It’s time to up the wattage!!!

 

     I sometimes enjoy doing ‘home improvement’ type projects.  There is something unique and satisfying about putting something together on your own.  Growing up, there were many times when I had to measure, cut, nail, glue, etc. as part of something.  I have a number of stories about those projects, but that’s for another time.  Here are some photos of my most recent project.

     To give you some background:  I needed to make a new ‘platform’ for our window air conditioning unit.  Since we rent, I did not install the window bracket hardware.

Here is the ‘platform’.  You can’t really see, but I have marked two places near the bottom corners to drill holes for a screw to go through to hold the legs.

Here’s what I used for the legs.  A 2x2x8 piece of wood.

The finished legs.  They’re both 38” long.  I drilled holes in one end (to make putting the screws in easier), and then screwed them onto the platform.  Since I don’t have one of those neat automatic screwdrivers, I put a screwdriver bit on my drill.

Here is the finished product, ready to hold the air conditioner.

And here it is holding up the air conditioner.

It’s not the prettiest, and it’s certainly not the most professional looking of items, but it’s serviceable and that’s the most important.

And now for something completely out of left field

 

     I enjoy watching baseball.  I’m not sure whether it’s the idea the game is more cerebral, the tension that can be involved when you’re watching, or the idea you can get up, stretch, or do something on a fairly regular basis and not miss a whole lot (between innings).  Generally speaking, I’m not overly set on watching one team over another.  It’s the game itself.  Despite the fact I live in the Pacific Northwest, I have not ‘adopted’ the Seattle Mariners as my ‘favorite’ team (although my children have, as much as possible considering their limited exposure to the professional game).  My favorite team is the Minnesota Twins.  However, the year plus has not been kind to me, or to Twins fans.  A 99-loss season is just behind us, and by all indications we have another season of sub-.500 baseball ahead.

     When a team gets into an ‘extended’ period of less-than-stellar performance, the discussion starts to come around as to whether or not the manager will be fired.  Since the Twins are 6-18 so far (as of this post), I started to think about the last time a Twins Manager was fired.  Not completely trusting my memory, I decided to look at the team history.  I discovered the last time a Twins manager was fired was September 1986.  The unfortunate victim in that incident?  Ray Miller.  His replacement was Tom Kelly.  I read Kelly managed the team through the 2001 season and resigned (since he decided to leave and not the team getting rid of him, I won’t count that as a ‘firing’).  The current manager, Ron Gardenhire, has been the team manager since the beginning of the 2002 season.  By my calculations, that makes it almost 26 years since the last firing.  It is certainly an impressive statistic anyway.

    Should Gardenhire be fired?  I really don’t know.  There are those who would argue it’s overdue, and those who would place the blame at the players’ feet.  I can’t really argue with that logic, as it’s not the manager pitching, fielding, or hitting.  Looking at the roster, I am reminded of my fathers’ saying ‘you can’t make chicken salad without chicken’.  On the other hand, the manager is the leader of the team, and the team appears lost, listless, and losing games before they even get on the field.  Sometimes players are moved (traded or released) to give them a fresh start.  Managers are fired to give the team a fresh face and a fresh start.  I don’t know what can be done to remedy the situation, but it is tough to watch right now.

Garbage in, garbage out?

 

     This year is one where the Eastern and Western celebrations of the resurrection of Christ are not on the same day (Western Easter is on April 8, Eastern Pascha (Easter) is on April 15).  So, for those who celebrate Easter on April 8, Happy Easter!  For those celebrating Pascha, Happy Feast Day (Palm Sunday).   This year I have been pondering the Lenten season, the 40 days prior to Easter. 

     In the Orthodox tradition, Lent is a ‘fasting season’.  What does this mean?  To put it in the most general sense, we avoid eating certain foods.  You may wonder what this accomplishes.  In the simplest sense, it is discipline.  When I fast, I am attempting to gain control over my passions by attempting to control (with God’s help) what I put in my body.  The struggle between what we should do and what our bodies (or passions) want to do, not just in the area of food, but in many other areas of our life, is the struggle we must endure every day.  St. Paul talks of this struggle in Romans 7:17-25 (ASV):

17  So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
18  For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not.
19  For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise.
20  But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me.
21  I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present.
22  For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23  but I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members.
24  Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?
25  I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

     You may think controlling what you eat sounds simple, but look around our society in America today.  In the realm of food, there is a lot of ‘passion’ with the Food Channel, diets, and all the pills and procedures surrounding eating.  As a society, we allow food to control and dominate our bodies.  Think for a moment about all of the advertising (radio, print, television) done to promote food.  We most definitely do not ‘eat to live’ but ‘live to eat’.

