Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Manicure and a Rifle
After I get my free manicure, compliments of the U.S. taxpayers, I'm going to go out and get a hunting license so that I can join in on all of the fun that the A.I.G. executives are having in the English countryside.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Bottoms Up

From Michelle Malkin:
A Beverage for Tonight's Debate
Ingredients are Amaretto, Cranberry, Orange Juice, Rum and Nutmeg. ACORN! Shake it up serve as a martini. Don’t know if you drink but if you do, enjoy! It tastes pretty good.
TRFG: Chapters Three and Four
Two weeks ago, we covered Chapters Three and Four of The Reason For God.
Chapter 3 is titled, "Christianity is a Straightjacket", and it talks about the view that Christians aren't free/able to think for themselves and are conceited to think that they have the only truth-claim.
On freedom, Keller writes: "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices... In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions. If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints -- why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth?" As a fish is restricted to the sea in order to be "free", we are too restricted to certain spiritual constraints in order to fulfill our potential, and to do so freely.
On the exclusivity of Christianity, Keller points out that a claim that all truth-claims are wrong is a truth-claim in itself (as is the claim that all truth-claims are power plays). Also, he notes that every community is defined by specific beliefs and practices, and is therefore exclusive to those who do not conform to those ideas (which includes groups that are commonly categorized as "inclusive" and "open minded"). "Any community that did not hold its members accountable for specific beliefs and practices would have no corporate identity and would not really be a community at all. We cannot consider a group exclusive simply because it has standards for its members."
When speaking about the lack of cultural rigidness of Christianity, Keller notes that Christianity does not require people to give up their cultural heritage. Unlike Muslims, Christians aren't required to dress a certain way. Christians in Africa, Latin America, and Asia can all become believers without having to replace their own heritage with "European-ness".
Chapter 4, "The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice", speaks to the - sometimes founded - claim that religion causes violence. In some instances, this is very true, even of Christianity. Christians have been responsible for the death and destruction of many people in history. But, to say that the church is the most responsible is illogical. Just take Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, and Russia - these nations imposed a strict absence of religion and were responsible for some of the most brutal (and mass) murders and tortures of recent history.
Although Christian nations were highly involved in the implementation of the African Slave trade, they were also responsible for its abolition. Keller writes, "Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries [the notion that slavery is morally wrong is a very recent one], it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong... Christians began to work for abolition not because of some general understanding of human rights, but because they saw it as violating the will of God."
On fanatics (you know - the overbearing, insensitive, harsh, obnoxious, self-righteous Pharasaic-types incessantly voicing their displeasure and acting in-your-face holier-than-thou), Keller writes, "What if... the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profound and humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are not so because they are too committed to the gospel, but because they're not committed to it enough."
I like this. It can pretty much sum up all of Christianity's shortcomings and injustice. Accepting that "the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints" is the first step. We're still imperfect - working towards perfecting Christ's behavior in the example he set before us.
Chapter 3 is titled, "Christianity is a Straightjacket", and it talks about the view that Christians aren't free/able to think for themselves and are conceited to think that they have the only truth-claim.
On freedom, Keller writes: "Christianity is supposedly a limit to personal growth and potential because it constrains our freedom to choose our own beliefs and practices... In many areas of life, freedom is not so much the absence of restrictions as finding the right ones, the liberating restrictions. If we only grow intellectually, vocationally, and physically through judicious constraints -- why would it not also be true for spiritual and moral growth?" As a fish is restricted to the sea in order to be "free", we are too restricted to certain spiritual constraints in order to fulfill our potential, and to do so freely.
On the exclusivity of Christianity, Keller points out that a claim that all truth-claims are wrong is a truth-claim in itself (as is the claim that all truth-claims are power plays). Also, he notes that every community is defined by specific beliefs and practices, and is therefore exclusive to those who do not conform to those ideas (which includes groups that are commonly categorized as "inclusive" and "open minded"). "Any community that did not hold its members accountable for specific beliefs and practices would have no corporate identity and would not really be a community at all. We cannot consider a group exclusive simply because it has standards for its members."
When speaking about the lack of cultural rigidness of Christianity, Keller notes that Christianity does not require people to give up their cultural heritage. Unlike Muslims, Christians aren't required to dress a certain way. Christians in Africa, Latin America, and Asia can all become believers without having to replace their own heritage with "European-ness".
