Posts
So there I was in the street in front of our S. Lake Tahoe Cabin talking to my brother on my Cel phone. Suffice it to say he was sharing with me some struggles he'd been experiencing and didn't want the whole family alerted to before he was to arrive at the cabin.
I was pacing the street in front of our house and neighbor's yard and driveway (vacant that night). After an hour or so I turned to head back toward our open garage (two garage doors, one open one closed). In the garage very near the open door sat the garbage cans containing, among other things, trout guts, tri-tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
There he was, walking between my car and the garage (about a 3 foot space) heading away from where I had been standing most of the previous hour. He was pretty big and his hair glistened brown as the light from the garage highlighted his derriere.
He walked on and I rushed in to the garage to hit the garage door opener/closer. To my chagrin I hit the wrong button and rather than closing the open door, I opened the closed door! I proceeded into the cabin to not so calmly alert the family to the bear I had just seen. Exacerbating the excitement, a coat rack I knocked over by opening the door hit the floor right about the same time I spit out "Bear ... Front yard."
Another brother followed me out the front door to catch another glimpse and my niece promptly closed the door behind us. Of course locking the door behind us made her feel even safer from a bear who might try to use the front door to gain entry into the house.
We didn’t see him again that night but he left some rather large and intimidating paw prints in the front yard.
Two mornings later the garbage cans were at the end of our very short driveway awaiting pick up. We were making sausage and eggs for about 20 people when my Mom came unglued at the sight of a much bigger bear with a black coat sitting among the cans enjoying, among other things, fish guts, tri tip trimmings and chicken wing tips.
The younger gals in our group pretty much lost it in much the same manner Mom did. My brother-in-law smiling and enjoying a comfortable view from the balcony upstairs reached for a camera.
About that time Dad opened the door and had a word or two with the bear who casually looked up at Pops and sauntered off slowly as if to say, “Take it easy man, I’m just eating your trash. It’s not like you wanted it anyway!”
Our neighbor later informed us that he had seen the bear on our front porch right outside our front door. He had hoped none of us would walk out and startle it. Of course that was unlikely as we were quite busy tempting our appetites to the smell of sizzling Jimmy Deans. I guess we were lucky!
My brother-in-law missed the shot so decided it might be a good idea to plant a trout or two in the bushes outside so as to lure the bear back against most everyone else’s better judgment.
Of course, the bear never made it back and my brother-in-law and sister took off later that night so I did the right thing by trashing the rotting fish while ensuring the garage door remained shut with garbage cans properly sealed.
I think the first bear was a Black Bear (brown in color) and the second was a Brown Bear (black in color) I’m basing this analysis on size alone. It seems to me Black Bears seem to be smaller than Browns but I've heard they can be either color.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Afterlife
I can tell you that I pretty much believe it's been human nature since the dawn of man to ponder other-worldly existence especially as it pertains to the afterlife. Man is creative and it's no wonder he's come up with thousands of "spiritual" translations for what "God (or the gods)" expect us to do so that we do not spend eternity in "Hell" or simply disappear into nothingness.
It's at least a very difficult thing to face that this 70 or so years we get on Earth may really be all there is to our existence. An existence lacking eternal life can make dealing with death very troubling for the human psyche.
I find it hard to believe, though, that a Creator put us here with the intention of having us jump through a bunch of hoops that He is very slow and cryptic about clearly defining. The “hoops” range too dramatically across too many different doctrines. I believe I should "be good". I don’t need a cleric, preacher, pastor, shaman, priest or bishop to teach me what that is. My parents and other family or friend mentors did most of that for me and the rest can be left to intuition or instinct. I find it hard to believe a Creator who is interested in communicating with us directly would put translators or middlemen between He, me and you only so we can disagree about His word and spend all human history killing each other over it while waiting for new signs of impending doom from above.
Even though mankind has an apparent motive to "create a Creator", science leaves me convinced that everything began; that there was nothing, then there was something. There must have been an event we can call "the beginning of time".
