Making life difficult

Well, apparently having snow wasn't enough.  Our small tree in the front yard decided the wet snow was too much for it, and decided to fall over onto our driveway.  It blocked our van, and so we couldn't get out.  Since we don't own the house we called the maintenance people out to deal with it.  Looking at the tree, apparently part of it's roots started to rot and that along with the soaked ground is what caused it to fall over.  Here is a picture from this morning. 

What month is it? Where do I live?

I took this picture last night.  I'm still trying to figure out where exactly I am living.  My eldest dautgher's guess was 'Antarctica'.  It's definitely somewhere with snow.  We have had more snow this year out here than all of the other years we have lived here combined.  Climate change?  Maybe, but we seem to be heading more towards an ice age than an overly warm planet.

I could have posted a picture from December, and it would have looked almost the same.  Flakes, snow covered ground, and cold.  Is spring coming anytime soon?

Just one more reason I'm behind the times

I occasionally take surveys online (it's something one can do to earn a few extra dollars, and you can pick and choose which ones you want to do).  I had one today that dealt with cell phones.  It kept asking me questions about things like text messages, internet and email over the phone, and 'data services'.  Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I just am not 'with it', but to have a cell phone to do something other than call another person just seems bizarre to me.  I had to keep answering questions with 'I don't use that service' or 'I'm not interested in that service'.  Maybe I'm better off being Ook the caveman, walking the world with my club.  I have a hard enough time having my days filled with the computer, internet, email, and a cell phone to call to start worrying about internet on my phone, downloading ring tones, and 'data services'.  I guess I'll stay behind the times, at least I know what to expect.

Maybe I'm missing something

A lot of the people I've been talking to recently have commented on buying or owning guns and ammunition.  It's really something amazing to see how many people have gone out and purchased a gun or ammunition for a gun they already own (or tried to since some who I've talked to say the shelves are almost bare).  

I must admit that, to a certain degree, the whole concept of having a personal weapon in the house is beyond me.  I understand the whole concept of owning a gun, and having protection against home invaders or something similar.  Yet at the same time, since I didn't grow up with guns in the house, the idea is foreign to me.  I'm just not sure what I would do with a gun in the house.

Part of it may be the whole thing about being in the military and being trained to use guns to kill other people.  As my brother once put it 'I was taught to hunt the two-legged animals'.  It really does make you think and take the responsibility of gun ownership much more seriously.  

I do agree with the 2nd ammendment sentiment that the right to bear arms has the concept of the power of our government residing with the people, not some small elite group of people.  There are times I wonder, however, if we've gone so far that we no longer understand what the concept was behind this important ammendment.  I'll leave that concept alone for now.  

Why cooking?

Since I've posted two recipe/cooking type of posts, I suppose I should mention why I like to cook (somewhat):

I grew up in a house where my father was the better cook (at least in the main food area - my mother made some excellent desserts).  He worked for a while as a cook in a hospital, then later as a prep cook in the home office of Embers Restaurants (it was in the midwest, primarily in the Minneapolis - St. Paul area).  He cooked all sorts of things, from pancakes to turkeys (he made the stuffing for our thanksgiving turkey).  He was never one to shy away from cooking, no matter what it was.  I guess from that I learned what fun it could be to cook.  I took the junior high and senior high cooking classes, and generally had fun (I learned what happens when you cut pie crust dough too much, although that wasn't in the lesson).  At the time, I looked at it as learning how to care for myself, as I didn't know what was in store for me.  These days, my wonderful wife does most of the cooking.  I get a few things, pizza, pancakes, and scrambled eggs.  I still enjoy the cooking, and enjoy those opportunities when I get to cook together with my wife.  However, I enjoy as much if not more when wonderful food is made by others in the house.

First pizza, now calzones

For our youngest's birthday yesterday, we made calzones.  Here's what the end result looked like.  

For the 'crust' I used my pizza crust recipe (it made 6 calzones).  All we did then was put our 'stuffing' on half of the crust, fold it over and pinch it together.

We cooked them for 15 minutes at 375.  After they came out we brushed them with coconut oil.

Everyone agreed this turned out well.  We are considering doing this again, with different fillings (barbeque chicken, a alfredo/ranch type chicken, or some other such thing).

How does one learn discernment?

I'm posing this question as this seems to be something a lot of people struggle with these days. It's like the old saying (I'm paraphrasing badly) of 'a lot of book sense but no common sense'. When people are faced with a difficult and complex choice, secondary and tertiary effects are not contemplated. They try and decide by looking for someone who is 'intelligent' and proposes a plan. Never mind anything else, we'll just go with them. There are so many metaphors and sayings for this kind of situation I'm having a hard time picking just one. However, people NEED to take the time to think through things when making these choices.