Chapter 4, "The Church is Responsible for So Much Injustice", speaks to the - sometimes founded - claim that religion causes violence. In some instances, this is very true, even of Christianity. Christians have been responsible for the death and destruction of many people in history. But, to say that the church is the most responsible is illogical. Just take Nazi Germany, Communist China, Cambodia, and Russia - these nations imposed a strict absence of religion and were responsible for some of the most brutal (and mass) murders and tortures of recent history.
Although Christian nations were highly involved in the implementation of the African Slave trade, they were also responsible for its abolition. Keller writes, "Even though slavery in some form was virtually universal in every human culture over the centuries [the notion that slavery is morally wrong is a very recent one], it was Christians who first came to the conclusion that it was wrong... Christians began to work for abolition not because of some general understanding of human rights, but because they saw it as violating the will of God."
On fanatics (you know - the overbearing, insensitive, harsh, obnoxious, self-righteous Pharasaic-types incessantly voicing their displeasure and acting in-your-face holier-than-thou), Keller writes, "What if... the essence of Christianity is salvation by grace, salvation not because of what we do but because of what Christ has done for us? Belief that you are accepted by God by sheer grace is profound and humbling. The people who are fanatics, then, are not so because they are too committed to the gospel, but because they're not committed to it enough."
I like this. It can pretty much sum up all of Christianity's shortcomings and injustice. Accepting that "the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints" is the first step. We're still imperfect - working towards perfecting Christ's behavior in the example he set before us.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Almost Lethal Rolling

Have you seen this story? A Michigan teen was shot three times while toilet papering a house in Solon Township.
Apparently they did not know the rules of T.P.-ing 101: Stick to the trees. "Kent County sheriff's Lt. Jerry Miedema said the teens were intent on draping the house in toilet paper, while the homeowner's 'intent was to come out shooting.' "
I can't count the number of times we rolled someone's house growing up. It was a tradition. One time, the cops pulled me over in the beige '89 Camry wagon on our way home from rolling our favorite "brothers" and called my parents. (I was the driver of Amanda's spend the night group since I was the only one with a license at the time). We were about 100 feet from our street when we got stopped too. So close!
The day we got back from a vacation in Europe, our youth group rolled our house with something like 240 rolls of toilet paper. It was a sight to see, but we got them all back...
Monday, October 13, 2008
Do you hear banjo music?
Nope, no banjo music here. Just another great weekend at the Nantahala.
Loaded up and ready to roll. (Plus 2 more boats on top of my 4Runner.)
Here's a bit of the pre-game warm up. The intense interest and concentration really shows in this one.
The usual suspects: Kary, Amy, Me, Amanda and Wade. (Becca is the photographer and Ken is piloting right behind her. I don't know how Ryan missed out on this one. He must have been off swimming somewhere ;) )
This is some of those darn kayakers messing up a perfectly good scenic background for two of the sisters.
Becca enjoys the rapids with her eyes closed.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wall Street 101 by VDH

I like Victor David Hanson. He seems to speak common sense no matter what he's writing about.
His recent article on the Wall Street debacle is really good. (Read the whole article here.)
"How odd that all those boring lessons from our grandparents turn out to be true in the globalized, hip 21st century: Save your money. Don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. Look first at a man’s character, not his degrees. And if a promised return on an investment seems too good to be true, it probably is."
He says that they're plenty of blame to go around (speculators, politicians, mis-managed companies, and unqualified buyers). How does this affect me? Our retirement accounts have taken a big hit, but other than that we're mostly okay. Why? Because we don't have any loans that we shouldn't and because we try to save as much as we can and not live above our means (of course our savings would be better off if I didn't have a purse habit and Matt didn't have a car habit).
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Food For Thought
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcke
I was sent this quote and it was attributed to Abe Lincoln. I tried checking Snopes first, but couldn't find it and then googled the quote to see that it was actually penned by William Boetche, a German-born Presbyterian minister. Apparently this is a common mistake, with President Reagan even attributing the "Ten Cannots" to Lincoln in a speech in 1992.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
--William J. H. Boetcke
I was sent this quote and it was attributed to Abe Lincoln. I tried checking Snopes first, but couldn't find it and then googled the quote to see that it was actually penned by William Boetche, a German-born Presbyterian minister. Apparently this is a common mistake, with President Reagan even attributing the "Ten Cannots" to Lincoln in a speech in 1992.
How to Get a Free Manicure
How about you become an executive of a giant national insurance company that has recently received a $85 BILLION bailout and then take a $440,00 spa day with the new government-furnished funds.