I believe the Big Bang theory is an incomplete explanation for the origin of all things and that the infinite point of mass (singularity) must have come from somewhere. There had to be nothing, then something. Science is troubled by the first few fragments of a second after the initial “bang”. The laws of physics as we know them do not allow for the rapid expansion that must have occured immediately following the initial explosion. It seems to me the laws of physics and passing of time began shortly after the Big Bang. Anything before this part of the event can be left to our imaginations for pondering.
It's at least a very difficult thing to face that this 70 or so years we get on Earth may really be all there is to our existence. An existence lacking eternal life can make dealing with death very troubling for the human psyche.
I find it hard to believe, though, that a Creator put us here with the intention of having us jump through a bunch of hoops that He is very slow and cryptic about clearly defining. The “hoops” range too dramatically across too many different doctrines. I believe I should "be good". I don’t need a cleric, preacher, pastor, shaman, priest or bishop to teach me what that is. My parents and other family or friend mentors did most of that for me and the rest can be left to intuition or instinct. I find it hard to believe a Creator who is interested in communicating with us directly would put translators or middlemen between He, me and you only so we can disagree about His word and spend all human history killing each other over it while waiting for new signs of impending doom from above.
Even though mankind has an apparent motive to "create a Creator", science leaves me convinced that everything began; that there was nothing, then there was something. There must have been an event we can call "the beginning of time".
I believe the Big Bang theory is an incomplete explanation for the origin of all things and that the infinite point of mass (singularity) must have come from somewhere. There had to be nothing, then something. Science is troubled by the first few fragments of a second after the initial “bang”. The laws of physics as we know them do not allow for the rapid expansion that must have occured immediately following the initial explosion. It seems to me the laws of physics and passing of time began shortly after the Big Bang. Anything before this part of the event can be left to our imaginations for pondering.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Bluto's List: A Blogger's Challenge.
Famous last words!
I wonder what some of the funniest "last words" uttered or heard by the deceased may have been.
I wonder how many people died right after hearing or saying the words, "One, Two, Threeeeee..."
or,
"I wonder what this does."
or,
"Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!"
or,
"What ever you do, don't touch that!"
You get the idea...
Any thoughts?
I wonder what some of the funniest "last words" uttered or heard by the deceased may have been.
I wonder how many people died right after hearing or saying the words, "One, Two, Threeeeee..."
or,
"I wonder what this does."
or,
"Don't worry, I know what I'm doing!"
or,
"What ever you do, don't touch that!"
You get the idea...
Any thoughts?
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Pizza and Cereal
Pizza and cereal are the same and everyone knows it! Ok, you’re sitting there thinking, “He’s ugly AND stupid!”
But it’s true. Take cereal. EVERYONE likes CAP ‘N CRUNCH but when you visit your friends do they have it on hand? NO! They have Rice Krispies and Cheerios. You know why? Because they ate all the CAP’ N CRUNCH!
Take Pizza. If you are having a pizza party with 30 people you can assume it will take like 7 large pizzas to satisfy that crowd. Do you know what pizza is left at the end of the party? The veggie and sausage with anchovies! You know why? Because your guests couldn’t get enough pepperoni! That’s why!
Why do we need 7 DIFFERENT pizzas for this party? Why is it a contest looking to crown the most creative pizza orderer up front, but in the end it comes down to he who can eat the most pepperoni fastest?
Yup, pizza and cereal are the same and you knew it all along. That doesn’t make me less ugly or stupid, it just makes me right! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
But it’s true. Take cereal. EVERYONE likes CAP ‘N CRUNCH but when you visit your friends do they have it on hand? NO! They have Rice Krispies and Cheerios. You know why? Because they ate all the CAP’ N CRUNCH!
Take Pizza. If you are having a pizza party with 30 people you can assume it will take like 7 large pizzas to satisfy that crowd. Do you know what pizza is left at the end of the party? The veggie and sausage with anchovies! You know why? Because your guests couldn’t get enough pepperoni! That’s why!
Why do we need 7 DIFFERENT pizzas for this party? Why is it a contest looking to crown the most creative pizza orderer up front, but in the end it comes down to he who can eat the most pepperoni fastest?
