked appeal. Not good for a loaf of bread you intend to put back into the oven. Also they tend to have a much harder outer crust which is great if you like it and have good molars. These are not appropriate for little kids or the elderly. I often get the cheapest loaf of bread that has the softest possible crust ... because I have little kids. They still just eat the toppings ... but at least they could eat the crust.
Sauce: Jars of "pizza sauce" are abhorrently thin and are only good for adding a little color to the crust. If you want something to carry the tomato flavor and mix with your spices, then I recommend one 6oz (the smallest size) can of paste mixed with one can of diced tomatoes in sauce or juice. Often I don't have the "in sauce" or "in juice" and settle for the normal ones and drain them. If I have the soft french bread I still drain the "in sauce" and "in juice" varieties as the softer bread gets soggy easier. But the "in sauce" or "in juice" makes the sauce taste fresher and less bitter. BTW this is a lot of sauce. Probably enough for two loaves.
I often add diced spinach to the sauce which can make the sauce a little bitter even with the baby spinach. I don't mind the bitter sauce. I have found spring mix works well without making the sauce bitter. But stay away from kale. Far away.
Spices. I don't like most of the Italian or Pizza spice mixes. They are not balanced right. They are always short on thyme and often omit the nutmeg. Yes don't forget the nutmeg. Just a dash. You shouldn't be able to taste in the sauce unless you are trained. Other spices include garlic, basil, and oregano in order of importance. And NO black pepper. Why you would want that in your pizza sauce is beyond me. The exact balance of spices depends on your personal tastes. If you are really into that tomato flavor, you may even consider replacing diced tomatoes with stewed tomatoes that have been cut to a size of your preference. I warn you though, one inch thick slabs of stewed tomatoes are a bad idea. IF you do go big on the tomatoes consider adding extra basil too. On the other side of the spectrum you may consider petite diced tomatoes and extra garlic.
The spices do not have to be premixed into the sauce at all. I will usually cut slivers of a young white or yellow onion (not from the heart of the onion) and mix them into the sauce as well as the garlic. I am extra sensitive to garlic but still love the flavor so I can't tolerate a bite of pizza with extra garlic. As for the rest of it though ... a bite with heavy basil or oregano is a treat. It makes the pizza less monotonous. I like to sprinkle the basil, oregano, and thyme on top of the sauce.
Cheese: I am not that picky about my cheese. But never get the finely grated cheeses as they end up melting differently. I usually get pre-grated low moisture mozzarella. A mix with some provolone maybe a little romano or mild cheddar is also good. A minimum amount of cheese is one 8oz package of grated mozzarella per loaf of bread. You may find that this is too little for your tastes. Adding another 2oz of mild cheddar to the mix generally fills it out nicely. Putting a total of 12oz of cheese on is getting fairly generous ... but 16 oz is probably over the line even for an afficionado. I don't usually save cheese to put on top of the other toppings. Unless it is a little medium cheddar to crisp on top of a pizza with few toppings.
Toppings: Everybody has their favorite toppings. I will just comment on three toppings: pepperoni, sausage, and pepperocini.
Most packages of pepperoni are just too thin or greasy or both. The small round ones are usually thicker and drier and better for pizza. Outside of that you may consider getting expensive pepperoni, but at least stick to the main brands.
Sausage is usually really "breakfast sausage". This is in no way appropriate for pizza. Most stores that package "italian style" sausage really just cut some spices into their breakfast sausage. This is a mistake. If you want sausage get one that was made for pizza. You may consider a link sausage like Linguica. That is perhaps the most overlooked pizza meat. If more pizzerias made it a standard meat it would not take long before it was more popular than pepperoni.
Pepperocini. My favorite brand is Mezzetta, but lots of brands are pretty good. Do not buy pre-sliced pepperocini. They have to be left to pickle intact and you have to cut the stems off after the fact. The flavor difference far more significant than which brand you buy. If I get them at a pizzeria I always ask if they were pre-sliced; if they were I will not get them.
I have convinced several people to try a two topping pizza with nothing but pepperocinis and linguica. They are usually quite impressed and about one in five of them decide it is their new favorite.