Monday, October 6, 2008
What The Heck?
Over the weekend, we added our final (at least "final" until I run out of room and can convince Matt to help me add another) flower bed. It was really just an extension to the perennial bed in the far back, but I'll count the 20 x 10' extension as a whole new flower bed. :)
Heather P. brought me some plant babies to add to the new bed. She received them on her doorstep and we don't know what one of them is - it's unmarked.
What the heck is this?
I really haven't the faintest clue what this is. I'd like to figure it out since I don't even know its sun tolerance - and I'm nervous about putting a possible shade-only plant in my full sun bed.
Here it is from the other side. The stem kind of twists at the base and then grows straight up. The leaves are soft too.
Another plant I'm not so sure about is this one. It came in a Jackson & Perkins pot that said "Rosa Trepadora." Of course, their website doesn't have anything listed by that name and from my google search, it could be one of several completely different plants. Who knows?!
Heather P. brought me some plant babies to add to the new bed. She received them on her doorstep and we don't know what one of them is - it's unmarked.
What the heck is this?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Get in My Belly!

What's the best burger joint? If we were closer to Auburn, I'd say Niffer's - hands down. (Y-U-M!) But, since a 7-hour long round-trip for a hunk-o-hamburger isn't really realistic, we had to find a new favorite burger place closer to home.
We really loved Backyard Burger - until it went out of business (let's call it the Harnation curse). Then Five Guys opened up. Not bad. Their burgers are actually really good. The grease-bag fries, however (even though yummy) just make me sick.
The other week, we were running some errands and decided to stop in at Red Robin to grab dinner. I'd been there once before with my mom after a morning of shopping. However, I must've forgotten just how good it was. After Matt & I lamented having to pay close to $10 for a burger, we admitted that they were the best burgers we had had in a long time! My mouth is watering just thinking about them. Topping that off with one of their yummy malt shakes and endless seasoned steak fries, we both agreed that it is definitely the best burger place in town!
Where do you like to grab a burger?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Microchipped
Hooray! Amy and I took our puppies to the Dog Fair this past weekend and met up with a former co-worker of mine. The local obedience and training club offered microchipping for only $25 (it's about $50 at the vet), had vendor booths, and lots of fun demonstrations. I enjoyed watching some of the agility and flyball demos.
There were so many dogs there! I loved seeing all of the different breeds and colors. I saw two other black & tan/gray dappled dachshunds (like Tyson) and we even saw another red dapple (like Maddie) - both colors are pretty rare. There were lots of dogs that needed homes too. It's probably a good thing that Matt has told me "no more dogs"; I don't think I could pick just one!
We took our dogs to get microchipped. After reading this story, I decided to go ahead and have the boys microchipped. They have collars with their names and our phone # embroidered on them, but I don't always make them wear them. With these chips, they can be returned home safely. The chip (about the size of a grain of rice) is inserted between the shoulder blades with a nasty-looking needle. A scanner can pick up the microchip ID, which is used to locate all of our contact information. Hooray for technology!
Ace cried and squealed like a stuck pig for a solid 30 seconds, making the other pet owners rethink having their dogs chipped. I was embarrassed, laughing, and feeling really bad for him all at the same time. Poor Acie! Tyson took it like a champ and didn't make a peep.
The Hobo in You is Who?
I know of several self-admitted train jumpers. Because the reformed "hobos" that I am familiar with have given up the train-jumping lifestyle (at least for now), I didn't realize just how popular it is. Hobos live all over the country, come up with their own hobo names, and some take train-jumping very seriously - traveling year round via the tracks. (Of course, I think that all of the former hobos that I know go by their real names and don't have hobo names like Tuck, Stray Cat, or Stretch.)
There is even an annual convention for hobos to congregate and share their hobo stories. The elect a hobo queen and king, and then they take the train out of town.
CBS says, "The name hobo derives from farm implement-carrying young men who caught trains to look for work after the Civil War.
"So, what's the difference between a hobo, a tramp and a bum?
"'The hobo works and wanders; the tramp dreams and wanders - he's the intellectual; the bum, he just drinks and wanders,' explains one convention attendee."
If I were a hobo, I think my hobo name would be Flower. What about you?
There is even an annual convention for hobos to congregate and share their hobo stories. The elect a hobo queen and king, and then they take the train out of town.
CBS says, "The name hobo derives from farm implement-carrying young men who caught trains to look for work after the Civil War.