Yup, pizza and cereal are the same and you knew it all along. That doesn’t make me less ugly or stupid, it just makes me right! Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it!
Booter Fails to Achieve Deregulation
When I first looked at this I saw it as conflicted-interest, private law enforcement. I've changed my mind a bit after looking at it a little deeper.
First off, if Shaw (owner of only booting company in town) were going to charge $200 or something ridiculous, apartment owners would stop giving him permission to do what he does on their property because they'd probably lose business. Tenants or customers might not want to take the risk.
Second, it sounds like many want to argue that $80 or $90 even $70 is out of line. It's as if the fee is viewed as a high price to pay for parking. It's not parking payment folks; it's the price you pay for trespassing. Shaw's opponents will likely find themselves spending more than $70 to illegally park now, and it's a shame that this results from vilifying a businessman with perhaps a "creepy" demeanor. The real culprits are those who choose regularly to park their cars wherever they damn well please as if no one can lay claim to private property rights.
For sure signage needs to be clearer. For sure owners of property need to make it clear to their patrons that they allow booting before they sign them on as tenants or customers. For sure property owners need to make it clear to Shaw that parking permits need to be stuck to the INSIDE of a car and owners could offer tenants parking passes for visitors. More than once as a student living in student housing I had to go find a parking spot well away from my own unit outside of my own parking lot because of this free-for-all attitude which arrogantly expresses a disrespect for property rights, an American institution.
People seem to be very willing to discuss figures as if there is some universal standard for the price they deserve to pay for screwing up. It doesn't work that way. It reminds me of driving at high speeds on Utah highways. No matter how fast I'm going, the driver behind me wants to drive a little faster. It's a race. It's as if passing people is what gets you there fastest. In this case I'd argue it has little to do with the dollar figure. It's the fact that it wants to increase.
However, since we're talking private law enforcement, we need to see some competition. All the regulations could go away save those that address price fixing if there were someone else ballsy enough to take this on. It’s a dirty job but it sounds lucrative, unless of course $70 or $80 is just not enough to sustain such an endeavor. In that case, deregulation seems in order lest we all prefer to pay $200 to be towed!
I really think the biggest problem people have with this is that we're not used to paying our fines on the spot. So we argue that it is unfair and would prefer to pay MORE money LATER if you'll just tow my car.
First off, if Shaw (owner of only booting company in town) were going to charge $200 or something ridiculous, apartment owners would stop giving him permission to do what he does on their property because they'd probably lose business. Tenants or customers might not want to take the risk.
Second, it sounds like many want to argue that $80 or $90 even $70 is out of line. It's as if the fee is viewed as a high price to pay for parking. It's not parking payment folks; it's the price you pay for trespassing. Shaw's opponents will likely find themselves spending more than $70 to illegally park now, and it's a shame that this results from vilifying a businessman with perhaps a "creepy" demeanor. The real culprits are those who choose regularly to park their cars wherever they damn well please as if no one can lay claim to private property rights.
For sure signage needs to be clearer. For sure owners of property need to make it clear to their patrons that they allow booting before they sign them on as tenants or customers. For sure property owners need to make it clear to Shaw that parking permits need to be stuck to the INSIDE of a car and owners could offer tenants parking passes for visitors. More than once as a student living in student housing I had to go find a parking spot well away from my own unit outside of my own parking lot because of this free-for-all attitude which arrogantly expresses a disrespect for property rights, an American institution.
People seem to be very willing to discuss figures as if there is some universal standard for the price they deserve to pay for screwing up. It doesn't work that way. It reminds me of driving at high speeds on Utah highways. No matter how fast I'm going, the driver behind me wants to drive a little faster. It's a race. It's as if passing people is what gets you there fastest. In this case I'd argue it has little to do with the dollar figure. It's the fact that it wants to increase.
However, since we're talking private law enforcement, we need to see some competition. All the regulations could go away save those that address price fixing if there were someone else ballsy enough to take this on. It’s a dirty job but it sounds lucrative, unless of course $70 or $80 is just not enough to sustain such an endeavor. In that case, deregulation seems in order lest we all prefer to pay $200 to be towed!