But don't be shy to experiment with your pizza. The whole pizza does not have to have a new brand of olives or an unusual topping like pistachios (which are great but may require some other adjustments for you to really appreciate them). You can make a little test corner. You can also get the dinner party involved and let them top their own section with whatever they like. Just be aware that a lot of toppings have a lot of water and too many can drown your pizza.
Bake: The bake time kind of depends on the toppings. More water from extra vegetables or thick layers of cheese requires more time at a lower temperature. Grated cheese has lots of air which makes it a decent insulator (a big part of why you don't want finely grated cheese). Adding a blanket of pepperoni and mushrooms on top only adds to this problem. You have to get the cheese to 150F to properly melt through. And you have to get the sauce to 120F or hotter especially if there were raw onions that you need to cook. On a pre-baked loaf of bread you don't have to worry about dough temperature, but if you had fresh dough you would need to get the top layer of dough to 140F or so and you have to do it before the sauce absorbs in. This is why most pizzerias don't do thick toppings, thick sauce, or thick crust ... or at least don't do it well.
I really don't know the exact temperatures for all the ingredients, but I do know cook times in my conventional oven at high altitude. A standard loaf with about 10 oz of mozzarella, some pepperoni, and extra thick sauce takes about 13 min at 350F followed by another 3min at
425F. Adding bell pepper, 2oz of extra cheese, and mushrooms means about 17min at 350F and 3min at 450F. The last hot part is to brown the cheese after it is melted as well as steam off any residual juices. A vegetarian deluxe pizza might take 20min at 325 and 5min at 425. I never go above 450F or below 325F no matter how thick the toppings.
That said, remember the bread is bre-baked. Putting the pizza on a stoneware pan will help keep the crust from cooking as much. If you have a convection oven, this won't make much difference.
Loaf of store bought french bread. cut it in half to expose the largest inner surface possible in one straight cut (parallel to the table when the loaf is just sitting there).
Sauce.
Spices.
Grated cheese.
Toppings of choice.
Bake it in the oven.
Now for the long version.
Bread: The more artisan breads can make a very good pizza. However, often they are cooked to have an almost burned color to give that fire baked appeal. Not good for a loaf of bread you intend to put back into the oven. Also they tend to have a much harder outer crust which is great if you like it and have good molars. These are not appropriate for little kids or the elderly. I often get the cheapest loaf of bread that has the softest possible crust ... because I have little kids. They still just eat the toppings ... but at least they could eat the crust.
Sauce: Jars of "pizza sauce" are abhorrently thin and are only good for adding a little color to the crust. If you want something to carry the tomato flavor and mix with your spices, then I recommend one 6oz (the smallest size) can of paste mixed with one can of diced tomatoes in sauce or juice. Often I don't have the "in sauce" or "in juice" and settle for the normal ones and drain them. If I have the soft french bread I still drain the "in sauce" and "in juice" varieties as the softer bread gets soggy easier. But the "in sauce" or "in juice" makes the sauce taste fresher and less bitter. BTW this is a lot of sauce. Probably enough for two loaves.
I often add diced spinach to the sauce which can make the sauce a little bitter even with the baby spinach. I don't mind the bitter sauce. I have found spring mix works well without making the sauce bitter. But stay away from kale. Far away.
Spices. I don't like most of the Italian or Pizza spice mixes. They are not balanced right. They are always short on thyme and often omit the nutmeg. Yes don't forget the nutmeg. Just a dash. You shouldn't be able to taste in the sauce unless you are trained. Other spices include garlic, basil, and oregano in order of importance. And NO black pepper. Why you would want that in your pizza sauce is beyond me. The exact balance of spices depends on your personal tastes. If you are really into that tomato flavor, you may even consider replacing diced tomatoes with stewed tomatoes that have been cut to a size of your preference. I warn you though, one inch thick slabs of stewed tomatoes are a bad idea. IF you do go big on the tomatoes consider adding extra basil too. On the other side of the spectrum you may consider petite diced tomatoes and extra garlic.