So, after getting frustrated with the world again (I'm beginning to think modern society is falling into the often-repeated definition of insanity – trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result), I started pondering this 'lack of discerning' and how it can be overcome. Some people are naturally gifted in this area. I however have had to work diligently over the years to try and apply discernment in different situations. The one thing that seems to be the common element to applying discernment is time. Time is needed, and it's the one thing that's either not asked for or deliberately left out of decisions these days. I will admit there are situations when time cannot be taken, but those are true emergencies and I haven't really seen one of those for quite a while.

Time is an important factor, but more is needed (at least for those of us who have to work at those higher level thought processes) in order for that time to be fruitful. It's not enough for there to be time, you need to be able to apply principles, recognize potential pitfalls, and be able to determine what your long term goals are. The books I mentioned in a previous post, Logic by Isaac Watts and The Art of Rhetoric by Aristotle are great tools in assembling and learning to use tools. Using logic will help you to determine the best course of action in a situation, and by understanding rhetoric you will be able to see when someone is 'putting one over' on you.

Oh well, maybe someone out there can give me some other things helping in obtaining and applying discernment.

Basic civility – it's what's missing from dialogue

This thought (my title) is something I've had knocking around my head for the past couple of days. It started when I 'turned off' talk radio on my way to and from work. I know people aren't happy (that seems to be what the talkers feed off of), but sometimes it just gets to be too much. I then tried to find other ways to keep informed about what's going on (straight news just isn't trustworthy anymore), but so many websites have far too much hate. Oh, a lot of times it's not out and out hate. It's often displayed as sarcasm, putting the opposition down, and generally being rude.

As I kept encountering these sites, something began to gnaw at me. Over the years, it seems the general conversation in our society has been getting less and less 'intelligent'. People no longer seem to have the want or desire to look into a topic in depth, they just want instant analysis. It's like people are 'microwaving' issues to get done with them faster. You know what happens when you microwave food, don't you? You end up altering the food's structure, that's why it will taste different than food cooked on a stove or in a oven. The same principle applies here. You 'nuke' the issue, and you end up altering the framework the issue is built around, and not for the better.

A byproduct of the this short-changing of analyzing issues, is the tactics for debate change. Now, instead of debating the merits of a position, those proponents of one side of an issue immediately 'attack the messenger'. Since this isn't my first trip around the sun, I've seen this in action on many occasions. Growing up in the midwest, I saw early on that during campaigns, the first person to 'sling mud' would lose the election because the general population wouldn't put up with this. In 1994, I saw this change. A race I was somewhat interested in became very ugly, with both candidates going for the dirt. What amazed me was the public seemed to actually enjoy this, as opposed to being disgusted with the campaign tactics. It was a rather sad milestone if you will.

Going further, once you change the tactics by attacking the messenger instead of debating the issues, now you've made those who you don't agree with the 'enemy'. I sometimes wonder who people worry about more, terrorists, or people of the opposing political party. This used to not be the case, and not so long ago. While thinking on this, I thought back to the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981. One thing sticking out in my mind was while he was in the hospital recovering, the Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a democrat, came to visit. I can't find any account, but I do remember hearing/seeing that the two spoke to each other as human beings, acknowledging they were on opposite sides of many issues, but this situation transcended politics. I wonder how a similar situation would play out today? If the things one sees on the internet are any indication, we've 'demonized' the opposition so much that such high minded ideas are almost out of the question.

You look back further in history, and people who were on opposite sides of major issues often had great respect for each other. Or at least didn't wish ill of each other. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas knew and debated each other for many years. While they may not have thought very highly of each other, during the 20 years they debated each other off and on they did not attack each other in public. At the beginning of our country, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on opposite sides of the issue of how the country should be run. Yet, after both were out of politics, they became close friends, exchanging letters until their deaths in 1826. Is it so difficult to say to someone 'I don't like your political views or ideas, but I've nothing personal against you'?   

Bible reading and thoughts

Things here have been very hectic the past couple of days, with different members of the family being sick with colds (not particularly nasty, but the congestion and coughing have definitely wreaked havoc). So today, we spent time doing individual Bible reading. After a set period of time, we each talked about some verses that caused us to pause, or really spoke to us. My children had some wonderful insights as they were doing their reading, and some excellent discussion ensued.

There were two or three separate passages that got me thinking. One that really made me think was Lamentations 4:17 (NASB): 'Yet our eyes failed: Looking for help was useless. In our watching we have watched for a nation that could not save.' The whole book of Lamentations talks to how Judah was overthrown by the Babylonians because they turned away from the Lord, and were looking for their salvation in the things of this world. But reading this verse in particular showed me how we can look continually for some organization, whether it be a political entity, or some other organization, and we are going to be disappointed because ultimately it will not be able to save us. We need to look to the Lord, and let go of this world as much as we possibly can.