"So, what's the difference between a hobo, a tramp and a bum?
"'The hobo works and wanders; the tramp dreams and wanders - he's the intellectual; the bum, he just drinks and wanders,' explains one convention attendee."
If I were a hobo, I think my hobo name would be Flower. What about you?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
He used his fame to give away his fortune...
...and he could really drive too.

A lot of Paul Newman obituaries will ramble on about his acting career and his philanthropy, but not many make much of a mention of his passion for racing.
Autoblog says:
"Many fans of his acting are not aware of Newman's nearly four-decade long involvement in motorsports. Over the years he has racked up a second place finish at the 24 hours of Le Mans and a GTS class victory at the 1995 Daytona 24 hours... at the age of 74. For the last 25 years he and Carl Haas have owned one of the most successful IndyCar/ChampCar teams of the era, as well."
Great actor, great philanthropist and definitely a great driver and car nut.
There’s another interesting article about Paul Newman and his camps for kids HERE.
TRFG: Chapter Two
Chapter Two of The Reason for God is titled, "How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?" I think everyone can relate to this chapter because everyone has gone through a period of suffering at one point or another.
Another common argument against an all-powerful and yet loving god is that if there really is a god, he couldn't possibly allow so much suffering to go on in the world. Thus, there must not be a god - or at least not the one that Christianity preaches.
This is not only silly but a very flawed argument. Just because we don't know of a good reason for the end result of suffering doesn't mean that there isn't one.
Keller notes the irrational logic of this argument. One example of good resulting from bad is found in the survival of the fittest. Almost everyone will agree that natural selection is a good thing. "People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak - these things are all perfectly natural."
Another example of (the ultimate) suffering resulting in good is found in Christ's death. Jesus suffered excruciating pain. He even asked if there was some way out of it ("If it be your will... take this cup from me." Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42). "God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was so willing to take it on himself."
But, there is hope. We know that our suffering is not in vain, and also that "every horrible thing that [has] ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy [of eternity in heaven] even greater."
Another common argument against an all-powerful and yet loving god is that if there really is a god, he couldn't possibly allow so much suffering to go on in the world. Thus, there must not be a god - or at least not the one that Christianity preaches.
This is not only silly but a very flawed argument. Just because we don't know of a good reason for the end result of suffering doesn't mean that there isn't one.
Keller notes the irrational logic of this argument. One example of good resulting from bad is found in the survival of the fittest. Almost everyone will agree that natural selection is a good thing. "People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak - these things are all perfectly natural."
Another example of (the ultimate) suffering resulting in good is found in Christ's death. Jesus suffered excruciating pain. He even asked if there was some way out of it ("If it be your will... take this cup from me." Mark 14:36, Luke 22:42). "God takes our misery and suffering so seriously that he was so willing to take it on himself."
But, there is hope. We know that our suffering is not in vain, and also that "every horrible thing that [has] ever happened will not only be undone and repaired but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy [of eternity in heaven] even greater."
Friday, September 26, 2008
Shaped Charges

I'm taking a class and this week we talked a little about shaped charges. I've had zero experience in this field of study and didn't really know much about them beforehand, so I thought I'd post a little about it. This is probably not very exciting (or new) to some people, but I think this stuff is really interesting.
Basically, a shaped charge is when you create a cavity in a block of explosives in order to vectorize the energy of the explosion. (i.e., you can control where and how much damage is created).
Did you know that if you have a crater inside of a block of explosives that it does more damage than a solid block? It seems counter-intuitive. (Shouldn't more explosives = bigger damage?) The Germans figured this out a long time ago, and eventually we've learned a lot more about how to shape these "craters" and even use metal liners in them to create explosives with very specific intentions. The photo at top shows the difference in the damage created from the explosion of a shaped charge, lined shaped charge, and lined shaped charge set at distance.
For example, a wedged-shaped linear charge like the one below could be used to cut a specific slot into or "soften" a concrete wall.

Not only is the type of explosive important (TNT, C4, HBX, RDX, etc.), but so is the shape of the charge, the shape, material, and thickness of the liner, the distance of the explosion from the target, and about a million other factors.
Entire careers can be spent designing/testing shaped charges, their liners, and analyzing the resulting effects from a world of other varying factors. Pretty cool stuff!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Blue Streak on The Debates
I like reading Susan Estrich's column. I fairly consistently disagree with her, but I really like that she stands up for what she thinks is right - no matter which side of the aisle is in the wrong, and that she's truly convicted in her opinions without being a jerk about it.