I really think the biggest problem people have with this is that we're not used to paying our fines on the spot. So we argue that it is unfair and would prefer to pay MORE money LATER if you'll just tow my car.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Everyone's an Economist
Well at least that’s what everyone seems to think. Take for instance the economics consideration of the term “true public good”. If you are economics savvy, you know that a true public good is defined as a resource both non-rival and non-excludable. That is: You cannot easily charge one for the resource and thereby exclude him from use for nonpayment. And, one’s use of the resource does not reduce availability to another of said resource.
But if you’re not economics savvy you might want to debate what the term REALLY means. The words “true public good” seem to conjure images of the things we like in life that the government “buys” for us.
I must assert the obvious: Not everything provided by the government is a “true public good”. Not every “true public good” should be provided by the government.
Some assert that government spending should be limited to only “true public goods”. I pretty much agree but think there are a few private goods that deserve consideration (fire fighting and law enforcement) and a few public goods that should be hands off (Over the Air TV)
What do you think?
But if you’re not economics savvy you might want to debate what the term REALLY means. The words “true public good” seem to conjure images of the things we like in life that the government “buys” for us.
I must assert the obvious: Not everything provided by the government is a “true public good”. Not every “true public good” should be provided by the government.
Some assert that government spending should be limited to only “true public goods”. I pretty much agree but think there are a few private goods that deserve consideration (fire fighting and law enforcement) and a few public goods that should be hands off (Over the Air TV)
What do you think?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Crime and Punishment: Intent
I think that in considering punishments, intent should play a large roll. Recently a tragic death occured when a 64-year-old man attempted an illegal U-Turn from the right shoulder of a major 4-lane highway. He pulled in front of a motorcyclist who was not wearing a helmet. Word is not officially in as to whether or not protective head gear would have saved his life but he did die of severe head trauma and made it to the hospital alive.
Presumably, the driver of the car did not intend to kill anyone. He intended to make an illegal U-Turn. I am not saying that his only punishment should be for the U-Turn. Negligence is the real crime here. The driver's negligence resulted in an accident; BUT, I'm not convinced the driver of the car is 100% responsible for the death of the victim. If reasonable doubt exists that he wouldn't have died wearing a reasonable helmet I think this should be treated the same way it would have been had the victim survived.
On the other side of the coin, if I intend to kill you by shooting you and you survive, my punishment should be the same as it would have been had you died. That is: In my book attempted murder = murder.
Presumably, the driver of the car did not intend to kill anyone. He intended to make an illegal U-Turn. I am not saying that his only punishment should be for the U-Turn. Negligence is the real crime here. The driver's negligence resulted in an accident; BUT, I'm not convinced the driver of the car is 100% responsible for the death of the victim. If reasonable doubt exists that he wouldn't have died wearing a reasonable helmet I think this should be treated the same way it would have been had the victim survived.
On the other side of the coin, if I intend to kill you by shooting you and you survive, my punishment should be the same as it would have been had you died. That is: In my book attempted murder = murder.
Going Steady, Shacking Up, Lawfully Wedded
Recently a letter to the editor of the Herald Journal ruffled a few feathers and I’m surprised it did. In fact I’m glad it did. (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10099720) The original letter raised concern over whether or not a Lesbian pair's “celebration of love” should have appeared in the paper as a “Marriage” under the “Weddings” heading.
I think it's odd that the advocates for gay marriage often come off like this is a no-brainer issue. It's not! We're talking about change (some might say dramatic change) in American custom and tradition. These things take time and dialogue.
I’m not talking about whether or not gays should marry. I’m talking about whether or not all committed relationships can be considered with equal monogamous integrity and commitment. I think they cannot. There is a spectrum of description for committed relationships ranging from Prom Date to Going Steady to Shacking Up to Legally Wedded. The list can be filled with a plethora of terms.
The Spencer-Taylor announcement was not a wedding or marriage nor was it intended to read as such in the paper.