     In the nearly 3 years I have been in Orthodoxy, I have discovered through these periods and and seasons how much food has controlled me.  I’m going to give you a little insight into my own life and struggle.  About four years ago, I weighed over 250 pounds.  It was certainly not healthy for me, and I can say without a whole lot of thought one of the greatest ‘joys’ in life for me were all the good foods I could eat, or imagine eating.  It certainly didn’t hurt to have a wife and daughter who are good cooks.  The bottom line of it all is:  I had no discipline whatsoever in regards to what went into my mouth.  I ate what I wanted and how much I wanted.  I made no effort to try and determine if I was full or not.  If something was made or came around I wanted, I would have it.

     These days?  I have gotten down to around 200 pounds.  It’s certainly better than what I was, but I think I still could lose some weight (just for a point of reference, I weighed 150 pounds when I graduated from high school 23 years ago).  Many days it’s a struggle between what I ‘want’ to eat, and what I need to eat.  I have to remind myself to listen to my body, and determine if I really need to eat that second or third serving.  While the days and seasons of fasting have helped to bring this reality home to me, I have been able to begin expanding these thoughts and concepts into my daily life.  I know it’s not going to be easy, and there will be days when I will ‘blow it’ and overeat.  All I can do is ask God to help me get back on the path and work towards a more perfect future.

I have the power!!! (to do what exactly?)

   Wow.  It’s the end of March, and it’s been an interesting month for those who thrive on following current events.  Between the continuing presidential election (and hopefully will stop in November), the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting and aftermath, to a record breaking lottery jackpot (otherwise known by a former co-worker as the ‘redneck retirement fund’), and topped off with a week of arguments at the supreme court concerning the health care law passed two years ago.  I’m going to skip the lottery, it’s interesting but not that I would want to discuss the whole system.  Elections?  Done and overdone.  Pox on everyone’s house as far as I’m concerned.  The shooting?  I’ll only say that no matter what the end result is, people will be unhappy because that result will be ‘a travesty of justice’.  I’m going to focus on the Supreme Court arguments, because something within that issue really piqued my interest.

     I found it extremely interesting, and not a little humorous, how much time was devoted and is continuing to be spent, on trying to ‘read the tea leaves’ of where the Supreme Court is going to fall in regards to the health care act affectionately (or maybe not so affectionately) known as ‘Obamacare’.  You would have thought a Hollywood celebrity was talking about an awards ceremony or speculating on what their next role was going to be, considering all the ink spilt and electricity burned over each question and comment made by the justices.  There was one or two articles in my readings this week however that touched at least in passing on what I really think should be the issue:  how did we let this country get to the point that nine people (or even one person) in black robes who were never elected by anyone get to decide policy in this country?  As an aside, the ‘one person’ who attracted the largest amount of speculation and energy, Justice Anthony Kennedy, has a bit of history of his own.  I didn’t see mentioned in any of the analysis or articles that he was the THIRD choice by President Reagan for the seat vacated by Lewis Powell, Jr. in 1987 (Kennedy was seated on the court in 1988).  The first two were Robert Bork, whose confirmation was defeated in one of the most acrimonious debates in recent memory, and Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew his nomination after he admitted to marijuana use over a number of years.

     In my lifetime, the court has more and more often become the final arbiter in this country regarding issues of public policy.  Religion, abortion, anti-sodomy laws, and even public college admissions policy have more and more often ended up in the court system to determine what the laws should be.  Funny, but I thought you were supposed to go back to the people who made the law in the first place (the legislature and executive) to air your grievance and change the law (either through lobbying or getting people who agree with your policy elected).  I guess it’s the result of our overly litigious society, but it’s still really sad to me how this has come to pass.

     One thing which really got to me was how quickly the discussion of the arguments before the Supreme Court (which I thought was supposed to be a non-political entity) became an issue of politics.  The first day of oral arguments weren’t even done before the comments of ‘this is why elections matter’ started coming out.  Really?  That’s the most important thing about being a President?  Not dealing with the myriad of issues facing our country, oh no.  It’s getting to choose someone to sit on the court ‘with the advice and consent of the Senate’.  I know, I’m being rather idealistic in my thinking, but we’re back to the Youtube video of bunnies bouncing on the trampoline devolving into a heated verbal war about something having nothing to do with the bunnies (by the way, I’ve seen some bunnies in my yard recently but they were nowhere near the trampoline.  Maybe I need to make sure I have my video camera ready, just in case).

An example of ‘the winner writes the history?’

 

I’ve been reading a lot of political arguments and discussions lately, probably much more than is really healthy for me. There are those individuals, of course, for whom politics is life, but I can only take so much before my mind starts turning to mush. I am not saying people shouldn’t take the time and be aware of what the government is doing, or any other issues affecting their life. It’s just sometimes it becomes something so all-consuming the rest of life suffers.