She served as the head of Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign in '88 and has written a really good piece on what Obama and McCain (and Biden and Palin) need to accomplish during the debates: Do No Harm.
I really liked all of the inside stories about many of the past presidential debates. On the Nixon/Kennedy debate, she writes:
It was not what Nixon said but how he looked that cost him that debate and very possibly, the presidency.
The story is about how that happened. Hewitt, who produced the debate for television, had hired a makeup artist to do makeup for both candidates. Backstage, in advance of the debate, he introduced her to the two contenders, and asked them if they wanted her to do their makeup. “No,” Jack Kennedy immediately said.
What could Nixon do? It was one of those moments, man to man. If Kennedy was going to turn down makeup, so would Nixon.
So there was Nixon, with his shiny 5 o’clock shadow, looking vaguely sinister in the unforgiving light of television. And Kennedy? When he came out, Hewitt immediately noted that he was, indeed, wearing makeup. He’d put it on himself. He carried it with him for TV.
...So what counts at debates, other than looking tall, wearing makeup, and getting a good suit?
First and foremost, like the Hippocratic oath, the imperative of all debates is not to make a mistake. Don’t get something wrong. Don’t suggest, if you’re president of the United States, as Gerald Ford was in 1976, that you don’t know that a country (it was Poland) is Communist. Don’t suggest, if you’re trying to prove that you are as ready as the former vice president to be commander-in-chief (as Senator Gary Hart was in 1984), that you’ll look inside the windows of a suspicious plane before deciding whether to issue the order to shoot it down.
She served as the head of Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign in '88 and has written a really good piece on what Obama and McCain (and Biden and Palin) need to accomplish during the debates: Do No Harm.
I really liked all of the inside stories about many of the past presidential debates. On the Nixon/Kennedy debate, she writes:
It was not what Nixon said but how he looked that cost him that debate and very possibly, the presidency.
The story is about how that happened. Hewitt, who produced the debate for television, had hired a makeup artist to do makeup for both candidates. Backstage, in advance of the debate, he introduced her to the two contenders, and asked them if they wanted her to do their makeup. “No,” Jack Kennedy immediately said.
What could Nixon do? It was one of those moments, man to man. If Kennedy was going to turn down makeup, so would Nixon.
So there was Nixon, with his shiny 5 o’clock shadow, looking vaguely sinister in the unforgiving light of television. And Kennedy? When he came out, Hewitt immediately noted that he was, indeed, wearing makeup. He’d put it on himself. He carried it with him for TV.
...So what counts at debates, other than looking tall, wearing makeup, and getting a good suit?
First and foremost, like the Hippocratic oath, the imperative of all debates is not to make a mistake. Don’t get something wrong. Don’t suggest, if you’re president of the United States, as Gerald Ford was in 1976, that you don’t know that a country (it was Poland) is Communist. Don’t suggest, if you’re trying to prove that you are as ready as the former vice president to be commander-in-chief (as Senator Gary Hart was in 1984), that you’ll look inside the windows of a suspicious plane before deciding whether to issue the order to shoot it down.
My Miss Dior
I don't wear perfume. I wore it occasionally in high school and then very rarely in college. I probably haven't put on real perfume in several years. I have some bottles of older stuff at home (Happy, Cool Water, Green Tea), but I think they're all dated by now. Plus, I feel funny smelling like anything.I usually sniff those samples in my magazines and immediately throw them away - they almost always smell stuffy and overpowering (yuck!). I was surprised a few weeks ago when I found one that I didn't detest and kept the sample page. When we were in our town's version of Sephora (Lynne introduced me to Sephora and now I wish we had our own!) last weekend, I found a bottle of it and tried it out. I actually kept sniffing my wrist all day. How fun! Not too overbearing, and pretty fresh. Since Matt said he liked it too, I decided to get a bottle. I've had an Amazon gift card from my birthday for over a month and finally had something to spend it on - birthday gift cards are supposed to be for things you want but never buy for yourself, right?
So, the next time you think, "Becca smells really nice today", it won't just be because I decided to take a shower that morning. :)
Anybody Else Think This is Funny?
Maybe I'm the only one, but I've been laughing about this story for at least a day.
It's pretty gross, but it's also a little funny (battery, really?). Has anyone else been laughing about it too?
It's pretty gross, but it's also a little funny (battery, really?). Has anyone else been laughing about it too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