The original letter by Narayne Rougeau had nothing to do with advocating FOR or protesting AGAINST gay marriage. Instead, Rougeau brings up a great point that surely solicits consideration as this change of American tradition gains momentum: There is a vocabulary issue. The Eskimos have many terms for describing snow conditions, Islanders have many terms for describing surf conditions, Americans have many terms for describing things on which you drive ... It seems America is ready for some new terminology associated with describing relationships.
I’d say we need unique terms for Holy matrimony, lawfully wedded, celebrating love, shacking up, going steady, ... etc. Same sex can be incorporated with ANY of these categories so again we are not talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about calling a spade a spade (As in shovel speak). Words like “marriage” and “wedding” seem to carry too much of this burden.
Perhaps it’s programming rooted in American tradition, but I think these words commonly associated with “nuptials” should be reserved for those who are making a legal commitment through formal obligation as defined by the terms of a marriage certificate. After all, divorce works as a deterrent to splitting up. Without the certificate, you only break-up when it’s over. Breaking up may be hard to do, but divorce is even harder.
Common Law Marriage can keep the word “marriage” I guess, but I’d prefer two different terms to describe lawfully wedded and commonly involved in law. The qualifiers simply do not satisfy.
Inspired by Narayne (can I buy a vowel) Rougeau and by debating with some very intelligent and respectable thinkers and communicators, I may have reached an amiable solution to this dilemma of categorizing announcements in the newspaper:
Change the name of the heading from “Weddings” to “Celebrations”.
The Celebrations section might see more traffic. Anniversaries, birthdays, prom dates, new steady relationships, celebrations of love, vow renewals, and weddings can all be acknowledged on the same page. So long as no one mixes terms and calls a Wedding a Bar Mitzvah, there should be no problem.
I will post the content of the original letter as a comment.
I think it's odd that the advocates for gay marriage often come off like this is a no-brainer issue. It's not! We're talking about change (some might say dramatic change) in American custom and tradition. These things take time and dialogue.
I’m not talking about whether or not gays should marry. I’m talking about whether or not all committed relationships can be considered with equal monogamous integrity and commitment. I think they cannot. There is a spectrum of description for committed relationships ranging from Prom Date to Going Steady to Shacking Up to Legally Wedded. The list can be filled with a plethora of terms.
The Spencer-Taylor announcement was not a wedding or marriage nor was it intended to read as such in the paper.
The original letter by Narayne Rougeau had nothing to do with advocating FOR or protesting AGAINST gay marriage. Instead, Rougeau brings up a great point that surely solicits consideration as this change of American tradition gains momentum: There is a vocabulary issue. The Eskimos have many terms for describing snow conditions, Islanders have many terms for describing surf conditions, Americans have many terms for describing things on which you drive ... It seems America is ready for some new terminology associated with describing relationships.
I’d say we need unique terms for Holy matrimony, lawfully wedded, celebrating love, shacking up, going steady, ... etc. Same sex can be incorporated with ANY of these categories so again we are not talking about homosexuality here. We’re talking about calling a spade a spade (As in shovel speak). Words like “marriage” and “wedding” seem to carry too much of this burden.
Perhaps it’s programming rooted in American tradition, but I think these words commonly associated with “nuptials” should be reserved for those who are making a legal commitment through formal obligation as defined by the terms of a marriage certificate. After all, divorce works as a deterrent to splitting up. Without the certificate, you only break-up when it’s over. Breaking up may be hard to do, but divorce is even harder.
Common Law Marriage can keep the word “marriage” I guess, but I’d prefer two different terms to describe lawfully wedded and commonly involved in law. The qualifiers simply do not satisfy.
Inspired by Narayne (can I buy a vowel) Rougeau and by debating with some very intelligent and respectable thinkers and communicators, I may have reached an amiable solution to this dilemma of categorizing announcements in the newspaper:
Change the name of the heading from “Weddings” to “Celebrations”.
The Celebrations section might see more traffic. Anniversaries, birthdays, prom dates, new steady relationships, celebrations of love, vow renewals, and weddings can all be acknowledged on the same page. So long as no one mixes terms and calls a Wedding a Bar Mitzvah, there should be no problem.
I will post the content of the original letter as a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)