The spices do not have to be premixed into the sauce at all. I will usually cut slivers of a young white or yellow onion (not from the heart of the onion) and mix them into the sauce as well as the garlic. I am extra sensitive to garlic but still love the flavor so I can't tolerate a bite of pizza with extra garlic. As for the rest of it though ... a bite with heavy basil or oregano is a treat. It makes the pizza less monotonous. I like to sprinkle the basil, oregano, and thyme on top of the sauce.
Cheese: I am not that picky about my cheese. But never get the finely grated cheeses as they end up melting differently. I usually get pre-grated low moisture mozzarella. A mix with some provolone maybe a little romano or mild cheddar is also good. A minimum amount of cheese is one 8oz package of grated mozzarella per loaf of bread. You may find that this is too little for your tastes. Adding another 2oz of mild cheddar to the mix generally fills it out nicely. Putting a total of 12oz of cheese on is getting fairly generous ... but 16 oz is probably over the line even for an afficionado. I don't usually save cheese to put on top of the other toppings. Unless it is a little medium cheddar to crisp on top of a pizza with few toppings.
Toppings: Everybody has their favorite toppings. I will just comment on three toppings: pepperoni, sausage, and pepperocini.
Most packages of pepperoni are just too thin or greasy or both. The small round ones are usually thicker and drier and better for pizza. Outside of that you may consider getting expensive pepperoni, but at least stick to the main brands.
Sausage is usually really "breakfast sausage". This is in no way appropriate for pizza. Most stores that package "italian style" sausage really just cut some spices into their breakfast sausage. This is a mistake. If you want sausage get one that was made for pizza. You may consider a link sausage like Linguica. That is perhaps the most overlooked pizza meat. If more pizzerias made it a standard meat it would not take long before it was more popular than pepperoni.
Pepperocini. My favorite brand is Mezzetta, but lots of brands are pretty good. Do not buy pre-sliced pepperocini. They have to be left to pickle intact and you have to cut the stems off after the fact. The flavor difference far more significant than which brand you buy. If I get them at a pizzeria I always ask if they were pre-sliced; if they were I will not get them.
I have convinced several people to try a two topping pizza with nothing but pepperocinis and linguica. They are usually quite impressed and about one in five of them decide it is their new favorite.
But don't be shy to experiment with your pizza. The whole pizza does not have to have a new brand of olives or an unusual topping like pistachios (which are great but may require some other adjustments for you to really appreciate them). You can make a little test corner. You can also get the dinner party involved and let them top their own section with whatever they like. Just be aware that a lot of toppings have a lot of water and too many can drown your pizza.
Bake: The bake time kind of depends on the toppings. More water from extra vegetables or thick layers of cheese requires more time at a lower temperature. Grated cheese has lots of air which makes it a decent insulator (a big part of why you don't want finely grated cheese). Adding a blanket of pepperoni and mushrooms on top only adds to this problem. You have to get the cheese to 150F to properly melt through. And you have to get the sauce to 120F or hotter especially if there were raw onions that you need to cook. On a pre-baked loaf of bread you don't have to worry about dough temperature, but if you had fresh dough you would need to get the top layer of dough to 140F or so and you have to do it before the sauce absorbs in. This is why most pizzerias don't do thick toppings, thick sauce, or thick crust ... or at least don't do it well.
I really don't know the exact temperatures for all the ingredients, but I do know cook times in my conventional oven at high altitude. A standard loaf with about 10 oz of mozzarella, some pepperoni, and extra thick sauce takes about 13 min at 350F followed by another 3min at
425F. Adding bell pepper, 2oz of extra cheese, and mushrooms means about 17min at 350F and 3min at 450F. The last hot part is to brown the cheese after it is melted as well as steam off any residual juices. A vegetarian deluxe pizza might take 20min at 325 and 5min at 425. I never go above 450F or below 325F no matter how thick the toppings.
That said, remember the bread is bre-baked. Putting the pizza on a stoneware pan will help keep the crust from cooking as much. If you have a convection oven, this won't make much difference.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
God's Injustice
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.
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, 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)