Anyway, enough of that and on to what my title is about. The title is a paraphrase of a quote by Winston Churchill, ‘history is written by the victors’. I am going to describe a situation where it appears to me the ‘winning side’ wrote history (at least what is taught) to almost remove the existence or arguments of the ‘losing side’.

During some of these political discussions or arguments I’ve read, people have used the ‘founding fathers’ to bolster their argument. Sometimes they will even quote passages from ‘The Federalist Papers’. After a while, I became intrigued with the writers, the writing of this document, and the time when they were written.  One thing I could not remember was whether or not there were writings from the ‘other side’.

I went through my mental files (and boy are they disorganized) to try and remember what I was taught about this timeframe in school. This is what I could remember: The Federalist Papers were written in the two years following the Constitutional Convention as the states were voting whether or not to ratify the new Constitution. I remembered Alexander Hamilton and James Madison as two of the writers.

I started doing some further research to see if my memory was correct. I found out John Jay was the third contributing author. Also, I didn’t’ remember the Federalist Papers were published in book form as well as in newspapers. One item of note is conventional wisdom puts Alexander Hamilton writing the majority of the 85 Federalist Papers (the sole author of 51, and a co-author of 3 more).

I took note of how dissent was presented or not through the different sources I used. In many instances the discussion regarding ratification is in generalities. The most detailed discussion of dissent I found described the opponents of the Constitution as concerned about individual liberty, which eventually led to the Bill of Rights. This was presented as a ‘winning by losing’ sort of thing.

One interesting item I discovered during my research through the many sites and documents was that Patrick Henry did not participate in the Constitutional Convention. Yes, Patrick Henry of ‘give me liberty or give me death’ fame. He was chosen to represent Virginia in the Constitutional Convention, but refused to participate. He did not believe in the convention’s purpose, which he saw as creating a government which would shift power (and in his opinion the freedom) away from the individual states to a strong central government. Patrick Henry viewed the structure of this new central government as similar to the one they just revolted against (Great Britain).

I discovered there were documents written against ratification, which were published in newspapers. The writers were not as organized as those writing the Federalist Papers. The result of this is there are now some disagreements as to what should be and should not be included as ‘Anti-Federalist’. They weren’t identified or collectively organized as ‘Anti-Federalist Papers’ until well after the ratification of the Constitution, when scholars began to collect, organize, and publish them in books.

What do these papers contain? I’ve skimmed through them (for those who are curious, or devoted enough, a seven-volume collection called ‘The Complete Anti-Federalist’ is available in print form and here is a link to a site where they are organized to coincide with the Federalist Papers). The primary focus and concern of the writers is the potential tyranny they see under the powers delineated (and some not) in the ‘proposed constitution’ through a consolidation of power in a single federal government. They saw issues with all three proposed branches of the national government, and did not believe the ‘check and balance’ mechanism built in as sufficient to prevent abuse and tyranny.

Looking through the different papers, I wonder what their thoughts would be to see the government as it is today. Would they believe their concerns were vindicated? Would they not believe how the country is currently governed? I could only speculate, and I won’t do that. I’ve been wrong far too many times and just don’t feel like sticking my neck out. Besides, I speculated last month on the Presidential election. That’s it for the year.

Why was it difficult to find out what the issues were when the Constitution was written and different arguments and points presented then? My theory is, those who supported our current Constitution wrote ‘history’ in such a way as to minimize the conflict and put their position in the best possible light. I’m not saying it was something done with malicious forethought.

Happy New Year, and batten down the hatches!

 

     I haven’t blogged for a while, and I’m going to blame the time of year for that.  The big thing most people know is we finished  2011 and began 2012.  This last year was one personally and as a country and society that I can’t say much good about.  It barely stayed at the status quo.  Looking at the new year, I can’t say I’m really excited about what it holds.  I read many people were pessimistic about 2011 and are optimistic about 2012.  I, however, do not hold a lot of optimism for the new year.  I can’t say anything specific is making me feel this way, it’s just an overall feeling of ‘blah’.

     One thing foremost in my mind and that of the United States is the impending presidential election season.  Yes, I mean ‘impending’.  At this point, I am dreading the whole drama and coverage.  I am not thrilled with any of the candidates, and at this point if I could vote for ‘none of the above’, I would.  Comparing this election season with other recent elections in my memory, this election seems similar to 2004 or 1988. 

     My basis for this is as follows:  You have someone from one political party in the White House who is not very popular.  However, the alternatives from the other party are on the lower end of mediocre at best.  Since the current American political system seems to allow only two political parties, there are no third or fourth choices.  This time around, we have President Obama on one side, and the field of candidates on the other side I would call a bunch of ‘ne’er do wells’.  Five different people have topped the polls for the Republicans this last year (Cain, Romney, Bachmann, Perry, and Gingrich) and yet none of those seem to have that indefinable quality that makes people want to support or vote from them. 