If I sat down, and did some more in depth studying, I'm sure I could come up with a much longer writing showing other wonderful truths from this verse and this book. But I think I'll leave it at this for the moment.

I'm not sure this is what they had in mind when they said 'climate change'

I can't leave my total blog post number at thirteen, so I'm going to comment on the weather, such as it is. As I've looked out my window today while relaxing (taking a break), and I keep seeing snow! Since when did it snow in Washington in March? Not that it's sticking, but this is starting to get ridiculous. I think we're going into a cold cycle, Al Gore notwithstanding.

Random thoughts for the week (a peek into my mind)

One of the things that interests me is to look back in history, see where our country has been, and look where it's going. Sometimes I wonder if it's really fair to compare where we are now to the beginning of our country. The overall situation of the people was different (education, industry, etc.) and our understanding of the world at large was different as well. There are so many things that looking at our country, it's just not the same. However, at the same time, we are the same country. The basic guidelines governing our conduct are there, and everything that branches out from those basic guidelines are the same.

We, as a people, try to claim our tie to that past. But if we don't understand the whys of our constitution and government, then looking back makes no sense. Oftentimes, when someone uses a quote, whether it's someone from today or well into our history, those who disagree will argue the quote is taken 'out of context'. It is important for us to understand the context of quotes if we are to use them, and it is more important when we are looking to history for understanding.

One example of this is the disagreement about 'the separation of church and state'. People argue this is built into the constitution, using the first amendment as their reference. Looking into the context of the time, the amendment was more a prohibition of a 'state religion', rather than a prohibition of religion in general. When this argument is brought forward, some will point to a writing of Thomas Jefferson where the phrase is used. The context of that phrase is within a personal letter, not a public address describing policy.

This idea of understanding the context of laws and rules comes to the forefront when we are discussing the supreme court and how they are to 'interpret' the constitution. How a prospective justice views the constitution and it's interpretation become the focus of pitched arguments between different groups of people.

What I find interesting is that people still look to 'wise' men to interpret laws and guidelines for us. As a Christian, we are to look to God for our guidance and leadership. Proverbs 3:5 states 'Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding'. People who deny God try to look for their guidance and leadership in man, but end up disappointed because of the inconsistency of man. God is the one true and constant truth in our life, and without it people are frustrated, disappointed, and alone.

Random thoughts on banking

I was drawn to this subject by someone asking if we needed to get rid of the Federal Reserve, and replace it with a 'Bank of the United States'. My first reaction was: The Federal Reserve IS the Bank of the United States'. But, I decided to look at the ill-fated bank, how it was set up, and some of what caused it to 'fail'.

If you look at history, there were two Banks: The first ran from 1791 – 1811, when it's charter ran out. The second was from 1816 until 1836, when the president of the Bank and the President of the United States (Andrew Jackson) decided to have a very public fight about whether or not the Bank's charter should be renewed. Jackson thought since, in his opinion, the bank served only the privileged rich, it was unconstitutional and should not be renewed. Of course the bank president, Nicholas Biddle, felt so strongly the charter should be renewed that he began to work for rechartering four years early. Jackson ended up winning the fight.

Both Banks were set up as private institutions, which happened to function as the bank for the federal government also. Tax revenue was deposited there, and government bonds were sold by the Bank as part of the federal debt. Looking at the Federal Reserve and it's functions today, it works much like the Bank of the United States did back then: a 'private' organization, functioning as the federal government's bank. Both set monetary policy for the country at the time, and the head of said organization answered to the government. In my mind, changing the name wouldn't change anything and it wouldn't help.

There are many others who can speak more eloquently and more in depth on how we got to where we are today economically. My simplistic (maybe overly so) take is this: banks and other financial institutions took unwise risk (some of it was probably forced by federal home loan regulations) and a turn in markets ruined a few, and left others in a weakened conditions. Now, we're in a period of time where growth is slowed and some people are going to get hurt. I don't like to see people get hurt, but I don't think the current strategy is going to help. In fact, it's going to hurt a whole lot more people over a longer time.

What are banks? Ultimately banks are a business. They are in the business of dealing with money, but they still need to turn a profit. Calvin Coolidge once famously said 'the business of America is business.' He meant that businesses are what have built this country up into the great power it is today, and the less the government interferes with business practices the better. However you could use that statement to mean government must be involved in business to the point of telling owners how to run their business. Government is involved in banking and they've been involving themselves in businesses, what's next?