     Do I think President Obama will be re-elected?  I’m not sure.  If nothing changes and one of the current crop secures the nomination, I think he probably will, not because he’s so popular both in personality and policies, but the alternative would be so underwhelming. 

     Maybe I feel this way because I am way beyond done with politics.  All of these candidates are ‘professional politicians’, meaning their whole career is based on gaining and holding elected office.  Also, my ability to ‘guess’ how things are going to play out in Washington D.C. has gotten much better.  It’s political theater at its worst.  It seems to me that too many people are more concerned about keeping the status quo rather than doing what’s right.

It’s called ‘the law of unintended consequences’ for a reason

 

    I have been tossing about a number of different things to write about for a little while, and finally settled on this one.  I will lay out one issue recently voted on, show arguments made on both sides, and what is starting to happen as the result.

     The issue I’m focusing on is Washington State Initiative 1183.  For those outside the state, Washington State has an initiative process.  From the FAQ on the Washington Secretary of State’s site on Initiatives:  ‘The Washington State Constitution reserves to the people the right to approve or reject certain state laws through the process of initiative or referendum. A registered voter, or group of voters, desiring to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot must gather signatures on petitions in order to do so.’  I –1183 was one of three initiatives on this year’s general election ballot.  The initiative dealt with the sale of ‘spirits’ i.e., hard liquor. 

     Prior to this, sale of spirits was controlled by the state.  Either state run stores or ‘contract liquor stores’ could sell spirits.   Some of the revenues were used to help fund alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programs.  The initiative eliminates the state run liquor stores, removes the liquor control boards power to set prices and oversee the the contract liquor stores, directs the state liquor store assets to be sold and the store locations to be auctioned.  Stores or individuals must pay a fee to obtain a liquor license.  I summarized the state Attorney General’s statement on the initiative for brevity.  You can read the full statement here.

     Arguments for the passage of this initiative (provided in the Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet) can be summarized as follows:  This will get the state out of the business of selling liquor (where it doesn’t belong).  Additional revenue will be generated through the licensing fees that can be used to pay for education, health care, and public safety.  Arguments against the initiative can be summarized this way:  This initiative will quadruple the number of stores selling liquor leading to more problem drinking to include drunk driving, which will overburden police and first responders.  The major beneficiary if this passes are the big chain stores.  Again, you can review the full statements of each side can be found with the full statement of the initiative at the link above.

     I – 1183 passed with approximately 60 percent voting for the initiative.   I did not vote for this, as one thing I did not hear mentioned (by either yes or no groups) was the cost of transitioning both in money and jobs.  Looking through the voter’s guide, the only statement regarding jobs and cost was a ‘one time cost’ for unemployment, sick leave and vacation time buyout of $28 million during 2012 and 2013’ mentioned in the impact statement.  Why would I look at jobs?  High unemployment, and a difficult economy cause me to focus on this.  My title refers to the fact people probably did not look at the potential effect on jobs. 

     I came across this article discussing the fallout from passage of I – 1183.  One of the major impacts listed is the loss of over 900 jobs next year.  Looking at which jobs are affected, it’s the store clerks, warehouse distribution workers, and store managers.  Some may say they were ‘on the public dole’ and that they need to learn to ‘find jobs like the rest of us’, but that is not how to treat people, no matter what you think of the policy behind it.  The salaries of the people currently marked to lose their jobs is between $10 and $21/hour.  Will there be additional people hired at the new stores?  Probably, but not as many, and the benefits for those people will most likely be less than the state employees.  Will stores like Albertsons, Safeway, and Costco hire additional people to deal with the additional stock and sales?  I doubt it. 

     Now, do I think the state should have been involved in the liquor sale business in the first place?  No.  What I’m getting at (or the bottom line) is:  jobs are jobs, no matter what.  Whether you are employed by the federal government (in the case of the military, bureaucrats, and federal civil servants like myself), state government (in the case of these state liquor store employees), local government or a private company, everyone tries to find the best possible employment opportunity available.  And it is an opportunity, no matter how you look at it.

     Looking at this issue caused me to ask this question:  what is the purpose of a business?  Looking back 100 – 150 years ago, stores were designed with two purposes; to provide the owner with a living, and to provide needed goods and services to the community.  I have no doubt the owners and executive boards of the ‘big chain stores’ are making a very good living.  I’m not sure, however, if those stores are providing ‘needed’ goods and services.  There’s an idea of service, of helping others found then (not that there weren’t people trying to cheat each other – that’s human nature for you) that is missing today. 

     Now, if people are willing to spend their money in those places, I’m not going to get mad at them.  Everyone’s made their choice, and making their choice, and we need to deal with it.  It would be better for everyone involved, however, if we started looking at what may occur when we make certain choices.  We just may be taking opportunities, or even a living, from our neighbors.  There are faces behind those numbers.  We would do well to remember that.